Redstate

What is your alternative, Thorley? To whine and complain from the sidelines also?

Is to start holding elected Republicans accountable (something we should have been doing for the last six years) and to no longer let them get away with the same tired “well the Democrats are worse” lines which is what cost us our majority in the first place.

The fact is that the 2006 vote was a vote against Republicans because of the way that it was perceived they acted while they controlled government. A lot of people voted not so much for Democrats but for “divided government” thinking that both our parties were corrupt and that at least this way there would be gridlock and we would cancel each other out.

If the good Congressman – much like the unlamented Tom Delay – doesn’t realize it and thinks that all he needs to do is come here and “Democrats are for ‘big government’” when the behavior of his own party shows that so do they, then all he is doing is prolonging our time in the political wilderness.

The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts

But it is hypocritical for congressmen to come here whining about the explosion of government spending when that exactly what happened before. At least the Democrats tell you thats what they plan to do.

If our elected Republicans don’t realize it and think that they can drag out the same tired “tax and spend” or “big government” epitaphs against Democrats under the mistaken assumption that Torchwood has doped us all with six years worth of amnesia pills, they’ve got another think coming. It is precisely this sort of arrogance that cost them the majority in the first place.

For better or for worse, "big government" was not what sunk the GOP. It was Iraq that did that. I still see no sign that there is any desire on the part of the American people for smaller government. If you see such signs please point them out.

The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts

. . . that Republicans should not complain about the way the Democrats are running Congress until after the Republicans have retaken control and this time proved they can run it properly?

Well, I see that such a strategy would help avoid the hypocrisy charge, and I only see two weaknesses in it:

1. It seems unlikely that the GOP will take control again without, at least occasionally, suggesting that the Democrats are doing a bad job.

2. Even if this were to come about, it might be a little late to begin complaining about the (by then) ex-majority. People might expect at that time some actual policies from the new majority.

Aside from that, great analysis. Really helpful. Not.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

It goes without saying that most of us will oppose most of what they offer legislatively because there is a fundamental difference between the bases of the two parties. The problem is that complaining alone doesn’t do the job (it took six years of Republican excesses for it to work for the Democrats) and you have to offer an alternative.

Moreover after six years of watching Republicans break the bank on spending, a lot of us in the base (the fiscal conservative, federalist, libertarian sorts) are more than a bit skeptical that they mean it and they’re not just saying it now in the hopes of getting put back in power where they would abandon it as quickly as Speaker Pelosi threw away her “Minority Bill of Rights.”

Also for those who think I’m being a bit mean in asking why didn’t they do this while we were in the majority? Keep in that most of the people who would be part of a new GOP majority (including unfortunately a lot of the leadership) were the ones who didn’t do this the last time we had a majority and the voters we need to reach to win back a majority will be wondering if they’re just going to be returning back to “more of the same.” If elected Republicans cannot provide a satisfactory explanation to a Republican voter, how do they plan to convince the independents who actually decide elections?

I had much the same gut reaction to this and some other posts since the new Congress began which seem to ignore the many of failures of the (R)'s over the past years. Two observations:

First, in the context of this site (which exists as I understand to promote conservative concepts and republican politics), it's probably polite at some point to taper off on condemnations of past failures, even in the face of posts displaying a very selective memory or even a somewhat contradictory tone. Instead, focus on promoting and arguing for the solutions you want to see enacted. If this site is held in such high regard among (R) politicians, that's likely to catch you more ears than repeated reminders of failure.

Second,

If elected Republicans cannot provide a satisfactory explanation to a Republican voter, how do they plan to convince the independents who actually decide elections?

It's easy to talk to talk, of course. But what evidence would convince you today that (R)'s, if elected, would actually stick to what they said, manage effectively, apply sound financial discipline and good governance, and not repeat failures of the past? I'm not sure they could say or do anything (in the present) to convince you... you mention leadership, well that's done and past, their selections were made. I think rather you have to hope that they really did get the message, that the talk they talk is genuine, and in two years if they regain control, they walk their talk better than they did last time. If they dissappoint again, they can always be thrown out again. That's pretty much all the leverage we have, other than I suppose adjusting campaign contributions according to one's (dis)approval.

But again, between now and the next election it's probably more productive to spend the majority of our posts arguing for approaches we think are sound policy rather than pointing out the all to obvious past.

I agree that my initial reaction was too hot-headed to be productive and I appreciate the Congressman’s response. I hope that it didn’t detract too much from the importance of what I was trying to say nor discourage other elected officials from posting here for fear of being attacked for their efforts.

