Posted on 03/02/2005 11:27:09 AM PST by jmc813
In 1994, I packed my suitcase and went to Washington with dreams of changing the world. For the class of 55 GOP freshmen elected that year, the unifying goal was to bring fiscal discipline to the federal government.
For a time, that dream seemed achievable. We balanced the budget within just a few years, reformed welfare, and brought new levels of efficiency to Congress and to many agencies in Washington's byzantine bureaucracy.
Oh, what a difference a decade makes.
Here we are in 2005. Like an out of control consumer who cuts up his credit cards, pays off his debt, and immediately digs a new, deeper hole, the federal government is back in the red - big time. We're spending on everything from B-2 bombers to Viagra for Medicare recipients to indoor rainforests in Iowa.
The deficit is back with a vengeance, Social Security is slowly going bankrupt. And, once again, we're leaving our kids to pay the bill.
So, what happened to those class of '94 revolutionaries? Like me, many are now doing something else. Even the jefe maximo of the Republican revolution, Newt Gingrich, is spending his time on the speaking and consulting circuit. Official Washington has no appetite for change, so it's no surprise many of us don't work there anymore.
Other budget cutters from that class of '94 now show signs of becoming budget busters, according to a recent analysis by the National Taxpayers Union. Instead of fighting the red ink, they're seeing how much deficit spending they can direct toward their districts.
In a sense, it's hard to blame them. Playing outsider on bill after bill gets you little more than sleepless nights, bad hometown press, retribution from party leaders, difficult re-election battles and fewer lucrative job offers when you leave Congress.
The key problem is that many in Congress think of themselves as representatives but rarely as statesmen. The only way to survive over the long term is to cater to the wishes of their constituencies. And the American public has sent them the same, clear message they've been sending for generations: Open the spending tap as wide as possible, consequences (and rhetoric to the contrary) be damned.
What are the consequences? The simple fact is that if you're a taxpayer under the age of about 40, you're getting the worst financial deal that any generation of Americans has ever received from the government. Your taxes are high now, and they're only going to get higher. Your parents and grandparents will benefit from government-funded health care and retirement stipends, and you'll be left to fend for yourself. The high level of services the government currently provides will drop off as revenues decrease and spending rises. Fiscally, it's the equivalent of being the designated driver and still picking up the bar tab.
If the next generation of Americans wants to change this situation, there are at least three things they have to do. First, get involved in politics as a voter and, more importantly, as an activist. So long as our system is dominated by voters who drive late-model Cadillacs, get a 15 percent senior's discount at Shoney's and never miss an election, it's their interests that are going to get attention, not yours.
Second, don't let your opinions about a single divisive social issue - whether it's gun control, abortion or gay marriage - blind you to the reality that your pocket is being picked no matter what your ideology.
And finally, don't become so wedded to a party label that it obscures the fact that big spenders in Washington spend hugely regardless of party label.
Both are Republicans. We need more like them.
What is the main Republican consensus about Bob Barr?
I agree he's no fiscal conservative like Newt. But he is a much bigger social conservative and a much finer leader than Newt could ever be.
"GWB was a big spender who didn't use the veto when he was governor of Texas, long before any of the above excuses."
And your point being....?
Yeah - leading us into debt like no other President in history. Of course, that doesn't mean that it is all his fault. Noooo, not by a long shot. Congress is fiscally out of control too.
We need fewer Bill Frists, but I'm not so sure the RuPaul/Bob Barr model is my idea of a good replacement. And has-been politicians like Barr barking from the sidelines wrankle me.
Do you seriously think pork will ever be eliminated? No matter what Bush wants to cut, there will be screaming by someone. Want to close a naval base? Not in my senator's backyard. But maybe if we could ever get the line-item veto things would change. No way everyone will be happy with any budget.
"Yeah - leading us into debt like no other President in history".
___________________________________________
Re-read post 17 again and use your head. And the deficit is not as large as a % of GDP than it has been in the past.
Wow, a post in 1337-speak, never thought I'd see that here. And I agree with you.
GWB is an unethical big spender (though I do support his foreign policy). None of those excuses holds water.
Not when it comes to our borders and illegal immigration. It's bad enough that we don't control our borders but to advocate the illegal infiltration of our country under the guise of a "Guest Worker Program" is pure lunacy. That's why I can't get worked up about a supposed WOT. How can Bush be serious about preventing another attack when not only is our back door left wide open, we are advertising a program that will increase the number of potential terrorist entering the country.
One quibble I noticed was that the use of the term "Yay!" is not consistant with 1337-speak. The term "Woot!" is the preferred exclamation. My apologies.
If you knew where I worked....
Yet.
"When you're being robbed at gunpoint, it doesn't make a hill of beans difference if the man who is robbing you has an R or a D by his name.
It's STILL strong armed robbery."
Thank you sir, for a bit of homespun common sense.
First of all, I did not post those excuses, someone else did. Although I agree with them, I agree too, that lower corporate taxes spurns a strong economy that takes in revenue that counters the deficit.
Also, what percentage of our GNP is debt? I mean are we talking 1 or 2%?
No one likes what's going on here. I think medical coverage for those who cannot get at both ends of the age spectrum it is more important than drugs for seniors.
nick
"I imagine taxpayers subsidize lots of things we rather not. No budget is perfect, no president is perfect, and no congress is perfect. There will always be compromise and that's the way it should be."
That's funny - that's the same kind of thing a Dem might say when reviewing Slick Willy's tenure.
"Of course, that doesn't mean that it is all his fault. Noooo, not by a long shot."
No, but he could veto something, every now and then, jsut for kicks, instead of rubber-stamping everything that Congress puts on his desk (except for a cut in Medicare spending, which he actually threatened to VETO!)
Those aren't your excuses. They are official excuses from the administration, and they're wrong. The spending is unethical. From a fiscal standpoint it's not so bad, but we are paying for it one way or another. Breaks for business do help pay for it, but that money should be going to the people who earn it, not to pay off unethical spending. What I'm saying used to be common knowledge among Republicans and conservatives.
Bob Barr - a true patriot and the last True Conserative to leave Washington - I miss you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.