John Fund sticks the knife in and twists:
With Rep. Tom DeLay’s forced departure as majority leader, Newt Gingrich says, the Republican Party stands at a crossroads as important as any it has faced since nominating Ronald Reagan for president in 1980. “It must decide if it is going to be a party that fundamentally reforms government or one that merely presides over existing institutions and spends more money,” he says. Which path the GOP now takes may determine not only how much damage it suffers in next year’s elections but also whether it can hold the White House in 2008…
The loudest warning was sounded in November, 2003. At the behest of the White House, Mr. Hastert and then-Majority Leader DeLay held a floor vote open for three hours early one morning while they browbeat GOP members to pass a prescription drug benefit that was the largest expansion of an entitlement program since LBJ’s Great Society. “It was a watershed event, the moment when Republicans who stood for limited government realized they were the enemy of their own leadership,” Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma told me.
Since then the GOP’s love affair with big government has intensified. This summer Congress passed a $286 billion highway bill stuffed with 6,373 pork-barrel projects inserted by individual members, many so marginal they have drawn national ridicule. All this was abetted or even led by a Bush White House that has yet to veto a single bill and whose officials have apparently adapted the old New Deal slogan “tax and tax, and spend and spend, and elect and elect” into merely “spend and spend.”
The truth hurts.
slide
The worst thing that happened to the GOP is that they won all the marbles. Divided government works. Checks and balances. We saw it with the Dems when they had total control and were running things for 40 years and now we have seen it with the GOP in a much shorter period of time. As someone that opposes most of the policies of the GOP, the silver lining in Bush’s re-election last year was that they will have few to blame when things go bad. And I knew things were going to go bad. They were making bad, bad decisions day after day. Eventually those decisions catch up with you and you have to live with the consequences. And here we are, witnessing the beginning of the collapse of the Republican hold on the electorate. Stay tuned boys and girls, plenty more to come.
Doug
Isn’t Fund the pro-morals pundit who got caught up in some scandal where he impregnated his girlfriend’s daughter and looked the other way while she had an abortion?
(The top google result for my search. (Heavily biased site).)
So, for Fund to be the guy chastizing DeLay for acting contrary to Republican principles is both hypocritical and true to form.
Shygetz
Doug–but is Fund incorrect?
demimondian
We all know that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” What we didn’t know is that “The illusion of absolute power corrupts as effectively as the reality.” The Bush Administration thought they had absolute power — the presidency, both house of congress, gerrymandering of house, six years of senatorial dominance — and they were corrupted absolutely.
You’re doing a heckuva job, Shrubya.
Jon H
” into merely “spend and spend.””
He left out the part about borrowing.
Steve
The fundamental problem is that the rewards for holding office are so great, in terms of money and power, that there is very little incentive for anyone elected on a ‘limited government’ platform to actually follow through. Why hamstring your own power to enrich yourself?
Doug
Fund probably is correct. He’s just not worth listening to.
John S.
Truth is such a subjective term these days…
Steve S
Let’s look back at history, shall we?
Ronald Reagan came in as the Charge of the Light Brigade in 1980 declaring that he would balance the budget by 1984. Instead he did the opposite.
Then in 1984 he argued the same… and the budget deficit got even worse.
Then in 1988 G HW Bush argued the same… and again, the budget deficit got worse.
Finally in 1992, Bill Clinton came in promising to restore fiscal responsibility. And he did.
Anybody who claims to be a Fiscal Conservative and who is still voting for Republicans is either an idiot or a moron, possibly both.
Darrell
Eric Alterman, columnist for the far left Nation who is no friend or admirer of John Fund’s, nonetheless felt compelled to write an article about Fund’s ‘girlfriend’ in defense of John Fund. Seems by her own statements this girlfriend has severe emotional problems including “trouble distinguishing between reality and fantasy” who tried to bilk $10,000 from her stepfather over an imaginary heart surgery. Fund has scanned copies of sworn affidavits, handwritten letters, and other court documents here.
Back to topic – it’s depressing to admit how correct Fund is about the Bush administration’s reckless spending policies. More Repubs need to be speaking out like this
John S.
LMAO
Well now I really have seen everything…even ‘liberals must die’ Darrell is willing to concede there is a chink in the impervious armor of the GOP.
No doubt, it is the liberal media thwarting this message that prevents other Republicans of conscience from ‘speaking out’.
Doug
But it’s not just the Bush II administration — Reagan and Bush I were both fiscally promiscuous.
