Cal Thomas: Are Republicans Kidding Us?

Tribune Media Services ^ | July 14, 2006 | Cal Thomas

[RWR8189]

The following is not parody.

House Republicans are being told by their leaders to run campaigns this fall on a platform of fiscal discipline that includes cutting spending. This from a party that has given us new entitlement programs resembling Lyndon Johnson's Great Society; this from a party that has set new records in "earmarks" for pork barrel projects in their home districts and states; this from a party that under Ronald Reagan at least tried to eliminate the Department of Education, but under President Bush has thrown new money at it with no appreciable improvement in academic achievement.

To what should we compare this laugher? How about to a member of Alcoholics Anonymous who gets drunk between meetings and then gets up to testify that he has not had a drink in the last 10 minutes? Or, Madonna endorsing modesty.

House Majority Leader John Boehner has published a list of Republican talking points he wants members to use in their campaigns to convince voters they are reducing spending and tag Democrats with being "fiscally irresponsible."

There is much from which to choose for entertainment purposes. One of my favorites is Boehner's touting of the line-item veto proposal to "help rein in spending." This fiscal chastity belt will, according to Boehner, "make Congress more accountable for the spending it proposes, help eliminate worthless pork, and protect taxpayer dollars with a budget based on fiscal discipline." (Pause for guffaws from readers).

Yes, the deficit is coming down, but not because of fiscal discipline by the Republican majority or President Bush, who has yet to veto a single spending bill (or any bill). The roaring economy is responsible for the deficit decline. New tax revenue has been produced and Republicans can claim credit because of their tax cuts.

[DustyMoment]

This sounds like a disaster in the making. The liberal MSM will jump on this tactic and skewer the Republican Party candidates running for re-election this fall. Boehner has always struck me as something of an idiot but, now, he has removed all doubt.

[Dixie Yooper]

Cal@CalThomas.com

Dear Mr. Thomas,

I just read your July 13th article in regards to the Republicans running with a platform of fiscal discipline. Do you really think there aren't enough Reagan Republicans among us to get this ball rolling again? If we hold their feet to the fire and remind them over and over again once they get in or back in office, they just might make it happen.
With the alternative being an Independent who can't get elected or make anything happen once they get in office or the curse of death Democrats, what choice do we have other than the right choice?

[BufordP]

You think Cal is going to disagree with what you just wrote? You said, "...hold their feet to the fire...". That's what he's doing by writing that article. Other than tax cuts, "Fiscal discipline" is not a phrase I would use to describe the last 6 years.

[cripplecreek]

I'm pretty unlikely to vote for a democrat but I'm not much more likely to blindly vote GOP.

[BufordP]

My sentiments as well.

[xzins]

I think that the President has done a decent job.

The non-war-related, non-entitlement-related, non-discretionary-related, discretionary spending is down (relative to inflation, of course.)

In other words:

take out the extra war spending
take out social security, medicare, etc. entitlements
take out all other legally required spending

Why should you take it out? Because they're not allowed to cut the entitlements, and they're insane to stop spending on the war, and they're legally bound to fulfill all contracts.

After that the congress has X% of the budget that they get to decide how to spend. Even if it's pork-barrel money, it is not exceeding inflation. Which means we can fix some things further IN CONGRESS.

But, the President doesn't have a line item veto, so unless he wishes to veto a budget that meets his own cap, then he's sort of stuck.

[Dixie Yooper]

"You said, "...hold their feet to the fire...". That's what he's doing by writing that article."

There is a fine line between holding someone's feet the fire and chastising them publicly. Cal crossed that line.
I will vote for and support any Republican who wants to run on a fiscal discipline platform. That catch phrase has not been around since Reagan left Washington. Back when Clinton was celebrating the tax revenue exceeding the budget, everyone was coming up with ideas on how to spend the excess. Not a single politician on either side of the house or senate brought up paying down the National debt.

[BufordP]

Annual Growth in Discretionary Outlays (Heritage Foundation)

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

I think GOP congressional leaders have forgotten the Contract with America. Gingrich and others fought with Clinton (govt shutdowns) over the budget and did get some reductions. Of course the RATS played the "you are taking away school lunches from starving kids" routine and excoriated the GOP. I think the GOP is afraid to exercise fiscal discipline, on the premise that voters won't like cutting programs, etc.
The alternative budget put forth by Rep Pense and others uses many sound proposals that Clinton vetoed in 94-5. The GOP leaders are afraid. We need either new leaders or to demonstrate to them that fiscal discipline is important.
Bush was right to propose SS reform. RATS played that "destroy SS" to the hilt with the MSM. If we cannot exercise fiscal discipline with the GOP in charge of Congress and Presidency, we will never do so.

[BufordP]

A fine line between holding their feet to the fire and publicly chastising????? Really? A fine line? You're demonstrating a lack of perspective. I would think "feet to the fire" would be rather severe. Maybe you'd like to rephrase your previous correspondence to Cal by writing "feet to the feather". Or make them sit in "the comfy chair"! Or hit them over the head with "the fluffy pillow"!

No, "feet to the fire".

[xzins]

They are not showing the costs of the war that are within the discretionary numbers.

The funding for the war is "discretionary."

[xzins]

The issue with the Rats is the MSM.

The "starving kids without school lunches" routine, and the throwing elderly in the street without SS routine....none of it would work without the MSM.

In fact, I believe the MSM drives Democrat Congressional action rather than the other way around.

[BufordP]

Forget what I said about "fine line". I need coffee.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

The MSM and RATs want to turn the USA into a European socialist state. They would raise the minimum wage to $12 per hour and have government control major business actions. Unemployment would go into double digits and capital would flow out of the US. All like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

[BufordP]

Costs of War on Iraq, Christopher Westley, February 12, 2003 (Mises.org)

...Next month's Iraqi Follies, whatever billions they end up costing, are off-budget. After all, budgeting the war would hinder the ability of the political class to target new spending programs to areas of electoral importance, which is why the Bush budget allows the state to grow at an even faster clip than Lyndon Johnson dared.

Who’s Better Off? by Rep Ron Paul of Texas, April 6, 2005

...The appropriations for the war are essentially off-budget and obscured, but contribute nonetheless to the runaway deficit and increase in the national debt...

[Amelia]

We need either new leaders or to demonstrate to them that fiscal discipline is important.

You're right.

I've always liked Jack Kingston, but I was infuriated to hear him talking about trying to get a pet local project into the budget through an earmark this summer -- I thought it was either totally arrogant or totally polically tone-deaf, but he's run basically unopposed since he was elected with Newt, et.al.

[Dixie Yooper]

When and if Cal ever writes back to me, I'll share it with you. My Mom and Dad used to love watching his show on Fox every night before he was replaced in his time slot with O'Rilley.

[xzins]

Your chart is not put together by a congressional office but by a conservative think tank.

How did the Heritage Foundation deal with the numbers? Were they so political as to pretend the war didn't cost anything?

[xzins]

I agree. Their idea of heaven is Sweden with a strongman.