This comment just showed up in my post on media double standards on the DHS thing, and it makes a very common error among the left.
Amazing – Republicans are outraged when the DHS, a monster of their own creation, turns against them.
Two points. First, I am not now, and have never been, a Republican. The people who are outraged are not “Republicans” but rather, small-government types and veterans, the two groups that were slandered. It may be that many of them happen to be Republicans (and certainly many more than are Democrats), but this is not about Republicans.
The second point is that I was never in favor of a Department of Homeland Security, so the notion that I’m somehow hoist on my own petard here is hilariously ignorant.
Moreover, I was opposed to many things that the Bush administration did, and continue to be. That doesn’t mean, though, that I was going to vote for the Democrats, because on most of the issues on which I disagreed with the Bush administration, the Dems would have been even worse. And that’s what the tea parties are about. They’re not Republican rallies, because many of those attending them are as angry at Republicans as they are at Democrats. They are an expression of anger at the political class as a whole.
And for those who whine about the lack of tea parties over the Bush deficits, sometimes quantity has a quality all its own. There’s a concept called a tipping point. There was anger over the Bush spending (anger that I expressed myself, often), but it only became incandescent when it became so outrageous, with a projected budget that generates more deficit and debt in a few months than the Bush administration had generated in almost eight years. This anger didn’t start when President Obama took office, though he has certainly increased it. It started last fall, when the Bush administration started handing out taxpayer money by the hundreds of billions with no oversight or accountability.
No, I’m not a Republican. But the Republicans have a chance to finally make me one, if they can listen to the tea partiers today, and recognize the error of their ways. I won’t hold my breath, though, based on a lifetime of experience.
This “tipping point” is terribly convenient for people who don’t mind tax breaks for the wealthy and huge defense spending, but don’t approve of using tax dollars to improve the lot of average citizens. Let me know when tea parties start calling for cuts in the DOD budget, or in college lending subsidies, or subsidies for finding and using fossil fuels.
Why would you want to know when the tea parties start calling for the reduction of the useful parts of government spending?
Sarcasm aside, the stimulus bill doesn’t help the poor. That’s all rhetoric. Even if you believe a Keynesian stimulus will help, those have very particular characteristics such as 1. a promise of short-term spending increases, 2. long-term tax cuts, and 3. spending on low-skill work. The stimulus bill didn’t do any of those things, so it’s a little difficult to get indignant about how Obama’s deficits are somehow better in quality than Bush’s.
I think that the funding of universities is not a useful expenditure of public moneys.
at least not in the way that I think that Jim means it, with special needs scholarships and subsidized loans.
Offering write-off’s and start up money, should be fine, but the subsidies are actually making schools more expensive, not less.
I wasn’t even in favor of the Office of Homeland Security. I thought the matter could be handled by an adaptation of the National Security Council principle, if not merely a restructuring of the NSC itself.
Wasn’t it the Dems who wanted the consolidation of various agencies and departments, and Bush acquiesced because it they were threatening to block things more important to him if they didn’t get it? He cut a political deal because, as Rahm Emmanuel pointed out, it’s Dem policy to never let a crisis go to waste.
And for those who whine about the lack of tea parties over the Bush deficits, sometimes quantity has a quality all its own.
Bush’s so-called deficits were actually getting smaller until the Dems took over in ‘006. (The Dems campaigned and won on that, along with reducing corruption. Hah!) So why should people be getting equally mad at the Stupid Party? The voters already punished them by replacing them. And the Dems took that as a sign to continue their usual corruption and increase to the debt. That’s what’s got people annoyed.
for cuts in the DOD budget, … , or subsidies for finding and using fossil fuels.
Those on the Left have been campaigning against these since Carter, and every time they are in a position to do something about them, they don’t. Your side won, what’s going to be their excuse this time?
Raoul: There were Dems in favor of DHS (Joe Lieberman in particular), but the GOP used it as a political club against Dems who opposed it (e.g. Max Cleland).
Bush’s so-called deficits
You mean they weren’t really deficits? What would you call them?
what’s going to be their excuse this time?