Darrell
I agree with you on Bush I. But with Reagan, the house and Senate which control spending were at that time dominated by Democrats. It’s true that Reagan did push to increase military spending to rebuild what had been decimated under Jimmy Carter.. but besides increases in military spending, the rest during Reagan’s administration was Dem social programs, pork and other big spending programs spearheaded by Dems.
“Blame” Reagan for rebuilding the military which won the cold war, but the rest of the spending under Reagan was all big spending from the Dems, make no mistake about that
Hippie Doug J
Seems by her own statements this girlfriend has severe emotional problems including “trouble distinguishing between reality and fantasy”
I think I dated her :-(
Reminder: bi-polar women may be great in bed, but your car tires will be slashed for no particular reason, other than you did something to displease her.
TarHeelCP
Um…who signed all those spending bills into law? I pretty sure that it wasn’t a Democratic Congressman or Senator. If Reagan had wanted to restrain spending, he very well could have!
Shygetz
Darrell–Regan had the veto and enough votes to make it stick. You can’t blame it all on the Dems. Nice try though.
skip
I’d be more inclined to listen to the Medicaid rants if I weren’t seeing for myself how the costs of health care are killing the competitiveness of small business in the US.
Okay, Bush’s answer was insanely expensive, but what IS the answer?
jobiuspublius
I wonder how many years before disillusion with party grows up to be disillusion with ideology. Judging from the defense of Bennett, another generation and several disasters, maybe another Great Depression.
A problem with the recently dissillusioned is that they love to over reach, post-haste. They prefer intelligant designs over well tested theories and cautious implementation. They are fans of “the ends justify the means”. I’m not saying that they are the only ones, so don’t bother me with tales of powerless fools.
Darrell
Ah, the dishonesty of the left. Sorry, but the power to enact taxes, authorize borrowing, and set the budget rests with the House and Senate, NOT the executive branch. Reagan campaigned for the line-item veto, which the congress at that time would not grant him, because the Dems wanted to keep their big spending social programs and pork in place
jobiuspublius
At the battle of? What won the cold war is the Soviets suicidal economics and politics.
Darrell
A medical plan that incorporates the normal human incentive to do what’s best for oneself. If there is no cost to visit a doctor over every little thing, guess what? There will be a helluva lot more doctor visits and spending which will continue to grow. That is the root of the problem now. No incentive to shop for pricing, no incentive to curb medical treatments, and no rewards for maintaining a healthy lifestyle (other than non-smoker discounts)
jobiuspublius
Darrell, how does your statement refute the following?
Darrell
I call bullshit. Evidence? Links? Where an when did Reagan have enough votes in a Democrat dominated House and Senate to make a spending cut veto stick. Which spending cuts? Of course jobius swallows the claim hook, line and sinker without evidence because he is a sheep following others.
Reagan pushed hard for a line item veto to control spending, this is a fact. But the Dems wanted to hang on to their big spending social programs and pork so they didn’t give it to him. Republicans in contrast, gave the line item veto power to a sitting Democrat President
John S.
Ah, the dishonesty of the Darrell.
(Unlike Darrell, I wouldn’t presume that all people who lean to a particular side of the political spectrum have a proclivity for certain types of behavior.)
jobiuspublius
I never met a person who does that. BTW, poor people cannot often afford medical care. So, I wonder who is doing this.
Darrell
John S, I call dishonesty when one of your fellow leftists tried to dishonestly assert that the Executive branch, rather than Congress, had the power to tax and spend.
Darrell
Well that certainly settles it
TarHeelCP
This is true. But no spending, tax, or debt ceiling bill is enacted until the PRESIDENT signs it. Again, if Reagan truly wanted to restrain spending, he had the Constitutional authority to veto any spending bill he liked. Although possible, it is highly unlikely that either the Senate or House could have gathered enough votes to overturn a veto. But the more salient point is that Reagan rarely tried.
Of course, at least he tried more often than Bush. But that’s not really saying much now is it.
TarHeelCP
Never made that claim. If you need clarification, see the above post!
Darrell
Reagan vetoed 22 spending bills in his first 3 years in office. Get your facts straight dumbass.
demimondian
True enough. Of course you realize that every budget submitted to President Reagan by the Congress was in better balance than the original proposal he’d made? And that he raised taxes five times during the course of his administration, because the budget was getting too far out of balance during that time?
Despite the rhetoric, the Republicans are the party which talks about fiscal discipline — and the Democrats are the party which enacts it.
John S.
How about when you dishonestly represent what posters have to say and then dishonestly state that the entire left side of the political spectrum is dishonest?
