I don't blog about partisan politics that much, mostly because it doesn't interest me that much. I must say, however, that I'm not sorry the Republicans are poised to lose the House to the Democrats. The Republicans came in under a reformist platform in '94, and gradually lost their zeal for anything but reelection. By now, I can't think of a better advertisement for term limits than the Republican majority in the House, and I don't think I'll ever forgive Anthony Kennedy for his vote in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (declaring state-imposed term limits for federal office-holders unconstitutional), which was not only completely wrong on the merits, but allowed the culture of corruption (K Street, earmarks, etc.) and reelection-at-all-costs to transfer itself so quickly from the Democratic majority to the Republican majority, except that, by all indications, it has gotten worse. Twelve years of Republican control of the presidency from 1981 to 1993 led to a generation of lazy Republican sycophants who were more concerned about keeping their sinecures than in achieving any principled goals they had once believed in. The shock of defeat in '92 led directly to the Gingrich revolution, undone unfortunately because Gingrich was a much better revolutionary than leader (I still can't believe how he whined to the press about the seating arrangements on the airplane on the way back from Rabin's funeral, and I've never understood how he let Clinton get away with accusing the Republicans of "shutting down the government" when the Republicans actually passed a budget that Clinton vetoed!) Defeat for the Republicans in 2006 is even more richly deserved than in '92, and hopefully, if it does come, it will lead to a the emergence of a Repbulican presidential candidate in '08 and Congressional leaders who will restore some of the reformist fervor of the early Reagan and Gingrich years.
UPDATE: I should mention that I'm very disappointed that the Democrats haven't taken the opportunity to even remotely hint that they'll behave any better than the Republicans.
Newt &Co. may have been the exception, not the rule.
itstheir leaders are Nancy Pelosi and Harry ReidAlways nice to include an error in grammar while accusing Pelosi and Reid of being morons...
Some folks may like that - a stalemate - since the less damage (i.e., legislation) the better, I suppose.
But in such a situation the pressure from the more doctrinaire liberals on the Democrats to "get Bush" will increase. Since the liberal agenda has been stopped through Bush's vetoes or Republican opposition, the only alternative would be to harass the White House. The Democrats will need to do this to keep their base alive in hopes of maintaining or improving their majority (or majorities).
If one thinks that the White House should be investigated and that they have been corrupt, I guess this is not really a "problem" but a necessity or is warranted.
I wonder how the radical Islamists would view such an election and events?
In any case, it'll be a interesting couple of years.
One question though – what is the evidence that the 1992 defeat of Bush 41 lead to the 1994 GOP electoral victories? Do you have any basis for this claim or are you just assuming that since one followed the other it was caused by the other?
IMO it seems to me that if the more conservative (liberal) party loses the election to the more liberal (conservative) party, that they would see this as evidence that they need to move further to the left (right) to capture the middle who decides the outcome of elections. That was afterall what led to Bush 43 becoming the GOP nominee in 2000 with a platform of “compassionate conservatism.” In which case should Republicans lose this election – particularly in the House which has been the more conservative of the two Houses of Congress – they may move even further to the left on issues of spending, immigration, and entitles to take votes away from House Democrats.
In which case, it only makes sense to hope for an electoral victory for Democrats if you actually support their platform and ideas because that is what they will be emboldened by their victory to try to implement and that is what Republicans will assume that voters want.
Which leads us to the second problem: "the Democrats haven't taken the opportunity to even remotely hint that they'll behave any better than the Republicans." Sure they have. Theyb have roundly criticized the wayward spending and irresponsible tax cuts of the GOP since the "revolution." Unless the "starve the beast" method is all that's acceptable, of course.
Fact is, the meme of a tax-and-spend Dem Party is unsuporrted by the facts of the last 12 years. The party out of power has not had the opportunity to pass the fiscally responsible legislation that was commonplace during the Clinton years (and to avoid argument, let's give all the credit to the revolution for getting the ball rolling on that, although I think the facts are a little more nuanced)
The Dems have stated how they'll be better than the GOP. All voters are entitled not to believe them. But the campaign pledges have been there all along.
(1) whenever I see Democratic leaders on t.v., they accuse Bush of spending too little
(2) the Republicans passed a budget. Clinton vetoed it. Clinton shut down the government.
I've never exactly understood how one can support the stated principles of conservatism and claim to be liberterian. This question usually applies to Instapundit, but works here with this post too.
Just a thought.
Doesn't your point (2) assume that the budget was a good one? Imagine Congress passes a completely ridiculous budget knowing the President will veto it, and he does. Who shut down the Govt. then? Or in your view, does the President have a duty to sign all budgetary legislation?
Most of my anger about the lack of action on issues important to me, has been by the Republican Senators however. The Republican House Leadership does not seem to have a problem passing legislation that makes Democrats unhappy, but the Senate seems to cave at the slightest hint of a frown.
Considering that we had an explosion in non-defense/homeland security discretionary spending rather than gridlock and vetoes when Bush 43 had a Democrat-controlled Senate, I doubt that this “problem” would manifest itself.
What we will have though is the more fiscally conservative House of Congress being controlled by a Party that is campaigning on spending even more than Republicans. In which case spending would probably explode as it did when Daschle became Senate Majority leader.
I always wondered how that happened, given that when the positions were exactly reversed, and Reagan vetoed the budget sent him by the Democratic Congress, it was *Reagan* who was held to have "shut down the government."
Agreed, on issues like immigration, entitlement reform, and health care reform (as well as generally in favor of at least lower increases in spending) the House has generally been the better body. But I guess that’s only important to people who actually follow issues.
