Fiscal Conservative Hypocrites

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
I read quite a bit of criticism of the Tea Party movement in these pages.

Though most of the snide sniping comes from the Party Of Big Government, I am wondering if the Other Party also has something of a conflict with the message the Tea Partiers are going on about.

The fact is that while the Democrats have blown their wad with unbelievably irresponsible profligacy, the Republicans themselves have little in their recent history to show for all of their contrary rhetoric.

I have followed the lectures and the debates going on at CPAC and the one thing that is coming through is the overwhelming emphasis on fiscal responsibility, spending containment and, most importantly, entitlements rollback. That last issue is the one that will be the hardest to take for the Party that gains power at the end of this year and is why there is such a rush by the Democrats to pass entitlements legislation at all costs, even to their ever more dismal electoral prospects.

Unless there is some out of the blue, game changing event, it does seem ever more likely that the Republicans will take over the legislative, and thus the budget making, branch of the federal government.

The independents, the conservatives and the tea partiers are making it clear they are not going to tolerate the spending and the social and fiscal meddling of the incumbents. It remains to be seen just how fully this message is understood by those who would replace them.

February 19, 2010

On Fiscal Conservative Hypocrites

David Paul Kuhn

The majority party was pushing the largest entitlement expansion since the Great Society. The minority attempted byzantine legislative maneuvers to obstruct the vote. The majority never relented, even taking unprecedented action to ram the bill through Congress.

This was not 2009 but 2003. Republicans controlled the White House and Congress. And with that power they passed the $400 billion Medicare prescription drug bill.

Fast forward to February 2010. Here is Missouri Republican Sen. Kit Bond railing against Barack Obama: "While pretending to get serious about our spiraling deficit there is nothing in the budget to tackle the greatest threat – runaway entitlement spending."

Bond was one of the 42 Republican senators who voted for the historic Medicare entitlement expansion.

The 2003 Medicare bill was not simply any vote. It enlarged a signature program of active-state liberalism (a.k.a.- big government). On a major piece of legislation, GOP lawmakers had to choose between principle and party. And many of today's Republicans chose party.

Republicans were proud back then. That December, not long after George W. Bush signed the bill, then-Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist was on "Hardball." Chris Mathews asked, "What was your biggest achievement this year?"

Frist: "I would have to say Medicare. Eleven months ago, the odds of getting a Medicare prescription drug [bill] through were probably 400-to-one, 500-to-one. ... So that clearly is our biggest single accomplishment, if you look at the last 30 years in this country."

A $400 billion entitlement expansion as the "biggest single accomplishment" in three decades? Yes, that came from a Republican leader.

Little more than six years later, this ugly episode in GOP governance is instructive. Many of the Republicans who backed the historic big government bill are shamelessly sanctimonious about spending today.

Take a look at the Senate primary race in Arizona. Former Rep. JD Hayworth is challenging John McCain from the right. Hayworth has written that McCain's tenure is "not the record of a true conservative, much less a fiscal conservative."

Hayworth voted for the Medicare bill. McCain voted against it.

Fiscal conservative hypocrisy is so rampant we take it for granted. This is Eric Cantor, a Republican House leader, at a press conference two months ago: "Once again we see the Democrats asking to incur more debt at the same time they are claiming to be fiscally responsible; another day where it is more of, ‘Do as I say, not as I do.'"

Ahem. Cantor lobbied hard for the Medicare bill. And he too voted for it.

Republican Senate leader John Boehner has been a relentless critic of Democratic spending. For years Boehner has said and written statements like this: "Will we take the initiative to make the necessary yet difficult choices to save Medicare, or will we become the political equivalent of the ostrich, sticking our head in the sand?"

When Republicans had their big chance in power to make "difficult choices" on big government, Boehner also chose the $400 billion bill.

"To vote for something that large, and then say we have to do something to control entitlements is hypocritical," said Tom Schatz, a leading fiscal conservative watchdog.

The hypocrisy does not stop there. Republican leaders have hammered Democrats for attempting to "ram through" their health care bill, highlighting untoward bribes.

Flashback: It's 6 a.m. on a Saturday morning in 2003. The traditional 15-minute roll call vote is extended for two hours and 51 minutes. The Medicare bill was heading to a 218 to 216 defeat. Key arms were twisted. Promises of campaign money and support were made. It became a 220 to 215 victory.

The drug bill episode also included its share of Democratic double standards. Democratic leaders like Harry Reid lecture Republicans today about obstructionist tactics. But Democratic leaders attempted a filibuster and murkier parliamentary maneuvers to kill the Medicare bill.