I agree that we (meaning largely me since I’m one of the most vocal on this point) need to “taper off on condemnations of past failures” as after a while it runs the risk of going from trying to make sure that our guys “get it” and starts to sound like beating a dead elephant. While I think we need to ratchet up how we hold them accountable, it isn’t also fair to expect them to begin every post with “we screwed up, please forgive us and we’ll try to do better.” We only need to look at how the Bush administration has been reluctant to “admit mistakes” on Iraq not because they’re so arrogant that they think they never make mistakes but because they’re politically savvy enough to know that all it would accomplish is provide ammunition to their political opponents. Members of Congress who are genuinely trying to fix the problem are probably operating under the same conditions and I need to be more cognizant of that in my writing.

As far as what we can do to move forward so that we don’t dwell on the mistakes of the past or repeat them (neither of which is productive), I think that encouraging them to write about what direction they want to take the country instead is a good start. My concern with the “Democrats are big government” type of posts is that I don’t want us to be in the same 6-year rut that the Kossacks were in by thinking that all they had to do was say “we’re not Republicans” rather than offering ideas of their own.

A good approach to keeping out of that rut so we can move forward as quickly as possible is to except them to give us an honest assessment of the problem. The Congressman’s later post where he talked about the problems of entitlement spending and the effects of the deficit are a good start. Talking about structural changes that would improve the process rather than just anecdotal examples of pork. I would also like it when we can address some of the meritorious objections that will be raised and how to respond honestly to them rather than just reciting talking points.

Again thank you for admonishing me and helping to get me back on track. My apologies to everyone on the site including the Congressman for the tone of my original post.

The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts

to Congressman Hensarling, he was one of a small group of conservative/libertarianish Republicans to fight the good fight in the last Congress. He fought the spending spree tooth and nail. He does have a right to complain.

Jeb Hensarling is one of the best. He can criticize anyone he wants on spending - Republicans and Democrats alike.

What you seem to be missing - and what he is pointing out - is that even "moderate" Democrats are worse than the most liberal Republicans on fiscal and economic issues.

Hi Thorely,

Thanks for responding. No, whining doesn't accomplish much. Offering alternatives and while pointing out the truth behind an agenda is important.

That is why I proposed the Family Budget Protection Act, which you can read about on my website (www.house.gov/hensarling) or below in an op-ed that I wrote last summer. Thanks again for reading.

Securing the Family Budget from an Exploding Federal Budget

For the last four decades the family budget has been under attack by the growth of the federal budget and the insatiable appetite for government spending in Washington. The problem continues to get worse. Since 1998, the amount that federal government spends per family has risen from $16,000 to $22,000 – representing the largest expansion of government since World War II. In the past six years, the national debt has increased 32% to $8.3 trillion, an all-time high.

One way or another, we pay dearly for all this government. The belief that unprecedented growth in federal spending is solely a result of the War on Terror is a misconception. In fact, since our country was viciously attacked on September 11, 2001, the majority of new government spending has been completely unrelated to the waging the global War on Terror.

Does the explosion of federal spending accomplish national priorities? The evidence suggests otherwise. For decades, Medicare spent three times as much for a wheelchair as the Veterans Administration did because the VA used competitive bidding while Medicare didn’t. During the last year of the Clinton Administration, $2 billion was spent on housing benefits for people who didn’t qualify. The federal government runs 342 different economic development programs. We spend millions to subsidize the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame museum, exchange programs for the ancestors of whalers and studies to research bi-sexual Eskimos. The list goes on and on and so does the waste, fraud, abuse and duplication of government programs that you pay for.

To combat this reckless spending pattern, I – along with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Rep. Chris Chocola (R-IN) – introduced the Family Budget Protection Act. This legislation can make history by placing binding limits on the growth of government and by ensuring that once Congress passes a budget, it will actually have to abide by it.

It has been said that a federal program is the closest thing we have to eternal life on Earth. Under our bill, every unearned entitlement and discretionary program would be “sunset” (except earned entitlements like Social Security and veterans benefits). If a program has served or outlived its purpose or is duplicated elsewhere, it is terminated. Sunsetting will reduce the federal budget and secure the family budget.

By establishing a built-in ceiling on the rate of growth of the federal government, our bill requires that a legislator offset proposed new programs (if that spending exceeds the ceiling) by reforming, modernizing, reducing or terminating another. Given that we presently have over 10,000 different federal programs spread over almost 600 different government agencies and sub-agencies, there are many programs from which to choose.