If the Dems win the Senate there is a decent chance of Impeachapalooza, especially once they get around to realizing their razor thin majority won't get them much beyond committee control. However, I have secretly wished for a 50/50 split in the Senate just for the spectacle of Cheney essentially running the place (oh, how the left-leaning blogs will howl), and at the moment that could well turn out to be the case.
And when the Dems take the House, yeesh. Again, many of those horrible big spending bills were signed by Bush because he a)thought they were the least worst option he'd see, and B)because he saw the writing on the wall and figured he might as well get gratitude votes out of the deal (can we officially declare that concept dead now?), with the House being the real brake on spending. With less Repubs around? Forget it. No, it's not like spending will suddenly go up by an order of magnitude, but it will go up.
Face it: your theoretical upside is that the Repubs will suddenly see the error of their ways and go back to being "good" small government types. In reality, it means they will move to the middle, just like the Dems did in the early 90s.
Oh wait, my left-leaning friends above inform me that moving to the middle wasn't the case, the Dems have always been the fiscally responsible party and will continue to do so in the future. Pardon my guffaws. Mind pointing out any examples in the last half decade where the Dem version of a bill had a lower price tag than the Rep version?
Not that I really care, I have no dog in the fight this election, as as a Milwaukee, Wisconsinite my Federal races are essentially unchallenged. Although I too am surprised by the lack of Kohl challenges - as a "closeted" Millionare Democrat (though the vast majority of his "wealth" is not real, it is based on what he would get for the Milwaukee Bucks if he sold to someone) you think he would get "just another Kerry" attacks left and right. Weird.
Wombat, several Dem versions of Iraq spending bills have had a lower price tag, because they included raising taxes enough to pay for the spending.
Heck, the Dem "version" of the Iraq war would probably be no war at all, which almost certainly would have had a lower price tag than what we got.
"whenever I see Democratic leaders on t.v., they accuse Bush of spending too little." The fact that you base your opinions for a post (or even your voting) on tv campaign ads makes me very, very worried. I think proposing getting out of a war that costs $2 billion a week literally defines criticism of spending too much, particularly in the wake of irresponsible tax cuts.
" the Republicans passed a budget. Clinton vetoed it. Clinton shut down the government." Is your point that a presidential veto of an opposing party's budget is the sole cause of a government shut down? That any time a president vetos a budget the government shuts down. Um, sadly no. Gotta go to a pro bono dinner, but will come back with cites of prior such vetos and how government remained in business.
I'm a Republican but I have an open mind and I'm anxious to hear a substantive counter-argument. I'm not holding my breath.
No, no, no. You can't figure out who shut down the government by looking at the branches of government. The rule is that Republicans shut down the government, whether they control the executive branch or the legislative branch.
Reagan shut the government down because he's a Republican. Gingrich shut the government down because he's a Republican too. If the government gets shut down, Republicans are always at fault, and Democrats are blameless.
Accordingly, if the Democrats take power in Congress and the Government is shut down in the next two years, Bush will be at fault, because Bush is the Republican.
That said, I must be missing something. Where are the Dem campaign pledges to spend more and tax less, i.e yet more deficit?
I just love the rather sad irony of the old Rep demagoguery calling Dems "tax and spend". Though some don't seem to think it is sadly ironic.
EricH:
I can't imagine the Democrats winning enough seats to overcome vetoes.
I hope you're right. The Reps have done their share of damage in last minute legislation (gambling ban, habeas, torture). We need a break. All the power in one hand for too long is like fish after a week.
They can surely find something bipartisan, such as some more criminal laws or tightening the screws some more on sex offenders. That always looks good.
But for me, as a Democrat, I hope the Republicans stay in power. It is my opinion that the results of Republican leadership today are the richly deserved and eagerly sought fruits of the labor from "the reformist fervor of the early Reagan and Gingrich years" that Bernstein wants to return in 2008. The results from years of Republican leadership in Congress and the Executive branches are not some aberration due to corruption, failed Gingrich leadership, or attempts to hold on to power. The Republican party's sycophants and failed leaders seem to be the same people that took the wheel during the Reagan and Gingrich years (and Bush 43 years). They ran the store, collected the checks, pushed reforms and spent the money their way. They earned these lousy results that seem to have pushed the People to express their dissatisfaction. It remains to be seen whether the party will even lose the House in November. But their constituents do not seem to be pleased even if they (and many of your readers) do not want to vote for Democrats.
For me, that the Republican leadership, both elected and appointed, have succeeded in running the country's fiscal, domestic and foreign policy into a metaphorical ditch cannot be easily dismissed as simply a time for house cleaning. Perhpas instead, it is a time for the party to revisit failed policies. Had term limits been in place, the House and current White House would yield the same bitter fruit that I assume you and your blog readers want to purge by a midterm election loss. I hope that you enjoy your feast for a few more years. You guys and gals can give your crackerjack leadership team a chance to right their wrongs, if indeed they even know how to do so.
BTW, I am not sure it was just Pres. Clinton's marketing that led the public to blame Gingrich's party for the Government's shutdown. I recall it was Gingrich's decision to stick to his position despite the public's insistence that Congress seek a compromise.
See Nancy Pelosi's proposal for action in the first 100 hours of the next Congress, which includes stronger ethics restrictions and guaranteeing the GOP minority greater participation in the process than the GOP majority ever allowed the Democratic minority. Whether these things ultimately come about, I think that qualifies as more than "even remotely hint[ing]."