This is why the drug bill captures both parties' hypocrisy. It explains why we have millions of conservatives more aligned to the Tea Party movement than to Republicans. It's why we have more independents than Democrats or Republicans. It's why a recent CNN poll found nearly two-thirds of Americans want a major third party.

It's also why Republican recriminations on spending today, from Boehner to Cantor to onetime Bush advisors, sound like sophism. We are the summation of our actions. And both parties' actions brought us to this crushing debt.

Lest we forget, fiscal conservative hypocrisy was not an aberration of the Bush presidency. Ronald Reagan never cut entitlements, even as the national debt nearly tripled on his watch.

Today, even with Republicans out of power, we read the same stories every year. A February 2009 McClatchy headline: "GOP hates earmarks – except the ones its members sponsor." A February 2010 Politico headline: "Fiscal hawks balk at budget cuts."

Americans crave leaders from both parties, who will sit down together and take the hard stands.

But until those leaders emerge, we will likely suffer the fiscal hypocrites. A Democratic president who said "I don't" believe in big government in the same 2009 budget address that heralded the return of big government. And we will suffer the Republicans who lecture, "do as I say, not as I do" about spending, without recalling what they did and what they said.

Last year, Obama raised the issue of getting "serious about entitlement reform." Boehner's office aptly responded to a reporter, ''talk is cheap in Washington." Indeed. But Republicans too often forget how much their cheap talk has cost us as well.

David Paul Kuhn is the Chief Political Correspondent for RealClearPolitics and the author of The Neglected Voter.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/19/on_fiscal_conservative_hypocrites__104467.html
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
To me, a fiscal conservative is someone who would abolish crap like medicare and social security, as well as shut down bases in places they aren't necessary (i.e., everywhere but U.S. soil)

Social security can easily be replaced by not taxing so much, as can medicare.

I'm sick of the establishment candidates. As for the neo-tea partiers, they aren't fiscal conservatives either, because they're a bunch of neo-cons.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
The only way to get rid of entitlements and balance the budget is to bankrupt the US. Even if GOP sweeps Congress and we get a "conservative" in the WH in 2012 it will be business as usual as long as there is a single democrat alive, and we have a worthless Constitution. That is why I will root for the Dems to spend the fuck out of the country as we spiral out of control and default on Treasuries.

In the meantime I am holding most of my money in assets and AUD.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
Who ever said Bush or the GOP was fiscally conservative?

Right now the choice is between someone who smokes 4 cigarettes per day and someone who smokes 2 packs per day. Both are bad but one is definitely worse.

(I guess the article forgot about the 800 billion dollar "stimulus" pass by the.....DEMOCRATS....DOUBLE the drug program :rolleyes: )
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
The only way to get rid of entitlements and balance the budget is to bankrupt the US. Even if GOP sweeps Congress and we get a "conservative" in the WH in 2012 it will be business as usual as long as there is a single democrat alive, and we have a worthless Constitution. That is why I will root for the Dems to spend the fuck out of the country as we spiral out of control and default on Treasuries.

In the meantime I am holding most of my money in assets and AUD.

Holy mackrel. Do me a favor and let me know the next time you're flying so I can be sure to stay away from federal buildings.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
How it came about:

The chain of events began when President
Clinton put the prescription drug issue on the political agenda, making it difficult for lawmakers to ignore the glaring omission of prescription drug coverage from Medicare, particularly in the face of seniors’ increasing need and diminishing alternatives for coverage.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbQtCTohAJPXg3pGYg2Hqt2jYEyepg

And from the article above:

The majority party was pushing the largest entitlement expansion since the Great Society. The minority attempted byzantine legislative maneuvers to obstruct the vote. The majority never relented, even taking unprecedented action to ram the bill through Congress.

This was not 2009 but 2003. Republicans controlled the White House and Congress.

The article exaggerates. They didn't try very hard in the Senate. The Senate was split pretty much 50-50. In passing this bill, there were two votes in the Senate that required a 60 vote majority. I.e., some Dems were for it.

Fern
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
it will be business as usual as long as there is a single democrat alive, and we have a worthless Constitution.

hey stupid fuck, are you saying dems should be hunted and killed? You've taken partisan politics to a whole other level.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,213
12
81
There are very few actual fiscal conservatives in our government. Reagan presided over massive deficits and signed a bill to rescue social security, and he's the idol of so many of today's "conservatives"
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
How it came about:

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbQtCTohAJPXg3pGYg2Hqt2jYEyepg

And from the article above:

The article exaggerates. They didn't try very hard in the Senate. The Senate was split pretty much 50-50. In passing this bill, there were two votes in the Senate that required a 60 vote majority. I.e., some Dems were for it.

