All Things in Moderation

I originally blogged this on my own blog in January of 2004 (back when I blogged regularly).

Here it is, for posterity:

Finally, Republicans control it all, so it’s back to smaller government, right? Wrong! It’s back to Big Government–in fact, the Biggest Government ever!

From Deroy Murdock in National Review (read the article here):

A forthcoming Cato Institute study rates American presidents on real domestic discretionary spending. Lyndon Johnson hiked such outlays by 4.3 percent before they grew 6.8 percent under Richard Nixon. Jimmy Carter’s 2-percent increase preceded Ronald Reagan’s 1.3-percent reduction. Clinton’s expenditures advanced 2.5 percent, but Bush’s spending boom more than triples that figure to 8.2 percent. Most of this is beyond the war on terror.

Now, I say again: Bush –> Nixon. I keep on seeing it. And 98% of the Republicans (supposedly our beloved ’94 sweep, contract with America types) in congress are going: “Sure, let’s spend more. And more. And even more.”

But, as Roger Hedgcock, a conservative talkshow host and former congressman often points out, it’s hard to understand how intoxicating it is to spend Other People’s Money to a politician, unless you’ve been there. They’re all addicts. I haven’t been there. But I can imagine. There’s just so much tax payer revenue concentrated on one place. How much good could you do? How popular could you become in your district back home?

Never mind that spending is out of control.

And shame on the Democrats who, in the face of such bald-faced hypocrisy and utter fiscal irresponsibility, can only say deficits are up because of “tax cuts to the rich” and, simultaneously, demand more money for education (despite the highest outlay ever) and other social spending, and say that not enough is being done. They won’t say that $500 billion is “not enough” for the prescription drug benefit, but they have all complained that it doesn’t cover enough, that seniors are left to pay for too much on their own . . . what is one left to conclude, except that they think that the largest growth in real government spending is not enough and we should, instead, be spending more and make up the difference with what one would have to imagine for zero-based thinkers the highest tax hikes in history (because, if the only way to raise revenues is to increase taxes, then how else can you pay for even more spending than has come from the spendiest administration in history?).

I doubt I’ll do it myself, but I understand why conservatives are proclaiming their going to vote for a libertarian candidate. I can’t—there is a happy medium between “no government” and “all government” somewhere—but I understand it. I also understand why a lot of Democrats would vote for Nader. At least McGovern had some consistency. Carter had some consistency.

Although, for the most part, Bush has been very consistent for a politician—he promised outrageous social spending and the opening of the borders and, dammit, if he ain’t delivering. And, he promised tax cuts and constructionist judicial appointments, and he’s doing that, too.

And I understand certain “message” spending—increasing the budgets for the National Endowment of the Arts or being the biggest spender on AIDS in Africa and what have you, but the prescription drug benefit is a massive social spending boondoggle that will be rife with waste and fraud and essentially burn taxpayer money forever, without really providing a tangible benefit to society as a whole . . .

On the plus side, the liberalism of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford provoked the “Reagan Revolution”, so maybe the compassionate conservatism of George Bush will provoke a response–an actual Reagan conservative who might, say, reduce government rather than just taxes.

Oh, well. Speaking of taxes, back to paying mine.

Filed under: Uncategorized |