As for U.S. Term Limits, David is conflating Justice Stevens majority opinion with Justice Kennedy's separate concurrence. Kennedy's view, with a fair basis in history, was that matters of federalism are more complicated than either the majority or Thomas' dissent imagined. The core of Thomas' opinion was that the Constitution was little more than an international treaty among independent states, a simplistic view of the founding, to say the least.
The relevance of the power of States to appoint Senators before the 17th Amendment is obscure at best, since the 17th Amendment eliminated that power and subjected Senators to essentially the same rules that had always governed election of Representatives.
It sounds to me as though David objects to the decision mainly because the result doesn't conform to his personal political preferences. Indeed, he fails to note that the position of Thomas and the conservative bloc in U.S. Term Limits was absolutely inconsistent with their position in Bush v. Gore, where they insisted that the Federal Constitution forbade Florida from subjecting its presidential election process to additional requirements under its state constitution or longstanding election law.
The proper response to David's objection is to observe that he is free to ask the GOP majority in Congress to adhere to their 1994 promise and submit a term-limits amendment to the states for ratification--if they are not too busy with gay-bashing and flag-burning amendments, that is.
If you are in favor of the effects of government gridlock, then it's perfectly sensible for a libertarian to support playing one party against the other.
I don't have the #'s at hand but just guess at the # of House investigations against the Clinton admin...for sex, Bosnia and various sundry corruptions; vs the #'s of House investigations against the Bush admin for...Iraq, Katrina, Medicare Plan D, Iraq again, incompetence.
I would suggest that Tom DeLay and Bush had a deal going in...you keep out of my house and I'll keep out of yours.
The conservatives who would drown the govt in a bathtub sure had a good bath. Given by such GOP manipulators as Norquist, Abramoff and Reed.
How nice for both camps.
Bush got his tax cuts,war, plan D, no child, with no interference by the GOP 'conservative' controlled House of Reps, and he signed all those Pork/Abramoff influenced bills.
DeLay had massive influence of member voting, provided of course by Abramoff money. Think of the night of Plan D. The size of the congressional trough grew exponentially. A conservative might consider this to be against their values.
Everyone in govt got what they wanted...
...and we, the people, got what we deserved. A wastrel congress and an incompetent admin based on divisive politics. Welcome to 1984, ala 2001.
The issue of responsibility is different. Ultimately, who you think was responsible is going to depend on who you think is behaving unreasonably and who you think is behaving reasonably. If you think the Republican budget was A-OK, Clinton shut down the government; if you think the Republican budget was absurd, the Republicans shut down the overnment. Clinton (rightly or wrongly) convinced the American people that his position was reasonable and the Republicans were being unreasonable.
The budget deficit is now down to $250b and continues to shrink, largely fueled by those tax cuts. Two years ago the Pres. promised the budget deficit, when it was over $600b, would be cut in half within five years. It's taken two years, rather than five, and it's been more than cut in half.
This reduction took place due to huge tax receipts, mostly from corporations, and also despite a $50b outlay as a result of hurricane Katrina and war costs in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.
(And speaking of hurricanes, what happened to the dire predictions of class 4 and 5 hurricanes this season?)
Wow, and that's to say nothing of the huge deficit he inherited from Clinton. What an accomplishment for Bush's historical resume! We should all be proud.
Obviously there was no deficit, your sarcasm is noted. Of course there was no 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, Bali, Istanbul, Casablanca, Theo van Gogh, etc., etc., either, during Clinton's presidency. Though there was WTC '93 (one month into his presidency, treated as a legal issue, and Clinton didn't so much as visit the site), the Khobar Towers, the Cole, etc., etc. Mere trifles however when a "peace dividend" is to be exploited.
Too, Clinton's "peace dividend" was achieved as a result of the end of the Cold War, decidedly a Reagan accomplishment, obviously among many others players as well, from Truman forward, but a decided Reagan accomplishment nonetheless in its final phase and denouement. The other way Clinton managed the "peace dividend" was to cut "government spending," remember that? Problem is 93% of what was cut (an early Clinton/Gore initiative) was directly or indirectly (civilian support of the military) related to the military - yet additional evidence of the head-in-the-sand "logic" applied to the budget and the post-Cold War realignments of the military during that era.
We should all be proud of such "achievements".
Is this supposed to be a criticism of Clinton? Seems more like a list of accomplishments to me.
Yep. And Clinton actually caught the perp. Bush just wants to play Waldo with Osama.
Bush 41 was President during the "final phase and denouement" of the Cold War.
Reagan gets just as much credit, and no more, than Truman, Eisenhower, Kennnedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Bush 41 for the success of US containment policy.
No dispute there. Clinton did, however, manage it extraordinarily well. He gets credit for good management. Bush, well, doesn't.
As to "the war," it is of course not "the war" but rather the considerable problems, challenges and all too real tragedies in Iraq more recently. Of course there were considerable problems and tragedies during other wars as well, e.g., Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, etc., etc., etc., but that occurred during a different era entirely, politically, ideologically, strategically, etc., etc., etc. Too, when Pres. Bush recently noted there is an apt analogy vis-a-vis Tet, early '68, essentially he was referring to Cronkite's and others' reportorial incompetence and mendacity - promulgated via the MSM, obviously with plenty of help from the Western Left - awarding the North Vietnamese a PR/propaganda victory despite the considerable, and indeed decisive, military/strategic defeat the North Vietnamese had actually suffered.