One of government’s little secrets is that the federal budget does not have the force of law and at best represents a strong “suggestion” on spending levels. Riddled with loopholes, it is often completely ignored. That is why the Family Budget Protection Act transforms the annual Congressional budget resolution into a binding and enforceable law. Our bill eliminates many budgeting gimmicks that allow big spenders in Washington to subvert spending limits. For example, in order to spend more money Congress routinely hides projects like the Census in “emergency” spending bills. Our bill ends such practices.

Furthermore, we grant the President “enhanced rescission” powers, enabling him to identify pork barrel projects in spending bills and have Congress vote separately on their merit. With this provision in place, there will be far fewer pet projects like the indoor rain forest in Iowa or the $500,000 water taxi that your tax dollars purchased in Pittsburgh.

Failure to act in the past year has come at a tremendous cost. The national debt has grown $580 billion – more than $5,200 per household. And, just last month, the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees revealed that the Social Security trust fund will be depleted in 2040, a year earlier than previous expected, while the Medicare trust fund will be empty by 2018, two years earlier than last forecast. The trustees noted that the long-term growth rates for both programs are “not sustainable under current financing arrangements.”

Reckless decisions today will force the next generation to arrive at a very bad fork in the road. One path will lead to a federal government that consists of almost nothing but Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security – no army, no Veterans Administration, no border patrol, and no airport security. The other would double taxes on our children in less than one generation.

If we simply embrace the principles of a balanced budget, reject new Democratic tax increases and embrace limited, accountable government our future is bright. It is time for Congress to set priorities, get serious about government waste and start protecting the family budget from the explosive growth of the federal budget.

This should have been the real subject of your post. Principled, non-reactionary and disciplined governance! Keep telling people about it - you may get another shot in two years to make it happen...

I appreciate that you offered an alternative to the Democrats which is something that those of us in the base have been longing for and has been sorely missing from the elected Republican leadership. You deserve credit for that and I wish that had been the main topic of the diary as there are many of us who delight in the more wonkish aspects of politics. As to your proposal:

First, I think you deserve credit for pointing out that the increase in spending we’ve seen has little to do with the War effort. A lot of us are upset with the way it has seemed that members of Congress and the administration has used the War to as an excuse for spending on things that have nothing do with either the military or homeland security. Props to you for making that very important point.

Second, I agree that the budget process is more of a “suggestion” rather than binding and agree in principle with both sun setting and granting some sort of recessionary authority to the President to make certain items have to come up for a vote. That being said I am aware that there are several legitimate objections to it (an opportunity for future diaries perhaps) which need to be addressed should you post here again. A couple that I think should be addressed are how would your proposal to grant the president recessionary authority for certain items differ from a Line Item Veto which was struck down by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York so that this would not also be struck down*? I understand how it technically differs from the LIV, but it does seem to raise the same separation of power issues that lead the SCOTUS to strike down the LIV.

Another is that by automatically sun setting government programs (again I support it in principle) federal agencies will be spending months of their two year budgets to try to find ways to justify their existence which could make the problems of inefficiency worse. I can understand the benefit that if there really are programs that just should get the axe but there will also be costs imposed on programs that we decide to keep. How do make the argument that this increased burden on programs that Congress may keep is outweighed by the savings in programs that would be eliminated. There are other objections that I’m sure would be raised and I would appreciate any answers to those. Keep in mind that we need to persuade not only members of the GOP base but we need the tools to get others on board as well.

Finally thank you for acknowledging the problem of entitlement spending. It is one of the areas of concern I have about your proposal though is that it starts by exempting “earned entitlements.” I understand the political reality that your proposal would otherwise be demagogued as “cutting Social Security and Veteran’s Benefits” but without dealing with entitlement spending overall, it seems to me that we are limiting ourselves to trying to cut a relatively small portion of the budget – unless Medicare, Medicaid, and defense spending (not an entitlement but I’m sure Republicans would be reluctant to propose cutting national defense while we’re at war) are also on the block?

IMO if we’re going to get serious about spending restraint, we need to put entitlements front and center. Unfortunately we have squandered a lot of credibility by creating Medicare Part D and Democrats may have (while it amounts to paving the way to price controls) found a way to actually propose what appears to be less spending than Republicans on the program. I’m uneasy about exempting the largest federal entitlement program particularly as the baby boom generation is just a few years away from going on Social Security and Medicare.