Fern

Thanks for that doc link, Fern. :thumbsup:

Excellent reading for me as I wasn't in the U.S. at the time and thus did not follow the sequence of events for what, on the face of it, were actions contrary to the platforms of both parties.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
The only way to get rid of entitlements and balance the budget is to bankrupt the US. Even if GOP sweeps Congress and we get a "conservative" in the WH in 2012 it will be business as usual as long as there is a single democrat alive, and we have a worthless Constitution. That is why I will root for the Dems to spend the fuck out of the country as we spiral out of control and default on Treasuries.

In the meantime I am holding most of my money in assets and AUD.
Maybe you should move back to Korea and live under Lil Kim.
You won't have to worry about any Constitution or opposition party.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Maybe you should move back to Korea and live under Lil Kim.
You won't have to worry about any Constitution or opposition party.

By worthless meaning no one follows it and treats it like toilet paper :roll;
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
By worthless meaning no one follows it and treats it like toilet paper :roll;

look at your sig. You are a militant kook. I will sit back with a glass of cabernet while I watch the military trounce your little insurrection on the nightly news.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
How it came about:
SNIP
The article exaggerates. They didn't try very hard in the Senate. The Senate was split pretty much 50-50. In passing this bill, there were two votes in the Senate that required a 60 vote majority. I.e., some Dems were for it.

Fern

I don't even mind having a prescription drug benefit in SS - I'm not opposed to all socialism - but it's madness to not have it strictly means tested. Waffle House waitresses are paying taxes to buy prescriptions for old people living in gated retirement communities, with the government probably wasting 75% of the money in overhead. How does that ever make sense?

Both parties play politics. A lot. And the Pubbies were freakin' great with Clinton, but disastrous under Bush. Who knows what we'll get in 2011?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
I don't even mind having a prescription drug benefit in SS - I'm not opposed to all socialism - but it's madness to not have it strictly means tested. Waffle House waitresses are paying taxes to buy prescriptions for old people living in gated retirement communities, with the government probably wasting 75% of the money in overhead. How does that ever make sense?

Both parties play politics. A lot. And the Pubbies were freakin' great with Clinton, but disastrous under Bush. Who knows what we'll get in 2011?

I agree 100%

I think retirement benefits should be means tested too.

As far as furture governments, I hope no one party gets control again.

Fern
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Problem is not spending, it's taxes - how we fund the spending. By in large taxes are collected on working people high and low at onerous rates while capital investment gets a largely free ride. If we applied SS and medicare taxes to capital gains and unearned income it would generate 500 billion a year shoring up all but Obama's huge deficits easily paying all that 'entitlement', let alone if we applied regular income tax like most of you pay - course pols on both sides never talk about it because they know where their bread is truly buttered.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Problem is not spending, it's taxes - how we fund the spending. By in large taxes are collected on working people high and low at onerous rates while capital investment gets a largely free ride. If we applied SS and medicare taxes to capital gains and unearned income it would generate 500 billion a year shoring up all but Obama's huge deficits easily paying all that 'entitlement', let alone if we applied regular income tax like most of you pay - course pols on both sides never talk about it because they know where their bread is truly buttered.

Problem with that is that investment is necessary to maintain jobs - we can't all work for the government. The more you penalize investment, the less attractive it is to invest here, the more capital flows out of the country, the more corporations shut down or move offshore, and the fewer productive jobs there are.

Agree totally, Fern, with both statements. Had SS been properly funded from the first, it would make perfect sense to have dedicated retirement accounts, but it has been operated from the first as a giant Ponzi scheme. Sucks to see someone pay taxes for decades and actually be responsible and then get nothing back while others are rewarded for behaving totally irresponsibly, but that's the nature of taxes and government.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Problem is not spending, it's taxes - how we fund the spending. By in large taxes are collected on working people high and low at onerous rates while capital investment gets a largely free ride. If we applied SS and medicare taxes to capital gains and unearned income it would generate 500 billion a year shoring up all but Obama's huge deficits easily paying all that 'entitlement', let alone if we applied regular income tax like most of you pay - course pols on both sides never talk about it because they know where their bread is truly buttered.

