The Deficit-Hawk Blues ("Blue Dogs" have no bite)

The Wall Street Journal ^ | March 13, 2009 | Kimberly Strassel

[St. Louis Conservative]

If they gave out Olympic medals for fiscal irresponsibility, President Bush would take the gold, silver and bronze.

-- North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad, July 2008, commenting on a projected 2009 deficit of $482 billion.

I would describe it as a good beginning.

-- Sen. Conrad, February 2009, commenting on President Barack Obama's 2010 budget.Projected deficit: $1.75 trillion.

If you thought being a spend-happy president in the middle of a recession was hard, consider that it could always be worse. You could, instead, be one of Congress's self-acclaimed deficit hawks.

Spare a special thought for Mr. Conrad, head of the budget committee, and lead vocalist on the horror of deficits "as far as the eye can see." These days, the senator would need the Kepler telescope to keep track of his own president's past and proposed spending -- 99.9% of which the good senator can't wait to move out the government door. Still, he and his fellow deficit scolds have their reputations to consider. And it's getting darn hard to keep up appearances.

Gone, after all, is good ole George W. Bush, who for eight reliable years provided these folks with a convenient foil for their own largess. Our budget woes are the result of "deficit-financed tax cuts tilted to benefit the wealthiest," fretted Mr. Conrad (even as he proposed another $5 billion farm bailout). This line also proved useful whenever the spenders wanted to forestall further tax relief, lest those proposals get in the way of their own spending ambitions.

[lakertaker]

This is what happens when one party runs the show.

The GOP between 2000-2007 had the WH, the congress, and for most of the period between 2000-2008, the Senate and they looked more and more like Democrats instead of the limited government GOP

[sickoflibs]

The Peter Schiff/Redistribution Watch Ping. (Washington Bankrupting our Nation by Spending your past, present and future money!)

Great points on democrats and GWB role:"Gone, after all, is good ole George W. Bush, who for eight reliable years provided these folks with a convenient foil for their own largess. Our budget woes are the result of "deficit-financed tax cuts tilted to benefit the wealthiest," fretted Mr. Conrad (even as he proposed another $5 billion farm bailout). This line also proved useful whenever the spenders wanted to forestall further tax relief, lest those proposals get in the way of their own spending ambitions.",

[sickoflibs]

exactly

[fortheDeclaration]

Neither Party wants to say 'no' to spending.

Republicans believed the lie that Supply-Side economics could pay the bill for Big Gov't spending.

[Wolfie]

“Deficits don’t matter” - Dick Cheney.

[wmfights]

The GOP between 2000-2007 had the WH, the congress, and for most of the period between 2000-2008, the Senate and they looked more and more like Democrats instead of the limited government GOP

Not really true, but definitely a Rat and media talking point.

Spending bills originate in the House. The GOP controlled the House from 2001 - 2006. The largest deficit was in 2004 and was 412.7 billion. Compare this deficit at the height of the WOT and in an election year with the first 0 deficit of 1.75 TRILLION.

The Pubs failed in a lot of areas, but spending was not as out of control as people preach. It's been a very clever strategy of the left to neuter the Pubs on this issue, since now whenever it's brought up the Pubs are told "well you did it to".