Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader, sounds like a reasonable guy when he says that Republicans aren’t against extended unemployment benefits, but merely want them offset with spending cuts elsewhere in the budget. In some circles, that’s the very definition of moderation: I’ll go along with your program, but you have to find the savings.
Don’t buy it.
Republicans, perhaps because of their party’s evangelical wing, understand what it means to be born again — and they’re out to convince Americans that they are born-again debt crusaders, ready to rumble in the holy struggle for smaller deficits and less-unbalanced budgets. This takes a little bit of chutzpah. Here’s McConnell: “The American people don’t think our problem is that government taxes too little. Our problem is that government taxes too much. And that it spends too much and borrows too much. And until Democrats demonstrate even the slightest ability to restrain the recklessness with which they spend Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars, the job creators and the workers of this country aren’t about to take them seriously on how to lower the debt. The American people shouldn’t be asked to pay the price for Democrats’ recklessness through higher taxes.” Until Democrats demonstrate the slightest ability to restrain their recklessness? Fair enough, but let me refresh Senator McConnell’s memory:
Check out the spending under your guys, Senator McConnell. Notice how it doesn’t go down? This is why nobody trusts Republicans on spending: because Republicans have not earned anybody’s trust.
If you want to see just how befuddled Republicans are when it comes to this issue, look no further than Senator John Cornyn’s performance on Meet the Press opposite David Gregory this weekend. Gregory asks the same question I ask every time I interview a Republican bigwig: “What does distinguish the Republican party of today from the Republican party under President Bush’s rule, with regards to spending.” Cornyn’s answer was, basically, “Uhhhhh — hey, look, something shiny!” But let’s hear from the senator in his own words: “Well, I think what people are looking for, David, are checks and balances. They’ve had single-party government and it’s scaring the living daylights out of them, and it’s keeping job creators on the sidelines rather than investing and creating jobs. That’s why the private sector isn’t creating jobs.” This is politician for, “The dog ate my homework.” Yes, there is some uncertainty about the political environment, and that surely is affecting investing and hiring decisions. You know what else is affecting those decisions? A couple of trillion dollars’ worth of devalued capital in the form of collapsed real-estate values and a crippled banking system that Congress has decided to prop up rather than allow it to be sorted out by the ruthless Darwinian forces of the market.
But what about those unemployment benefits? The Republicans say they want to extend them but pay for doing so by cutting other spending. Unfortunately, the “other spending” they plan to cut is stimulus funds that have been theoretically appropriated but not spent — i.e., they’re “saving” money by not spending money we might not have been spending, anyway. It’s like a broke guy saying: “Yeah, I was planning on buying a new Ferrari, but then I changed my mind. What should I do with the $250,000 I saved myself?”
Not good enough.
Because I am a public-minded guy, I’m going to help the senators out here. If you cruise over to Mitch McConnel’s website and click on “Issues,” there is an issue that is conspicuously missing: spending. He talks about spending night and day, castigates the Democrats for their spendthrift ways, says he wants spending cuts. But, here’s the Entire Universe of Issues according to Mitch McConnell:
1. Financial Regulation
2. Economic Growth
3. Health Care Reform
4. War on Terror
5. Energy
6. FY 2011 Appropriations Requests
Or, as I like to put it:
1. New spending on babysitting bankers
2. New spending on special-interest projects
3. New spending on oldsters who might vote for Mitch McConnell
4. New spending on bombing Afghanistan until it turns into Connecticut
5. New spending on Kentucky coal products
6. New spending on things Mitch McConnell is keen on
There is no category for “Spending Cuts,” or “Balancing the Budget,” or “Ceasing to Basically Haul the Nation’s Entire Stock of Diminishing Assets Down to the Local Pawn Shop and See If We Can Get Enough for a Forty.” But . . . FY2011 Appropriations Requests. Now, there’s something a politician can get to cackling about.
As you might guess, those appropriations requests are more densely packed with pork than a can of Spam — Kentucky-fried pork, of course. Seems the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant needs $116 million of your money. The Forage Animal Production Unit needs $4 million. The biofuel lobby needs a million dollars to be routed to it through the University of Kentucky. Hopkinsville has a narcotics taskforce with its hand out. Raytheon wants $12 million to put lasers on 20mm Gatling guns in Louisville — which at least sounds kind of awesome, but President Obama thinks they can do it with $6 million instead of $12 million. Somebody wants to buy something called Fern Lake and make a park out of it, but they want you to pay for it — $1.2 million. No, there’s no tab for “Cutting Spending,” but if you add up all the stuff that Senator McConnell lists under FH2011 Appropriations Requests, you come up with just about $600 million. That’s a lot of cash — and that’s just the special-interest stuff he’s advertising on his website, not the big-ticket items. So, let’s do some English-major math here: $600 million in feel-good spending multiplied by 100 U.S. senators equals . . . $60 billion, almost enough to pay for those unemployment benefits Senator McConnell is so keen to fight over — twice.