Correct. It's obvious that the whole "investment is required for jobs" song and dance falls flat on it's face when that investment occurs offshore, and when there's actually negative investment in productive endeavors in this country. If we can't have the investment, then we need to benefit indirectly from that diversion of investment in the form of taxation...
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Correct. It's obvious that the whole "investment is required for jobs" song and dance falls flat on it's face when that investment occurs offshore, and when there's actually negative investment in productive endeavors in this country. If we can't have the investment, then we need to benefit indirectly from that diversion of investment in the form of taxation...
I would actually support taxing capital gains income from foreign sources as wages. I think it would probably be impractical to implement though because so many funds are mixed internationally. Even the most family owned manufacturing company undoubtedly uses some components or assemblies sourced outside the USA. A huge amount of paperwork would be caused and the rules would inevitably be drawn for political considerations, so that large companies like GE that manufacture pretty much everything elsewhere would be domestic whilst large companies like Toyota that manufactures much of its automobiles here would be considered foreign. I prefer a simpler tax system where possible.

Not the Obama tax form, though.
1. Taxable income __________________________
2. Enclose check for the amount on Line One.

J/K
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
I would actually support taxing capital gains income from foreign sources as wages. I think it would probably be impractical to implement though because so many funds are mixed internationally. Even the most family owned manufacturing company undoubtedly uses some components or assemblies sourced outside the USA. A huge amount of paperwork would be caused and the rules would inevitably be drawn for political considerations, so that large companies like GE that manufacture pretty much everything elsewhere would be domestic whilst large companies like Toyota that manufactures much of its automobiles here would be considered foreign. I prefer a simpler tax system where possible.

Not the Obama tax form, though.
1. Taxable income __________________________
2. Enclose check for the amount on Line One.

J/K

Which is why we need to do just what Zebo offered, rather than duh-vert and obfuscate, cast aspersions on our political opponents.

As much as the whole notion that cutting taxes on investment income has been well-intentioned to some degree, we need to face up to the fact that we're suffering from the law of unintended consequences, at best. The entire strategy is flawed. Rather than actually increasing investment in this country, the opposite has occurred. Rather than reaping the benefits of real growth at lower tax rates, we simply place an increasingly large share of income outside of payroll taxes and into a lower tax rate, depriving the govt of much needed revenues. We don't need to raise rates, we need to eliminate the favorable treatment for America's wealthiest, that's all.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Which is why we need to do just what Zebo offered, rather than duh-vert and obfuscate, cast aspersions on our political opponents.

As much as the whole notion that cutting taxes on investment income has been well-intentioned to some degree, we need to face up to the fact that we're suffering from the law of unintended consequences, at best. The entire strategy is flawed. Rather than actually increasing investment in this country, the opposite has occurred. Rather than reaping the benefits of real growth at lower tax rates, we simply place an increasingly large share of income outside of payroll taxes and into a lower tax rate, depriving the govt of much needed revenues. We don't need to raise rates, we need to eliminate the favorable treatment for America's wealthiest, that's all.

One way or ta other, the beast will be starved.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
One way or ta other, the beast will be starved.

That's obviously the intent. When the government of the people, for the people, and by the people is starved out, we'll end up with the govt of the rich, for the rich, and by the rich, with all that it implies.

Middle class people who refuse to recognize that are utterly delusional, wrapped up in pseudo-libertarian fantasy that's beyond reason or redemption.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
'Starve the beast' is propaganda created for citizens who will fall for it.

Like little red riding hood's wolf disguised as a grandma, it disguises the gutting of the enemy of the rich - democracy, representing the people, which keeps the rich from being tyrannical plutocrats - as 'cutting waste'. It portrays democracy as evil, and pretends there's no wolf anywhere to be found, waiting to get its juicy fangs into the public's wealth and take it for its own.

If it were accurate, it would say, "people, throw away your power, and le the rich run and rule everything". But since that isn't that catchy even for Republican voters, they use propaganda.

The only starvation that 'starve the beast' brings is the return of more hunger, if not, starvation to the people of the US - not the few at the top, who yet further own everything and leave the people without any political protection for their interests, any more than the people in banana republlics can get represented in their misleading appreances of democracy.

The trick is get people to hate the things that threaten the rich - and by creating hate for government, hate for the poor, they get foolish citiens to hate the principles of the United States.

The rich run most countries, but the US kicked off a period of the people having more power that spread to other ountries the last 200 years - but the rich are finding ways to defeat the democracy.