Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both ran on a platform of reducing the size and scope of government, yet federal spending — including social welfare spending — grew substantially during their presidencies. Cognizant of those historical examples, some political observers scoff at the notion that a Republican Presidential victory in 2012 will change very much of anything. Washington will still be business-as-usual Washington, the argument runs, no matter who is in the White House.
Commentators in the new issue of Washington Monthly (on newstands today) argue forcefully that this jaded view is profoundly misguided. Harold Pollack, Norm Ornstein and Jonathan Bernstein are among the many luminaries of wonkdom who provide perspective on “What if Obama loses?”. A key theme running through the essays is that past performance in this case definitely does not predict future performance: Because the Republican Party is different, the Congress is different and the country is different and the changes that would follow a Republican takeover of the White House would be far more dramatic than in prior eras.
It’s a great read — check it out.
Why shouldn’t federal spending drop? We’re still at “stimulus” levels of spending. “Stimulus”, by definition, is supposed to be temporary. It would take about a 20% cut in federal spending just to get back to non-stimulus levels, before even touching the baseline.
Only if the stimulus has been €820 bn annually, and not as it was $820 billion over 10 years. The package was heavily front-loaded, so the current impact is declining. Suppose it’ €100bn for 2012. That makes around 3% of the 2012 budget of $3.5 - $3.6 trn. Has anybody gor a more solid number?
The stimulus is a bit player in the overall deficit issue, compared to Bush’s wars and tax cuts and the future of Medicare.
If the GOP wins the Presidency in 2012 (which would include the House and the Senate),
there is no way in h*ll that they won’t go on an orgy of spending and corruption which would make the Bush II administration look restrained.
Remember, at that point they will have trashed and looted the country with the Bush administration, then blocked the incoming Democrats with a surprising amount of success, ***due to the fact that they trashed the place**.
At that point, the strategy of ‘loot, trash, dump on the Democrats’ will have been proven to work.
Why would they *not* repeat it?
Hayekian modesty, perhaps? The thought of a GOP sweep is the one thing that makes me give even half an ear to Ron Paul’s warnings about how the border fence with Mexico might be used to keep us all in the newly minted right-wing hell-hole that the GOP seeks to create.
Although they’ve promised to cut medicare, medicaid and other social spending, the republicans have also promised to “rebuild” defense, which would mean at least a couple of hundred billion dollars more a year there. Albeit without active wars to deplete materiel and bring in “contractors” I’m not entirely sure what’s entrenching-tool-ready that you could spend that kind of money on.
The “it won’t make a difference” argument comes in two forms. The one offered here is the budgetary argument. Republicans run large deficits, so it won’t matter if we elect a Republican - won’t matter to the budget. The other form is the Ralph Nader argument - Democrats are in the pocket of our financial overlords, just like Republicans, so it won’t matter if Al Gore loses - not just for the budget.
The first argument is wrong because it assumes the behavior of Democrats, while observing the behavior of Republicans. Democrats have been far more fiscally responsible, when in control, than Republicans, at least since Carter. That may be the result of a successful Straussian effort on the part of Republicans to saddle Democrats with the baggage of fiscal irresponsibility. The first argument is also wrong because it isn’t the second argument, ignoring everything but the budget.
The second argument is wrong because it ignores everything but subservience to corporate masters. Does anybody think Al Gore would have gone to war with Iraq in preference to taking care of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, would have made unaffordable giant tax give-aways to the rich and offered an unfunded Medicare drug program? Would we have mercury regulation now if McCain were president?
The goal of the Republican Party under Bush was to convert the US into a one-party state in which the Republicans would take control of the civil and criminal law bureaucracy in order to assure continued control of government for the indefinite future and used the government to pour money into the hands of private-sector allies, both corporate and “faith-based”, who would then divert a fraction of the money back to the party so that it could maintain power and enrich its leaders. (The model here is Mexico for the 70 years after the Revolution - a rotating presidency, handed off from one corrupt leader to the next, while the PRI maintained iron control over all aspects of the state.)
It came very close to succeeded. If one more Republican had been elected to the Senate in 2004 (thus assuring control of both houses of Congress in Bush’s second term), they would have succeeded. But because they could not hold the Senate it was possible for Democrats using the subpoena power to expose the US Attorney scandal, the use of political loyalty requirements for employment in the Justice Department, the warrentless surveillance program, and similar travesties, and the Republicans had to tread more carefully in their efforts to criminalize political opposition.
They haven’t given up. They view Obama as a bump in the road, no more. Now, with Citizens United, they are in a position to buy the next election and to put the plan back into action. And Obama has done nothing to reform the institutional changes of the Bush years that will make it possible - in fact, by opposing efforts to restore civil liberties protections, he’s paved the way for the Republicans to get themselves back on track.
Once Obama is out and Republicans hold both houses of Congress,we will see a swift change in our system of government to one-party rule and an economy dominated by crony capitalism. And when Justice Ginsberg dies or retires, which can’t be more than a few years off, we will have a solid 5-member majority on the Supreme Court of honest-to-God fascists and an authoritarian fellow traveler, so the courts will be no bulwark against the totalitarisan state.
I think you have to explain inter alia why the Obama DOJ is fighting the GOP’s recent attempts at voter disenfranchisement if you wish to seriously pursue the idea that Obama is just a crypto-Republican, which is where you seem to be heading.
Not unimportant, but just a sideshow. That’s all. Besides, this crap has been ongoing since before Obama was elected and could have been handled by a Second Assistant Undersecretary beginning on January 21, 2009. As for the “inter alia,” I’m all ears. What other things? Recess appointments that could have been made long ago, perhaps? Obama’s realization that he just might have a backbone? An “oops” regarding the insult of his erstwhile supporters who are “f*cking retarded” according the fine language of the current mayor of Chicago? A “signing statement” to go along with the NDAA? Big whoop there! In any case, there is very little cryptic in Obama’s Republicanism. It’s just that his is of the Eisenhower/Rockefeller/(even)Taft variety. And that political perspective has about as much relevance as the UHF and VHF dials on the dusty Philco television set in the back of the long out-of-business junk store down the street.
Anyway, just finished Thomas Frank’s latest. Highly recommended. Those pitiable billionaires need our solicitude now more than ever! Oh, the humanity!
“…so the courts will be no bulwark against the totalitarisan state.”
And the baseline would now, which is already more authoritarian than in 2000.
As if the total amount spent means anything at all to anyone. Replacing money spent on medical care of underprivileged Americans with money spent bombing Third World countries is a big deal, even if the total amount expended is the same. What kind of moron argues differently? Am I claiming that Democratic presidents do not bomb Third World Countries? No, but there’s a level of bad faith, imo, in saying that there’s no difference between the parties on this.
I may have mentioned before my National Security heuristic: anyone who believed after 1978 or their 22d birthday, whichever was later, that there was any non-trivial danger of a Soviet invasion of NATO has shown an inability to exercise even the simplest judgment, and should be ignored (or resisted) on all National Security topics. On the domestic side, I’m prepared to announce a new test: anyone who cannot tell that there is a difference between E. Kagan and C. Thomas may simply be ignored. Or resisted.
The way I see it is simple:
o the slope of our decline is downward.
o Dems make the slope more shallow.
o GOP makes the slope steeper.
Discuss.
Dems hampered by Republican obstructionism make the slope more shallow.