Again thank you for posting on this site and I apologize for my harsh tone in response to your initial post. I hope that you are able to find the time to address some of these points and look forward to reading them.

* FTR even though I think Clinton v. City of New York was wrongly decided, it was a 6-3 decision. If we cannot get over the argument that the law is probably going to be found unconstitutional, it makes the job even more difficult.

You showed class and character by sticking around to respond to a legitimate point.

How much do you know about the history of the public debt in the US? By that, I mean where it's been in comparison to our total economic output ever since we started adopting budget deficits (which goes back a long, long way).

The reason I ask is this: the debt load as a percentage of GDP has varied up and down, depending of course on things like economic health, government spending, tax rates, etc.

But to stick with your logic here, we should probably be in a chronic recession. Because it's not as if the debt's a new thing. And it's actually considerably lower than it used to be -- when compared to GDP (which is the only meaningful way to measure it...just as a $1,000,000 debt means something different to Bill Gates than it would mean to me).

The debt level has hovered around 60% of GDP ever since the early 90s. And that's about the level that it was in 1960, when tax rates started coming down. The debt level actually reached about 120% during WWII.

Japan's public debt level is about 175% of their GDP, for some more comparison.

What does any of this mean, vis a vis normal economic health? Not much, really. I think it's reasonable to suggest that there's some level at which bad consequences would result -- and we may well be heading there if we can't do something to rein in entitlement expenditures.

But if you've been scared into thinking that the US public debt, at current levels, is going to plunge us into some economic quandary, forget it. History just doesn't support that.

You mean lots of people support cheaper loans, cheaper drugs, and higher wages?!?!?

Wow. Why, I'm just flabbergasted. What does say about those of us who support more expensive loans, more expensive drugs, and lower wages?

Because that's really what you're saying -- you're for cheaper drugs, we're for expensive drugs. You're for higher wages, we're for lower ones.

Of course populism is popular -- that's why it's called populism! The problem isn't in the political support for these things, it's in their practicality in a real world application.

You will never, ever find a poll suggesting anything but overwhelming support for a hike in the minimum wage. It doesn't matter where you take it, what the particulars are, who's proposing it, etc.

And it's even worse if you ask people if they want cheaper drugs. I want cheaper drugs...I want everything I buy to be cheaper. And, so long as that's the extent of my interest and investigation into the matter, I can't imagine thinking otherwise.

That doesn't mean, all of a sudden, that price controls on pharmaceuticals make sense. There is a very significant cost to price controls that, if people knew about and understood, they'd probably think twice about favoring them.

But, sure, if you go ask people whether or not they'd like cheaper prices for something...what the hell do you expect them to say?

and if it becomes the disaster that you believe it will, then I'm sure you'll be borne out in the end, right?

Trust me on this--as an opponent of the Iraq war from the beginning, I know how it feels to maintain an unpopular opinion and be borne out in the end.

Because only economically illiterate ibeciles go along with the socialist agenda set forth by the Democrat Party.

Once we find our conservative leaders, like Kenneth Blackwell wrote about, we will lead a resurgence and hand the Democrats unprecedented defeats.

And with groups like The Club for Growth vetting candidates, we will be sure to only elect Republicans with a steeled resolve to uphold the economic freedom agenda against all populist and socialist winds - and when the prosperity starts multiplying exponentially as a result, hopefully socialism in America will finally be dead.

it's the Democratic Party. That's our name.

And I'm not going to really get into this. When I come here, I try to keep the discussion respectful.

Otherwise, your candidates would be known as "Democratics" instead of "Democrats." :-P

If your manner of reference held up, we would be called Republics. You are the Democrat Party. Case closed.

Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum

For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.

one could eliminate completely the confusion over the party name, and save money for the cause at the same time. Just combine the Democrats and their main supporters. One could even call it the Democratic Communist Party of America.
http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/769/1/135/
In this one message, the Communists claim that over 35 Democrat Senators and Representatives will back their agenda. Of course, their agenda includes min wage increase, reducing student loan interest, (where do most of the Communists get their idealogy?), one of their real big ones is taking more money from the big oil companies, (does anyone have a guess, how that works? Here's a clue, the companies pass the increased taxes to the consumer, who pays the bill.) The only real way to get the money from the oil industry, is do like Chavez in Venezuela, take over the companies. Speaking of taking, another thing the communists are big on is cost of drugs; how do they plan to cut those cost? By telling the drug companies how much they can sell their product for. Sounds a lot like taking over the companies to me.
If the two parties were combined, I'm sure it world help the War on Terror too. Terrorists must really be confused when they see all of the messages of support from the American left.
Some from Democrats, some from Daily Kos, some from American communists, and some from just plain American leftists who hate America. When these groups send their messages to the terrorists; just hang on, soon we'll have complete control of America and then you won't have to defeat America. We'll do it for you.