Now, I think every household in America should have a Raytheon laser Gatling gun on its rooftop, right next to the Democrat-subsidized solar panels. In fact, a Raytheon laser cannon that runs on solar panels sounds like an awesome bipartisan project, and I want one. But we can’t afford it. You want to cut spending, Senator McConnell? Ask an intern to print out that list from your website, and take a deep breath.
– Kevin D. Williamson is deputy managing editor of National Review.
Great article ... This is why I love National Review - always thinking ahead. We might very well get what we wish for this November but let's not forget what the Republicans did last time they had control - they spent like sober Democrats. Let's send these guys a very clear message that we will be breathing down their necks if they win.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe first order of business when the Congress and hopefully the Senate are taken is to put in new leadership. The new members need to band together with returning true conservative members and elect leaders who are not RINO, not intimidated by the likes of Barney Fffffrank and Chuck Schumer. We need articulate, winsome leadership along the lines of Chris Christie. The stakes are too high to play pretty and make nice. Obama has gone to the mattress for what he believes, we need to do the same. TAKE NO PRISONERS!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think it might be useful to relocate the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant to DC, and deploy it during Sunday talk shows...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think Kevin points out the real struggle for Conservatives. Yes it matters that we get good solid conservative representatives voted in here in Missouri, and there are 49 other states where it matters just as much.
But no matter how good a person we vote in, it won't matter if that person doesn't approach her job in a way that is fundamentally different from the way Republicans have been doing it for the last few decades (which is, of course, my whole adult life).
All these things:
Conservative control of the House
C control of the Senate
C control of every State house
C control of Presidency
just don't matter if we don't win this particular battle. And its not even a battle. Its the whole war. Republicans have have shown that they can accomplish everything shown in the list above without even approaching the goal of a government based on "limited government".
Kudos to Kevin to shedding light on this issue.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBoth parties spend but this democratic congress is totally out of control. Point, under republicans we keep the Bush tax cuts, Forget this out of control health care bill, cap and trade, financial reform would include Fannie and Freddie, we would have more school choice, unions would not be controlling the white house or congress, we would not be suing Arizona and the recession would already over due to tax cuts and incentives for small businesses. Republicans have problems but lets get real here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere in Kansas, there is a big primary election for the Rep. nominee who will run for Sen. Brownback's seat.
Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran, both Congressmen, are running for that nomination (which will virtually give the winner of the primary the election - this is Kansas).
I was dismayed when Sarah Palin and the "Teaparty Express" came out in favor of Tiahrt - who is by far the bigger spender of the two Congressmen.
If the folks who are supposedly standing for Americans who are sick to death of the spending spree in Washington are supporting the candidate who is the biggest spender and earmark lover, we are not going to end up with a Congress of Republican big spenders in instead of Democrat big spenders.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGah. This all is making me crazy!
People get the government they deserve. Politicians like to get re-elected. They get re-elected by bringing home the bacon, and by not telling people things they don't want to hear. The single most effective thing that we could do to reverse the currently inexorable slide into economic disaster is to cut back on Social Security benefits. The chances for election of a politician who made that proposition the centerpiece of a campaign are zero. Ask Rand Paul or Sharon Angle what happens when a candidate attempts a clean sheet of paper discussion about anything at all. If Republicans lead the charge on a new era of frank and open discussion of inconvenient truths it will mean one thing: a permanent Democratic majority.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll good points that identify an archaic, country club Republican who is as out of touch with America as is our President. Our President is out of touch and insulated from the Constitution as well as “the people” by his life associations and now surrounding himself with those who think alike. Senator McConnell is out of touch for the same reasons.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Republican Party failed after President Reagan by adopting an insulated country club perspective rather than staying on message and governing “for all the people”. The last of this ability, for a few historical moments, was under the leadership of Speaker Gingrich. The willingness of the Republicans to forgo fighting for him when attacked in order to appear “kinder and gentler” put them back into country club mode wherein it has remained. The chief benefit of “kinder and gentler” has been to allow the Ruling Class (Democrats) to forge ahead with its agenda while the Ruled Class (Republicans) has only an occasional voice of responsibly stated opposition for the times it doesn’t just go along.
In order to succeed for the long term the Republicans must do a better job teaching “the people” the meaning of the traditional American values and the Constitutional Government of the United States of America. However, to do that it must also present itself as reformed – which it cannot do without a top to bottom change in leadership, now, before the November elections. If the Republicans choose to remain as they are and win many seats the Party is likely to remain mostly the same as it is now because it will forget the power that the Democrat Party’s failure played in the change. It would be better and long lasting if the new Republicans won by teaching and demonstrating why political Right is “Right for America”.
Richard
I agree with Mr. Williamson that the GOP could do better on federal government spending. However, the GOP is much better about restraining the size and scope of the federal government than are the Democrats. The liberal establishment wants us to believe the GOP is no better than the Democrats on this issue but that simply isn't true.