Doubly ironic, Tet occurred virtually at the same time Creighton Abrams took over from Westmoreland and did an "about face" strategically (vis-a-vis Westmoreland strategies and tactics), in terms of continued military victories, turning the war effort over to the South Vietnamese and even more importantly winning the popular war among the South Vietnamese themselves. E.g., tens of thousands of Vietcong, post-1968, realigned themselves with the South, turning their backs on Hanoi. An additional example which caused more and more among the South Vietnamese population to align themselves practically/politically and ideologically with the regime in the South was the decided change from tenant farmers to granting titles to the land, and doing so en masse (by '72 more than 400,000 farmers had been granted titles via the "Land to the Tiller" program initiated by the govt. in the South, a program which essentially eliminated tenancy).
Despite all this progress, despite the fact the war effort itself had been turned over to the South Vietnamese, the 1973 Democratic congress, by 1975, had cut formally promised funds and armaments - even the budget for medical supplies for the South Vietnamese.
In large part thank Uncle Walter (Cronkite) for that mendacity and treachery, along with others in the MSM and the American Left and Left/Dems, Edward Kennedy leading the way in that '73 Congress.
Too, of Iraq, there are also stories like this which should not be discounted in terms of what they reflect more generally, and obviously for their own sake as well.
1. The result: Reid, Pelosi, etc. Who, contrary to (implied) arguments here, have no interest in restraining government expansion (ex: no more "limited powers" judges). So, you aren't punishing the Republicans, you will be punishing yourselves.
2. If any party needs punishing, it is the Dems: Undermining a war effort that many Dems voted for (then claiming Bush lied), supporting amnesty for illegals, supporting higher taxes when the current rates have increased revenue (and record stock market), etc.
It's been well documented that the Administration has deliberately and consistently monkeyed with the deficit numbers by overstating projections so that they can claim they've "cut" the deficit when it was likely that the deficit number was never as high as they initially projected. What hasn't changed is that Bush inherited a surplus, quickly turned that into a deficit (pre 9/11 so you'll have to find another excuse) and has still failed to eliminate the deficit. As the costs of his entitlement programs and tax cuts are fully realized, the deficits will likely explode.
And on the other hand, Republicans have shown every interest in restraining govenrment expansion, haven't they? Legalizing torture, destroying habeas corpus, a midnight bill to keep Terry Schiavo alive, gay marriage amendment--in what world are these the actions of a limited government?
2. If any party needs punishing, it is the Dems
Hmm, has there been a time when Rush did not believe this?
Wait until you see the Democrat majority that might take their place.
1868?
Then provide the links; assertions do not an argument make.
Bush also inherited a recession that started ten months before he took office. Tax collections for the past fiscal year were much larger than any previous year. Of course this is Bush's fault.
So what? Did he cut spending to offset declines in revenue? That would have been the logical course of action to avoid deficit spending.
Michael B: I have my links ready. I'll post them right after I get your links to your trumped up numbers. (I thought the Bush Administration overinflated the deficit numbers but you managed to beat even their phony numbers).
The term limits decision strikes me as one of the few instances where original intent can be expressly found--and yet, the right wing judges like Thomas and Scalia couldn't be bothered to uphold original intent.
And if you live in a state with term limits for state politicians, you would know how much we see musical chairs among the politicians and the appalling decline in institutional knowledge among members. The lobbyists write more legislation than ever, too.
"Halving a deficit you inherited would be something to brag about. Halving a deficit you created, not so much."
"Two years ago the Pres. promised the budget deficit, when it was over $600b, would be cut in half within five years. It's taken two years, rather than five, and it's been more than cut in half."
1) It's billions, not millions.
2) The graph is obviously dated. If you could read the graph you'd note the doc reflects a projected 2006 deficit of 602b, but it has now been reported at 250b. That's less than one-half.
3) Here's another view, from the CBO's more recent March 2006 projections (small pdf) where they note the 2005 actuals at 318b and project the 2006 number to rise to 371b. Again, that was not the WH's projections, but the CBO's projections as recently as seven (7) months ago. Instead the actuals for 2006 have now been reported: 250b, a difference for the better of 121b.
By 1992, I had become upset with the republicans and did not vote until 2000, voting for Bush, as well as in 2004.
The only person(s) I punished by not voting for the republican candidate was myself and my country. I helped elect Clinton, who enabled terrorists to get stronger and stronger and eventually attack us on our own soil, as well as legitamized immoral and illegal behavior in the highest office of our governemnt, making Nixon seem like a pantywaste.
I will never again sit out an election. a none-vote is a vote for the other side, and the other side is much worse than the republicans. Why should people like Blackwell, Santorum, Steele, or Allen suffer out of punishing the republican party? all anyone does by not voting for good candidates is to let the party get more and more liberal, whether militarally, socially or fiscally.
What is the point in that? That seems like a total lack of common sense.
The party doesnt need to be punished. Our country has been suffering the punishment of having the immoral and lazy Clinton as president since 1992, the open ended immigration Act of 1965 promoted by Ted Kennedy, and the limp foreign policy of Jimmy Carter since 1979. To put more of this same democratic party in public office is detrimental to the safety and well being of our country, if not the world.
By not voting, I went against everything Reagan stood for: not quiting in the face of adversity. Reagan was a persistant politician who kept hanging in there until he got it right, and until he convinced enough of his fellow citizens to vote for him because he got it right. Reagan was constantly active in politics, and when you look at the development of his political philosophy, it was the product of a person who never quit, never punished anyone, but soley looked out for what was good, right and true for our country &citizens.
If Reagan had despaired when he saw communism infiltrate Hollywood, or become even more of a liberal, or when he lost those presidential elections, to candidates not nearly as good as he was, where would he, as well as our country, have been? can anyone image Carter as president until 1984? can anyone image that the Iron Curtain would have fallen in 1989 if not for Reagan? and now we have the islamoterrorists, those who showed up because Carter was weak, and Clinton even weaker.
heh, everyone has freedom of choice, but to choose not to vote will cast a vote....for the democracts, and that is the wrong vote for this time in our country's history...