Because populism never loses its luster permanently. I could've predicted what happened in California with the energy crisis. I didn't know this until after the dam had broke, but they put price caps in their dereg law. Well...that's just asking for what ended up happening. Price controls, seductive as they are, always have negative repercussions as soon as the controlled price diverges enough from market prices.

Prices just play way too important a role in influencing both the supply and demand curves.

No matter. It was popular enough that even as the brownouts were rolling across California, the politicians wouldn't touch the price control...electing instead to enter into bad long-term deals with the likes of Enron.

FTR, I don't really think this MW hike is going to matter much economically -- not in most places, anyway. That's because market price for entry-level unskilled labor is already about where they're putting the MW.

But these other things you cite are just silly. Obviously they're popular politically. I could run on a platform of a free car for every citizen -- and if people believed I could deliver, I'm sure it would be quite popular.

better than the Republicans and the print and TV media went along.

A summary of the 100 hours legislation:
- increase cost of gas
- increase dependence on foreign oil
- eliminate jobs for the poor
- increase cost of college (trust me, I used to work in the business and that's what happens when the loan rate is reduced)
- fake earmark reform
- foolishly wasting millions in the snake oil science of embryonic stem cell research.

etc.

====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

increase cost of college (trust me, I used to work in the business and that's what happens when the loan rate is reduced)
Just look at what interest rates did for home prices.

Before asking my questions, I should tell you I am new to this blogging business. That said, here goes:

Do members of Congress from your party have the decency, courage, and intellectual wherewithal to contribute to your blog and then actually answer questions or comments from all comers, even Republicans? (If so, please provide a link to such a moment that occurred on d[aily]Kos. Thanks.)

In the event that an elected official from your party deigns to participate on d[aily]Kos (as Rep. Hensarling has so graciously done here at RedState; maybe Speaker Pelosi could field some questions), will it be OK for me to tell whoever it is -- with, sight unseen, the utmost confidence my assertion will be far more accurate than yours -- that he or she is "outside the American mainstream" (among many, many other things)?

we have Congressmen, Senators and potential presidential candidates on the site frequently--including John Conyers, Louise Slaughter, Lynn Woolsey, Brad Miller Russ Feingold, and quite a few others. And yes, they post and comment. You can go to any of their dailykos userpages. I can give you instructions on that if you like.

As a matter of fact, Dick Durbin will be presenting his response to the SOTU not on TV, but on our website.

You certainly have the right to tell whichever elected official is posting that he or she is outside the American mainstream--but you will need to have evidence to back it up. In my case here, I presented numbers and facts. If you go to DailyKos as a Republican/Conservative, you will need them.

LISTENING to concerns like that is what our President has done the past 6 years. That's how we ended up with things like NCLB and Medicare Part D. That's the problem. Instead of educating the public on why it's a lousy idea, we are reacting by proposing slightly different Democrat-style programs. Gore's going to add prescription drugs to Medicare? Well, we can do that too!
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

would one find Democrats with a successful strategy of sounding strong on defense? As far as I can see they have one Senator, Sen Leiberman, who says he will defend America. Then you have, Sen Nelson, Sen Dobbs, and others flying off to tell the Syrian President that they will never support President Bush. Sen Kennedy writes to the Russians asking for their help to defeat a Republican Presidential candidate. In the 1970's we see a future
Democrat presidential candidate, John Kerry, standing in front
of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, admitting that he met with the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong in Paris, (while America
was fighting these enemies in Vietnam, that he had agreed with the enemies' positions and was promoting the enemies' positions. The Democrats nominated him as their candidate.
Sen Rockefeller, admitted on Fox News Sunday 13 Nov 2005, with Chris Wallace, that he flew to Syria and told them;
WALLACE: Now, the president never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?

ROCKEFELLER: No. I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11."

As for "values" the political party responsible for the deaths of a million inconvenient American babies every year wants there to be easier access to abortions. Successful strategy of "values", better to say they have none, will not defend their country or their fellow citizens.