The GOP had a major government spending showdown with President Clinton in late 1995 and early 1996. We lost that confrontation, and the GOP correctly determined that there was no political benefit to cutting back the size and scope of the federal government circa 1995-1996. As time went by after 1996, the GOP's commitment to slow down the growth of government decayed; first, because President Clinton outmanuevered them on spending time and again throughout his second term, and, then second, President Bush was such an unreliable leader on domestic issues. For rank and file Republicans in Congress, the calculation became that they could not achieve their conservative aims so they may as well make the best of a bad situation by bringing home the bacon to their respective home districts.
Constantly scolding the GOP about spending during the Bush Administration years does no good. We need to have a practical approach that makes cutting federal government spending a politically attractive position. If we can do that, the GOP will win the next government spending showdown and the country will be much better off.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks, Kevin...I think you've nailed the real issue underlying the public's general contempt for both political parties - relentless wasteful spending.
Sen. Cornyn is on my personal list of "second round" cuts to be made. First, throw as many Democrats as possible out of office this November, then go after the faux conservative Republicans like he, McConnell, Graham, McCain, Snowe, Collins, ad nauseum. Time to purify the ranks.
Many people, including I, won't be satisfied until we have real conservatives in office making actual cuts to existing budgets / government bureaucracies. Simply scaling back the percentage of annual budget increases is not acceptable anymore.
It's way past time for the meat axe to make an appearance, and it's going to take people other than the "gentleman Senator from Kentucky, the honorable Sen. Mitch McConnell", et al, to get it done.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHa,ha,acorrding to Glenn Beck, in reality the country's on the hook for about 100 TRILLION counting un-funded liabilities. Let's be honest,the citizens aren't even going to be able to pay the interest on this debt much less the debt itself !!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs a self-described "fiscally conservative progressive," this is one of the few articles on NRO that truly resonates with me. Thank you for painting so clearly the main problem both parties suffer.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOops -- on my previous comment, I *meant* to say - we will end up with Republican Big Spenders.
And, as an aside, I'd love your opinion of Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America. (External Link
)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAn amusing thing has happened as Republicans of all stripes are smelling the blood in the water as a bloated and confused Democrat majority struggles.
I get these calls.
Lots of calls.
They need money right now to defeat the awful liberals.
So I changed my response.
I say I have no more money, but I care. I tell them I have time.
Surprisingly, none of them need my time, just my money.
Who are these guys we call Republicans? Definately, if we expect a change in this country, it is not going to come from politicians, it is going to come from citizens.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBeth, I'll tell you what I think about the Ryan plan: Give the man points for having a plan at all, and a serious one. I'm not crazy about every detail of it, but who else is pressing as forward with as serious a proposal? Nobody, so far as I know. Ryan really needs to be the Republican point man on this issue, if only because he's the only one who, so far, has a credible program to advance.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn-spot as usual, Kevin "Unicorn Ranch" Williamson.
There are some Republicans who understand fiscal restraint. It seems, however, that not a single one resides in the world's spendy-est deliberative body.
Paul Ryan, Paul Ryan, Paul Ryan. He is the model that the rest of the party should follow. But many of them are too cowardly to do so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: Beth Donavan asks what I think about Ryans roadmap
Yeah, it illustrates the problem in a nutshell. We have been inundated with the idea that the kind of politician that we Americans should be voting in should be the kind that brings home the bacon.
I don't think it has ever been true, but I think Conservatives need to disabuse their friends of the idea right now if we are going to get limited government in our lifetime.
In the long run, Ryan asks to a great extent to turn away from the Federal Government as a source of security in our old age. FDR pretty much sold the country on the idea in the 30's.
So I think, as a Conservative that Ryan is right, but he is swimming upstream against decades of expectations. Can Conservatives win this message war? possibly. Can we afford to lose this message war? No way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcellent piece, and oh so true. With few exceptions, the Republicans are "Democrat-lite" when it comes to spending. Perhaps we are finally seeing a great awakening among the electorate - we shall see.
One thing is certain, we cannot continue along our current path. The most frustrating part is that *if* the Federal government were simply confined to activities that fell under its Constitutionally ennumerated powers, we would not have 3/4 of the ridiculous spending we see today.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat graph is a little misleading. If you look at spending as a fraction of GDP, which I think is the most honest number, it rose slowly from 18% to 22% from 1960 to 1985, then fell slowly, hitting a low of 18% under the Republican Congress in 2000, and rose slowly to 20% until 2006, when Democrats were elected. Then in the past 4 years as Democrats have controlled Congress, it has shot up like a hockey stick to 25%. What one could argue is that Republicans, even while raising spending, seemed to have a bit more self control and knowledge of the economy to keep spending within reasonable a fraction of GDP.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGreat article, and oh so true. I will trust the GOP if and when they take control of Congress and elect new leadership. Clowns like McConnell must go, otherwise they ruin the country and let OBbama off the hook by allowing the media to blame the GOP. One more episode like the 2000-2006 GOP Congress and we will the a political realignment like we saw in the 1850s.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse