Republican Spending

[Meta Blog]

Originally from Myrhaf,

John Fund wrote a remarkable piece, “The Republican Soul,” that looks at why spending has skyrocketed under Republican government.

The prescription drug bill may have temporarily taken Medicare "off the table" for the 2004 election, but Republicans will be bedeviled for decades by its rising costs and complexity. At current growth rates, Medicare, its cousin Medicaid and Social Security will consume a fifth of the nation's gross national product by 2020. That number represents the current size of the entire federal government.

So these geniuses, the Republicans, put through the biggest entitlement program since LBJ’s Great Society just so that Medicare would not be an issue in the 2004 election?

Here’s some more of their brilliant strategery:

What accounts for the dramatic increase in the number of earmarks? Jonathan Rauch, a columnist for the National Journal, says that after Republicans saw how difficult it was to reduce the size of government during the 1990s, Mr. DeLay and White House political adviser Karl Rove adopted a new model: First, build a political machine that would win a secure majority, and then tackle entitlement spending using free-market reforms.

Let me get their plan straight. They decided to increase spending so they could have a “secure majority,” then once they were “secure” they would decrease spending? But if increased spending is necessary for these titans of leadership to feel secure, you are asking them to feel less secure with subsequent spending decreases -- and how many politicians will vote in ways that threaten their power?

This is how the vaunted Republican revolution of 1994 ended up, with timid politicians expanding the welfare state in order to buy votes. It’s further evidence, if any was needed, that politics is the last place to effect meaningful change. First a culture’s philosophy must be changed; only then will politicians feel secure enough to vote for freedom instead of power.

(HT: Right Wing News)

[stonebuddha]

I remember back during republican revolution there was talk by Newt Gingrich about defunding the national endowment for the arts. The Hollywood left had a fit and invited Newt to Hollywood for a meeting. Alec Baldwin was there, along with the usual suspects. Sure enough, after the meeting there was no more talk of ending the NEA.

Now if a republican controlled congress isn't interested in getting rid of a useless organization like the NEA, what are the chances of getting rid of social security, medicare, prescription drug bill, etc? That was when I realized that there was very little difference between republicans & democrats.

[AisA]

Unfortunately, this sort of performance by a Republican Administration is nothing new. Many conservatives express dismay over Bush's spending and call for a return to "Reagan conservatism". Reagan is indeed the darling of the conservatives, but his record is hardly any better than Bush's.

Reagan campaigned on two broad themes: reduce the size of the non-defense portion of the Federal government while building military superiority over the Soviets. There was enormous public support for these two ideas. Reagan was elected twice by a combined electoral vote of 1,014 to 62. If any president had a mandate to carry out his campaign promises, it was Reagan.

Many of us were thrilled to hear these words in Reagan's first Inaugural Address,

“Government is not the solution… It is time to check and reverse the growth of government…It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment…“

However, from the start it was clear that Reagan would not challenge the altruistic premises of the liberals. The following statements are also from Reagan’s first Inaugural Address.

“Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it is not my intention to do away with government. It is, rather, to make it work -- work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it.

We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of (America’s) makeup. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen, and loving them, reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they are sick, and provide opportunities to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?”

Translation: Government must provide opportunity (such as, for instance, taxpayer funded education and jobs training), reflect compassion (help the poor), lend a hand when people fall (unemployment benefits) and heal them when they are sick (taxpayer funded health care). Pure altruism from page one of the liberal playbook.

By the end of that speech, I knew Reagan's domestic programs were doomed.

Consider this passage from Reagan’s 4th State of the Union Speech:

This government will meet its responsibility to help those in need. …. the social safety net for the elderly, the needy, the disabled, and unemployed will be left intact. Growth of our major health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, will be slowed, but protections for the elderly and needy will be preserved.

So who articulated the concept of a "safety net" to catch all those unlucky enough to fall off the gravy train? Reagan.

There is only one way government “meets its responsibilities”: by taxing the productive. Granted, Reagan’s speeches are filled with calls for greater freedom, more individual responsibility and less government. But there is always a proviso to the effect that altruism will not be challenged.

What was the practical effect of conceding the liberal’s altruistic premise? Under Reagan, non-defense spending rose by $322.5 billion, an increase of 70.1%. (Defense spending also increased under Reagan -- but this was entirely appropriate given the threats we faced.) Federal government payments to individuals -- the direct transfer of wealth from those who earned it to those who didn’t -- increased from $278.5 billion to $501.7 billion, an increase of 80%.

The Executive Branch added 233,000 new civilian employees during Reagan‘s administration, an increase of 112 government employees every working day for eight years! These additional employees stayed busy, too. Approximately 376,000 new pages of rules and regulations were added to the Federal Register.

Reagan and the Republicans have succeeded in proving one thing: one cannot promote capitalism, or even the narrower principle of limited government, if altruism is one's ethical base.

[gags]

The sad truth is that the American people want big government. In fact, they demand it every time they go to the polls. They like the thought of getting something for "free" and can't think clearly enough to see that nothing the government gives you is free.

Back in the days of Reagan, I thought there might be an actual groundswell of public support for smaller government. Since then, I've realized that people will simply follow a pleasant character who tells them what they want to hear. And if the economy seems to be humming along, then who cares about all of the time bombs that the politicians continue to plant in our path?