....Just like to vote for Reagan was the right vote for our country back in 1980.
History proves Reagan was right, as well as we were right in voting for him... although even he wasnt perfect either.
History has also already proven that those of us who sat out the elections of 1992 and 1996 were wrong.
I will never forget, never again. to paraphrase the old saying by Burke, evil triumphs when good people do nothing.
to all those who sit out this election, enjoy the years of misery a none-vote action will cause our country. History does repeat itself when people do not learn from the mistakes of earlier generations, such as mine. Please please dont make the same mistakes as I did in 1992 and 1996.
I am also a new yorker so I have alot of remnders of my past political errors. My vote doesnt cant for much at the state of federal level but I vote republican or conservative or pro-life, depending on the race. At the federal level its always republican. Although its been years since my vote counted to help NY go republican for the presidnetial candidate, I am in full solidariaty with those states that do...especially since the democrats may even try to get rid of the electoral college process.
Every vote counts in times like these. please dont waste it.
I heard one candidate say today that the television ads have become so frequent and nasty that they can't be counted on any more and grass roots work is what's really working. Maybe it will catch on.
The problem with this type of thinking is that it has a false premise: that tax cuts *cause* revenue to go up.
Since 1950, there have been only 4 years in which the federal government tax revenues went down: in 1983, and in 2001-2003 (both the result of tax cuts and economic downturns). What we can conclude from that pattern is:
Raise taxes: tax revenues go up
Keep taxes the same: tax revenues go up
Cut taxes: tax revenues drop in short term, then go up again
Eventually, rational people reach the conclusion there is no causal effect between tax policy and the fact that revenues increase over time.
And if the idea is that the GOP is not going to have the will to limit spending even when they no longer control the spending agenda, then we are just completely screwed when it comes to spending. But that strikes me as pretty implausible--I would be willing to bet, in fact, that the rate of increase in government spending as a percentage of the economy that we have seen during the last six years will in fact slow, or even halt, following a Democratic takeover of the House.
By the way, I don't think the evidence provided by the brief period in which the Democrats controlled the Senate during the Bush Administration proves otherwise. First, that really was a brief period. But more importantly, when it comes to spending it is the House, not the Senate, which sets the agenda. And again, if the theory is that even with the Democrats setting the spending agenda the GOP will go along with arbitrarily high increases in spending, then we are screwed anyway, so we might as well try.
The evidence also shows that the R's can't restrain themselves nor can the D's.
A good compromise would be for divided govt with the R's as permanent minority party.
I suspect the explanation's pretty simple. Most Americans agree with your starting-point: partisan politics doesn't interest them very much either. They just expect their politicians to make the government work, somehow. (How? That's your job ... get it done, or we'll find somebody else.)
When the budget impasse arose, the rhetoric from Gingrich et al. almost relished the idea of a shutdown. At the time, it came across (to me anyway) as dorm-room bull-session talk about who'd miss the government anyway, if it were closed.
They even threatened to trigger a default on the government's debt as a lever in the negotiations.
In contrast, Clinton et al. focused on the real-life practical problems that a shutdown (not to mention a default) would create for millions of Americans who count on the government to do its job, from Social Security recipients to Treasury bondholders.
Guess who sounded adult/concerned/on-task and who sounded juvenile/irresponsible/goofing-around. At that point, the details of bills passed and vetos threatened got lost in the broad impressions.
And, by the way, I suspect that some similar logic is operating today. A lot of people who don't care much about partisan politics believe the government just isn't working. So, in next month's election, they're going to let somebody else try.
I mean, without Clinton, we wouldn't have George W. Bush. And without Bush, we wouldn't have a trampled Constitution, an illegitimate war, torture as US policy, a lost war, suspension of habeus corpus, a tattered Fourth Amendment, declining wages for the middle class. Without Bush, we might have been able to stop 9/11, and we certainly wouldn't have suffered the travesty of Katrina at such a pathetic level.
So in that sense, you are right, Clinton was a huuuuuge mistake. But I'm not sure your solution follows . . .
I've wondered if requiring non-consecutive terms would have a good effect. No one can make legislating a career, but if they want to do it more than once, they have to leave a good impression on the electorate.
Combine that with transparency in legislating laws, and I think things begin to look up.
Yours, TDP, ml, msl, &pfpp
And if you had bothered to read the previous posts, you would note that this argument was already debunked by the fact that the explosion in spending occurred when we had a Democrat-controlled Senate (which was already the least fiscally conservative House of Congress). Turning over the more fiscally conservative House to Democrats would only exacerbate this problem.
If Bill Clinton gets the credit for the good things that happened during his tenure, then there is no reason for Bush and the Congressional leadership not to get credit for the foregoing statistics.
Promises of more ethical behavior from Ried &Co. are laughable. Now a promise from the New York Times not to investigate or report unethical behavior from Democrats, that I can believe.
The DOW's growth, indexed to inflation, has been negative for the whole of Bush's term.
GDP growth has been high, but wages have stagnated or fell relative to inflation, even as hours worked has increased.
My understanding is that total worker compensation has risen markedly, but the rise has all been in benefits (read: health insurance) and not in wages.
Of course, that raises a completely different discussion.
Medis replied to that point (about what happened when the Democrats controlled the Senate) at the end of the post from which you quoted. You might not be satisfied with that reply, but it seems to me you cannot fairly accuse Medis of failing to read the arguments that you have made.