Can you call dishonesty on yourself? Or better yet, would you?
Darrell
I don’t believe that Reagan initiated any of the tax increases enacted during his terms in office, they were all Dem initiated. Dems promised $3 of spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. Reagan later complained that all we got were the tax increases.
Darrell
I’m not the one dishonestly pretending that the Democrats are the party of fiscal discipline. I’ve admitted it (see above) when Republicans were reckless with spending. Dems can’t bring themselves to do the same. Draw your own conclusions as to why
jobiuspublius
Good questions. What took you so long?
I haven’t said anything on the matter. You don’t know what I think. I was simply questioning your approach. That line about the line item veto was irrelevant. It was Reagans already existing veto power that was the subject.
So, how’s the line item veto doing these days? Is it getting much excercise?
TarHeelCP
I wouldn’t even begin to defend Democratic spending habits. They’re just as horrid when it comes to passing pork laden bills through Congress.
But my point was that Reagan did very little to restrain spending himself.
The fact is, the budget process is set-up to be abused by Congress. Congressmen are in Washington to represent a relatively small constituency when compared against the whole of the United State. In keeping with their constituents best interest, they often trade favors and votes in the budget process.
The President is intended to represent the whole of the United States. His responsibility in the budget process is to veto it if it is not in the best interest of the entire United States.
BTW, Darrel, you would be wise in the future to be careful who you call a leftist. I am most certainly not in favor of big government!
h0mi
Wasn’t a few of these vetos overridden?
Rome Again
We all know that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” What we didn’t know is that “The illusion of absolute power corrupts as effectively as the reality.”
I would like to suggest as a name for this concept, that we should call it the “demimondian law of absolutes” – good work there!
John S.
Perhaps not, but you are being dishonest in stating that:
– An avowed ‘leftist’ is arguing that the Democrats are the party of fiscal discipline
– Anyone to the left is dishonest
Overall, you’d be better off sticking to specifics rather than making hasty generalizations.
Shygetz
Reagan vetoed bills that were lower than his proposals (by billions), and then bitched about them busting the budget. Now Reagan did try to make at least one stand against pork-spending, but that doesn’t make up for cutting taxes while pumping up defense spending. He ran deficits of 5%, larger than Bush, so he could keep his tax cuts and defense spending. Clinton runs a surplus, Repubs run a deficit (both when they only had the Presidency, and now when they control the entire government), and who is being dishonest here about being the party of fiscal responsibility?
J. Michael Neal
You guys are barking up the wrong tree, and have let Darrell bullshit you.
But with Reagan, the house and Senate which control spending were at that time dominated by Democrats.
The Republicans had a majority in the Senate for the first six years of Reagan’s presidency. It isn’t a question of whether they had the votes to sustain a veto; the GOP had to pass the bills in the first place.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm
Scroll down until you get to the 97th-99th Congresses.
demimondian
When? His first budget was full of pork bribes to his supporters to get them to vote for the bill. He never really tried to get the “budget under control” — he tried to cut social spending in visible (and demogogic) ways around the margin, but never made an effort to, say, cut Social Security benefits.
Darrell
I meant to post a correction earlier. I do stand corrected on that minor point. Although the House was overwhelmingly Dem during the entirity of Reagans two terms in office, Repubs did hold slightly more seats than Dems in the Senate for all but two years of Reagans terms.
Yes, the GOP which was a minority in the house, at one point with more than 100 seats less than the Dems, had such sway in passing bills. Talk about letting someone bullshit you
Darrell
Complete Bullshit. Senate bill 2396 S. 2577 vetoed by Reagan was $46 million over what Reagan wanted. House bill 2404 H.R.9 vetoed by Reagan was $200 million over what he wanted, and that’s just getting started. Reagan tried to do away with both the Dept. of Energy and the Dept. of Education for chrissakes, but you dishonest scumbags lie your asses off claiming that Reagan only vetoed bills that were lower than what Reagan wanted.
jobiuspublius
Can you imagine what would have happened if they had control of the entire government? The horror!
John S.
So minor, that it completely discredits you:
I call bullshit.
Darrell
How does it “completely” discredit me given the House was overwhelmingly controlled by Dems during Reagan’s entire time in office?
John S.
Reading comprehension – it’s not just for high school students.
If you can’t figure out how your entire case in this thread has been built upon a fundamental falsehood (that Reagan was somehow impotent versus “a Democrat dominated House and Senate”), then you are way past the point of me attempting to reason with you.