Maybe the fact that they will be busy cleaning up a wrecked economy, and taking long-postponed action on health care reform, climate change, energy independence, and education. I.e. exactly what they promised before they were elected. The tea parties are protesting taxation with representation because they don’t like how the majority voted.
Jonathan Card:
the stimulus bill doesn’t help the poor
Because they don’t use food stamps? Or Medicaid? Or extended unemployment benefits? They don’t need help winterizing their homes? They’ll find it easier to find work if more companies are laying people off?
I’ve heard crazy arguments against the ARRA, but I think this one wins the prize.
Your priorities are a grievance list, not a way to maintain sovereignty.
Screw the DoD, but generate outrageous, entitlements, based on regressive taxes?
Yay, poor people! all of the “fee’s” those are Fee’s not taxes! that you are paying, change your standard of living for the Better, not the worse, and if you don’t get, please just shut up and do what your local organizer tells you.
Just to clarify – Rand, I knew (I didn’t state that you were explicitly, but I may have implied it) that you weren’t a Republican. I was more responding to the general outrage among a lot of Republican bloggers about this report, and just chose to do it on your site since you brought my attention to it. The point I was trying to make was that “unintentional consequences” does not only apply to economic programs. I suspect you would find my point of view to be quite similar to yours.
Jim:
Are you clueless, or just a sophist? The Bush deficits were quite in line with the deficits of the last 50 years, in terms of percentage of GDP. 1-3% of GDP is simply not destructive. The Obama deficits are crazily inflated, something like 12% of GDP — unprecedented in peacetime — even if you believe the economy will resume growing with this burden. Go look at the profile of deficits at the Heritage Foundation or the CBO.
Comparing Bush’s deficits to Obama’s: it like surfing in a 15 knot wind vs surfing in a 120 knot wind.
BBB
one can describe rand as a fellow traveler of the republicans
or perhaps udeful idiot to the GOP
BBB
deficits when the baby boom is aging is a bad idea.
the country needed to pay off debt nt increase it
one can describe rand
One can describe “jack lee” as an illiterate moronic troll.
Jack, you realize if you keep this up, you are going to get the banhammer!?!
jack lee strikes me as a poor man’s Elifritz. And that is abject poverty indeed.
jack lee ejaculated:
deficits when the baby boom is aging is a bad idea.
the country needed to pay off debt nt increase it
“Pay off debt” = tax capital away from highly productive uses in order to pay down low-interest debt. This is the fallacy followed by Rudman, Clinton and all the debt-reduction anti-supply-side Republicans. The smart alternative is to cut tax rates and financial regulations in order to free capital, which will lead to higher productivity and greater wealth, and the debt will get paid off too.
It makes no sense to tax capital away from businesses that can generate a 10-100% marginal return, in order to pay down 4% bonds.
bbeard: The “Bush deficits” include most of the 2009 deficit. Obama’s impact on that deficit is minimal, and much of that impact is tax cuts. The tax burden on average citizens is near a 30 year low, and yet that doesn’t stop the gullible from holding tax protests.
Jonathan: Why don’t we get rid of all taxes and just borrow the entire federal budget? After all, we can borrow for 4% and the private sector will go crazy with all that extra capital, right? Our grandchildren will be so rich they won’t mind paying off the national mortgage. Btw, I’d love to invest in that business with the 100% ROI!
The funny thing is, I think there is a bit of truth in your argument. We will get a better return borrowing for the ARRA projects than we would just waiting for the recession to end. But that’s just because we’re looking at a huge output gap; in normal times (e.g. the mid-2000s) the government should avoid piling up huge debts.
I think I understand why they keep calling Rand a republican. It’s part of the everybody that isn’t us is the enemy that must be destroyed mentality. You are the enemy Rand because of the clarity of your thoughts, you see through the lies and are able to clearly communicate… so you are the enemy. Republican is the main label for the enemy. Ergo, you are republican in there eyes. The fact that you oppose many republican positions and call them out on them is immaterial. You are the enemy and that’s that.