By the way, my own two cents is that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives hasn't been fiscally conservative ever since a Republican became President. But maybe the House Republicans would in fact return to their fiscally conservative ways if they were considering spending bills initiated by Democrats and approved by Democrat-controlled committees. In contrast, I think the episode in which the Democrats controlled the Senate just shows that the Democrats were not, at least at the time, much use when it came to opposing spending bills initiated by Republicans. But again, this time the situation would be reversed (it would, hopefully, be Republicans opposing Democrat's spending bills, not the other way around).
I have to stop being surprised by his intellectual dishonesty. He can take solace in at least one thing: the russians kicked out those horrible groups, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, from Chechnya yesterday!
If its so dangerous living in the US under Bush then why dont you go to a country where their constitution isnt trampled on? Why dont you leave if things are so bad?
you talk about abuse of the constitution, prove it? what about the abuse by Clintion and his staff? what were the classified national security files that Sandy berger destroyed? liberals are perfect at covering up and manipulating the truth.
Clinton has ruined this country and now all of us will have to pay for his 8 yrs of mistakes and dereliction of duty. Clinton's legacy is in the sewer and he and the democrats are helping to bring down the rest of the country.
I will not reward them by not voting republican.
I agree with the premise of DB's post--that the Republicans deserve a spanking by the electorate-- even if not his historical revisionisms and reasons. I also agree that the Republicans became more obessessed with retaining power than in reforming the government, a few years after they attained power (not immediately, but later). The examples of this concern with power, rather than ethics and reform, are legion--e.g., Hastert removing the chair of the house ethics committee because he was too independent, changing the House rules regarding whether a felony indictment disqualifies someone from a leadership position. Many of these problems, I would attribute to Tom Delay, and Hastert's decision to go along with Delay on these matters. I think this power corrupted them, pure and simple. Hastert should go, regardless of the outcome of this election. By the way, it wouldn't be the first time that a party in power was corrupted by it. Nor do I think that corruption is a partisan issue--rather it affects all who have unchecked power.
I do disagree with Prof. Bernstein on the effects of the government shutdown in 1996. The lesson Gingrich drew from this was that some of the more radical ideas in the Republican agenda focused on shrinking the size of US government in a multitude of areas, were not that popular. Most citizens like the national parks system, Social Security, and Medicare. When the government stopped providing them, they were upset and blamed the party that was seen as advocating for their curtailment.
As for the future, I am looking forward to a few years of stalemate. I think our government has hurt, not helped, our current situation by some of the recent legislative it has passed, so I am looking forward to very little getting accomplished in Congress.
It's known as the Laffer curve; argue with Art Laffer and argue with the historical record that supports the Laffer curve. Too, your foray avoids an item known as the rise in GDP over the years. Finally, declaring or labeling something "rational" does not, perforce, make it rational. Rational is as rational does. Asserting something, then labeling it "rational," does not make it rational; indeed, any person who falsely applies the label is, perforce, delusional.
This phenonmenon however is much worse, much more systemic, in Europe.
Dick Armey, former House Majority leader and lifelong Repubican, apparently, agrees. Here is what he is quoted as saying in the NY Times today:
“Economic conservatives,” he argued, were emerging as the swing voters in need of attention, in part because they had become more likely to vote Democratic in the years since President Bill Clinton was in office. “A lot of people believe he brought us from deficits to surpluses, and there is a certain empirical evidence there,” Mr. Armey acknowledged.
The question now is where are we on Mr. Laffer's curve: i.e, will further tax cuts (without spending cuts) merely increase the deficit, or reduce it?
The Laffer curve does not imply that tax rate cuts will always increase revenue. That is true only if you are on the "right side" of the Laffer curve. If you are instead on the "left side" of the Laffer curve, the only implication of this theory is that a tax rate cut will not lead to a directly proportional reduction in tax revenues (e.g., a 10% cut in rates may lead to only an 8% revenue cut, as opposed to a 10% revenue cut).
And, of course, it is important to compare revenues at the same point in time. So, for example, if you are considering two possible tax rates, T1 (the current rate) and T2 (an alternative rate), and you want to compare the revenue effects of each, you shouldn't compare the actual revenue under T1 now to some future expected revenue under T2 at some later point. Rather, you should compare the future expected revenue under T2 to the future expected revenue under T1 at the same later point.
This may seem obvious, but I see people violate this simple rule all the time. For example, they will look at revenues under one tax rate right before a change, and then compare them with revenues at some later point after the change. That, of course, is the wrong comparison, because of course revenues would not necessarily have stayed the same during that period without a tax rate change. Rather, one has to project what revenues would have been without the change, and then make the comparison.
This, of course, cuts both ways. In other words, tax revenues have gone up in absolute terms both after tax rate cuts and after tax rate raises. But that is simply a product of the fact that over time, the tax base usually grows regardless of how tax rates are changing.
It's an economic model and while its record can be debated, given all the factors which enter into assessing the economy, fiscal policy, etc., it can in fact be supported via the historical record. The most recent instance of the Laffer curve in effect is the instance we are currently experiencing. Agreed, where it "takes effect," where it's optimal, etc., are all questions which have no absolute or definitive answer.
I have long since resigned myself to the fact that my taxes will have to go up in order to pay for the future entitlements of the baby boomers. And unfortunately, those entitlements have been increased by the Republicans. My only hope is that once Democrats are proposing entitlement increases, the Republicans will start opposing them again.
Michael B,
What would tax revenues have been today if not for the Bush tax cuts?
And extending them will require a greater amount of tax increases in years beyond 2016 (as there are financing costs). There is no free lunch. Cut spending, or pay for it. If you aren't willing to pay for it now through higher taxes, then you're just giving the bill to your kids.
If not for the Bush tax cuts I believe, in line with Laffer, revenues would have been far less. But yet again, I'm aware it's informed by the model, by a level of belief, though also by the corresponding historical record, the empirical evidence. The OMB's account. Also, as noted above, these recent tax cuts have in fact been progressive cuts, it's largely been corporate tax revenues which have been spurred.
Can you point to where the OMB says revenue would have been less at this time if not for the tax cuts? Note that claiming the tax cuts stimulated some additional economic growth is not sufficient. Indeed, that is consistent with the hypothetical I gave (a 10% cut in rates leading to only an 8% cut in revenues).
Rather, the claim would have to be that the lower tax rates applied to the supposedly higher tax base actually netted more revenue than would have the higher tax rates applied to the supposedly lower tax base. So, that is the sort of claim you are looking for.
Incidentally, I don't mean to hound you. But I do want to make sure you are not making the common mistake I identified (comparing tax revenues now to tax revenues in the past, as opposed to comparing tax revenues now to what they would have been in the present without the tax cut).
By the way, you might find the CBO's 2005 publication "Analyzing the Economic and Budgetary Effects of a 10 Percent Cut in Income Tax Rates" interesting.
OMB still works in the static revenue analysis world where every tax rate cut generates a dollar-for-dollar reduction in tax revenues.
I believe that Democrats would vote for increases in tax rates even if you could empirically show that the revenues generated by those rates would be lower than revenues generated at a lower rate. For some reason it physically pains them to allow people to keep 2/3rds of the money they make.
Do you really believe that? I sincerely hope that's hyperbole on your part.
Please read my prior comment. Again, I'm supporting my belief with a combination of the empirical evidence (the historical record) and the economic model represented in Laffer. I'm not claiming absolute knowledge. Are you claiming absolute, albeit contrary, knowledge? Or are you acknowledging the belief/assumption factor in your own reasoning. I'm aware of the debate and I don't wish to quibble or engage in a tit-for-tat type of debate, I'll leave that to the real economists.
In terms of the CBO's projections, see an earlier comment immediately upthread. Projections, whether by the OMB, the CBO or some other group are, in the end, projections only, to be taken with a grain of salt. In the end it's not projections which count, it's the actuals, the empirical evidence, the real world results - and that's what we have recently experiecned which, despite Katrina and despite Afghanistan and Iraq, etc., the deficit is now down to $250b when it previously had been projected to be much more.
That raises a slightly more subtle problem. One not only has to compare revenues at the same time, but also use estimated revenues calculated at the same time. So, for example, predicting economic growth is always an uncertain project, and most government offices err on the side of caution. As a result, estimates of future revenues tend to end up below actual revenues.
Anyway, because we gain new information over time, one has to compare revenues now not with what people in the past estimated revenues would be by now, but rather with what people would estimate revenues would have been by now under a different tax rate in light of what we now know.
Incidentally, all of this probably sounds quite complicated, but it is an inherent problem: these questions require one to answer counterfactual hypotheticals (e.g., what would revenues have been today if not for some past even that did in fact occur?), and such answers are going to be no better than our economic models will allow.
I'm actually just trying to help clarify this discussion, not propose a particular thesis.
On the theoretical side, I think it is important to note that the Laffer curve does not imply that tax cuts always increase tax revenues. Rather, it all depends on where we fall on the Laffer curve.
On the empirical side, I think it is important to keep in mind that when making revenue comparisons, we have to do so for the same time and given the same information.
As an aside, I will note that to my knowledge, most economists believe that given current tax rates, we are well onto the "left side" of the Laffer curve. Further, I believe that most economists believe as an empirical matters, the Bush tax cuts may have stimulated economic growth, but nonetheless did reduce revenues. But I am not trying to advocate those positions, and indeed I am not an economist and so would not be qualified to do so. Rather, I am just trying to make sure we all have our theories and terms straight.
Also, conservatives like to talk about the "2003 tax cuts" as if the big tax cuts all came in 2003. That's hardly the case. What happened in 2003 was the bottoming out of the recession - and that's ALL that is being measured by that invocation.
Oddly enough, while Democrats have historically supported high marginal tax rates, in practice, these rates are largely mitigated by a variety of incentives that encourage particular "good things" (such as tax credits for alternative energy programs). In practice, they create opportunities for very wealthy people (the ones with net worths above $10 million) to pay little or no income tax. Why do you think that America's wealthiest people (such as George Soros and Peter Lewis) overwhelmingly provide so much funding the Democratic Party?
Over the years, I've worked with perhaps 30 people who are now multimillionaires and above. One of them was a moderate Republican. A couple were Greens. (There's nothing quite as funny as listening to someone pontificate about how brilliant Noam Chomsky is, and the then tell you about wrecking his Ferrari on a race track over the weekend.) The rest were overwhelmingly Democrats, and heavy contributors.
Clayton, it sounds like your Democrat friends are more savvy financially than your Republican friends; perhaps you could learn something from them ;-0
People (at least those who are being honest) are usually pretty helpful when it comes to describing what they themselves believe.
People can be somewhat helpful when describing the beliefs of people with whom they agree, although one must be cautious in such cases.
Finally, people tend to be rather unhelpful when describing the beliefs of people with whom they disagree. I find that it is almost always impossible for people to do so neutrally (and I include myself).
I find these rules of thumb help me cut through an awful lot of noise on the internet--basically, absent unusual circumstances, I tend to just ignore people who claim to be describing the beliefs of those with whom they disagree.