Rand, you’re too kind. He’s two of the seven words you can’t say on television.
Jim, your just not going to convince anybody that Obama’s deficits are justified in anyway compared to whatever Bush happened to do. You always keep forgetting to add the asterisks to the scary quoted “Bush’s Deficits”:
*Obama managed to outspend Bush in 90 days what took the former President 8 years.
You wanna know what a tipping is? That is your 800 lbs. gorilla staring you in the face.
As far as the DHS goes I too thought it was a bad idea then and still do now. Mission creep always settles into a bureaucratic body. In this case it appears to have been assigned the new role of tagging political dissenters.
one can describe rand as a fellow traveler of the republicans
or perhaps udeful idiot to the GOP
One can also describe him as a dancing cabbage, with equal accuracy.
Every time someone responds to criticisms of Obama’s massive debts and taxes and interference in the economy by accusing the critic of hypocrisy, they are essentially admitting the validity of the criticism. Thanks, liberals.
Josh Reiter:
*Obama managed to outspend Bush in 90 days what took the former President 8 years.
Check your calculator. Obama has signed two spending bills, ARRA and the omnibus spending bill left over from the last Congress (S/CHIP is paid for by cigarette taxes). Together they amount to $950B in spending (and the omnibus bill was expected, it wasn’t new spending). Bush increased the national debt by $5 trillion.
“No, I’m not a Republican. But the Republicans have a chance to finally make me one, if they can listen to the tea partiers today, and recognize the error of their ways.”
So what are the errors of the Republicans in Congress?
Being too much like the Democrats.
cute, but, spell it out.
which bills bother you? What levels of spending?
what kind of actions, in specific shouldn’t have been done?
What the hell do you care about my specifics? Who the @#$!! are you?
If you don’t like congresspeople for having done
things, you need to say what they are.
here, I’ll handwalk you.
1) Should the GOP have voted for the TARP in 2008?
2) Should the GOP have voted for any of the Bush Budgets
between 2001 and 2008?
3) Should the GOP have voted for any of the appropriations bills in 2001-2008?
4) Should the GOP have voted for the Bush Tax changes in 2001, 2003 or 2005?
5) Should the GOP have voted for the Bush Social Security privatization Proposal in 2005?
6) Should the GOP have voted for the Commodities future modernization act, the Gramm-leach-bliley banking act or the 2003 federal banking act?
7) Should the GOP have voted for the 2005 Fannie Mae Reform bill HR 1461?
is that helpful?
Jack, you *are* aware that those “Bush Budgets” you decry are Constitutionally the responsibility of the House, right?
If we want to fix this mess, I’m afraid we’re probably going to have to start running ourselves, and defeating the Statists at the lower levels first.
“That which governs best, governs least.” – T. Paine
nevertheless,
The 1974 budget and Impoundment Control Act requires
that the President through OMB submit a proposed budget,
and that the House Budget Committee then votes on it.
The 1974 act starts the process in the executive but then votes the resolution in the house.
Besides, i’m curious about McGehee’s specifics.
He says he didn’t want Republicans behaving like Democrats, so, please state what and where.
you’re misrepresenting the Act.
The House doesn’t vote on the Executive’s proposed budget, they make their own. The Executive budget is merely a plea to the House to “please take these into consideration when you formulate the budget”.
The House gives it about as much consideration as a Xmas wish list I gave to my parents when I was a kid; They looked at the pet elephant, spaceship, laser gun, and suit of armor on my list, smiled, and bought me socks and Legos (I was of course happy with the Legos).
Jack Lee seems to think that the fact that the Bush era budgets were bad implies that Dems are good.
The problem with that “thought” is that the Dem alternatives in those years were worse.
Yes, the GOP tried to out-pork the Dems. Obama and company are showing that the worst that the Repubs could do isn’t as bad as what the Dems can do without breaking a sweat.
Jack Lee must be so proud.
Andy
Specifics please.
What should the GOP have been doing in 2000-2006?