In simple terms, the "Laffer curve" says that if taxes were 0% or 100%, the government would collect no revenue, yet tax rates in between the extremes do collect revenue. Therefore, there must be (at least) one point where raising the tax rate reduces the tax receipts.
It says nothing about where that point is, only that such a point must exist.
But cut to the chase and be out with it yourself. Why are you exempting yourself from your own request, your own repeated query? What is your conception? Has anything I've indicated to this point contradicted your conception? To what extent does your conception, in your opinion, correspond with the economic realities, the historical record, etc.? Again, cut to the chase, be out with it. Require of yourself what you presume to repeatedly require of others.
As Chumund also noted, most economists who have run econometric analyses believe that we are on the left hand side of that curve.
I am sorry if you took offense at my question, but given your posts I could not tell whether you believe (a) that there is empirical evidence that contradicts the many economists who believe we are on the left side of the curve, and that we are in fact on the right hand side of the curve, or (b) the bastardization of the Laffer curve promulgated by some, which is that a cut in tax rates always results in increase revenue.
Revenues:
2000: 2025.5
2001: 1991.4
2002: 1853.4
2003: 1782.5
2004: 1880.3
2005: 2153.9
Since 1946, there has not been anything even remotely like this 4 year decline in federal revenue. It cannot be attributed to the recent recession since that recession was extraordinarily shallow and short (began March 2001 and ended in November 2001).
Fine rules. I'll remember them, and hope they help ease my exasperation with the rising tide of radical hyperpartisanship that's been setting my eyes a-rolling lately.
"Bush also inherited a recession that started ten months before he took office."
Truth in Advertising said:
"So what? Did he cut spending to offset declines in revenue? That would have been the logical course of action to avoid deficit spending."
And a logical way to turn a shallow and short recession (Per Angus) into a major recession.
Truth in Advertising flunks macroeconomics.
I completely agree with you on U.S. Term Limits. Justice Thomas's dissent in that case is probably my favorite opinion by one or more members of the Court in my adult life. Too bad it wasn't a majority opinion.
No offense taken, only frustration. If you had two questions - your (a) and (b) - simply ask them. I've essentially already answered (b), but no I don't believe reducing taxes, progressively or otherwise, will always result in more revenue, it strikes me that that would be a silly opinion.
As to (a), being on the right or left side of the curve, I have no absolute or very studied opinion; in this thread I simply noted that actuals (for the budget deficit), for 2006, have now been reported to be $250b when previously they had been projected, variously, to be vastly higher; and the fact is this coincided with the tax cuts taking effect. Whether purely causal or purely unrelated or somewhere in between (I suspect the latter but more causal than not), I leave for others to debate and perhaps I'll be influenced in one direction or the other. Still and again, the OMB, in it's review of the President's 2007 budget, provides some reflections on past performance which appear to be indicative, a brief snippet, emphases added:
"... dramatic increases in household wealth. U.S. equity markets have added more than three trillion dollars in value, and the net worth of Americans has risen by 28 percent since early 2001."
I presume you're referring to government projections. In that case, I would wonder why a government controlled by Republicans would fail to take account of potential Laffer Curve effects. I would also note that government projections of this kind are inherently suspect because they are politicized; politicians always want to be able to say they beat the projections, so the incentive is to overestimate deficits and underestimate revenue. It would be much better to rely on projected budget numbers from a third party like Brookings or RAND Corp. that at least tries to be objective. In any case the weight of econometric opinion is that we are well off on the left of the Laffer Curve and have been since the beginning of the Reagan administration.
Yes, I am partisan in my politics when a political party, that supports most of what I believe in, is not treated fairly by the opposing party, as well as by the media. And you are not partisan Mr. Cooke? I would support the Republican Party any day of the week compared to the Democrats.
You mention the supposed corruption by Hastert but you ignore the stealing and destruction of constitutional and congressional power perpetrated by so many Democrats.
Yes, I do not expect to convince those who hold the opposite partisan political viewpoint. My whole reason for dialoging with Justin and you is to point out how Liberals are not open to showing why we are where we are today in American politics. And if you are a Conservative who is against the Republicans in this election, than you are no Conservative that I want to know.
The mess of American politics is because of 8 yrs of the Clinton Travesty of holding the highest US Government office that an individual can hold, and letting the country go to ruin. It’s because of Ted Kennedy’s support and promotion of the open ended Immigration act of 1965. It is also because of the support, by both Clinton and Kennedy, for a limp and impotent foreign policy of appeasement, begun by Jimmy Carter in 1979. I can’t wait for N. Korea to once more prove how terrific Carter and Clinton’s political legacy will be. I just can’t wait.
The Liberal side seems to say it’s against corruption but they don’t enforce what they preach. At least Republicans do.
Clinton's henchman, Sandy Berger, destroyed top secret, classified national security documents. The Liberals and the Liberal media do not say a word. Including you Mr. Cooke. Why? Why don’t any of you investigate it? You are all act like accessories to his crime because you all choose to cover it up, and let the crime go uninvestigated and unreported to the general public.
The Liberal side makes accusations of corruption but doesn’t back them up with facts. You mention Hastert’s "corruption" but what is it really? I know that Berger committed a crime. Nobody seems to be charging Hastert with what you’re saying. And this Foley case is ludicrous. At least with the Republicans, they deal with the guilty parties. The Republicans tell their corrupt officials to resign or go to jail, but the Liberals tell them to stay in office, and even applaud them when caught doing something wrong. The Liberals’ standards are to have NO standards.
Unfortunately, the Liberals allow Liberal and Democratic congressmen to keep illegal