Redstate

Just glancing through the document is interested. I remember right after Arnold was elected governor, one of the conservative budget groups in California released a very detailed list of all the programs that could be cut back or eliminated in the California budget. It totalled over $15 billion, which just happened to be the amount of the state's deficit. None of it was enacted, of course.

I'm wondering if Nick's latest (for the moment) front page story could be considered a supporting argument for your thesis.  Rather, I'm inclined to suggest that you and he are at loggerheads.

(Aside: To be fair, your post deals with our Congress-persons while Nick is focused solely on GWB - point being I have no doubt that Speaker Hastert, ML DeLay, et al. are taking their marching orders from 1600 Penna Ave NW.  OK, back to my regularly scheduled ramble...)

One need only plot OMB data for expenditures since, pick a year - 1960?, to see that spending has ramped-up tremendously since 2001.  Plotting inflation-adjusted figures only makes the picture slightly less scary.  Now granted, we've had to spend money on some Big Things in the last couple of years - Afghanistan and Iraq come to mind almost immediately.  9/11 didn't help matters, either.

But it does seem that Mr. DeLay in particular has become far too comfortable with the taste and texture of his own bathwater.  How any Republican leader can stand-up and, with a straight face (I saw the presser where he made the statements you reference) say

After 11 years of Republican majority we pared it down pretty good.

sort of takes my breath away.  We currently have a government that, in inflation-adjusted dollars, is roughly 80% larger than what Jimmy Carter left us.  This is not time to declare victory.

Am I naive?  Am I missing something basic?

Or is the more likely answer the obvious one -  that the Republican leadership (particularly in the House), still smarting from their CWA attempts in 1995 to eliminate the Dept. of Ed. and the like, has lost the belly to even discuss paring back the behemoth?

While it seems obvious that the "public at large" (filtered through the lens of the MSM) likes to talk the "small government" game until and unless it starts to hit them in the pork-bellies, I still have to wonder what happened and how we managed to get ourselves here.

If Democrats were behaving in the majority the way we are today, I doubt we would cut them any slack at all - so why should we cut slack to our side when they behave so?

GWB is no supply-sider - the overwhelming majority of his fiscal plan seems to come right out of the Keynesian playbook.  We've known that for years - since 2000, at least.  "Compassionate Conservative" has always been a code-word for "big-government Conservative" to me.  Still, I expected the House Leadership (at least) to be willing to check some of the bigger boondoggles at the door.

They don't even seem to be willing to acknowledge that they are boondoggles at all.

Talk about "declaring victory and going home".

Discouraging.

Perhaps it's that "small-government" is dead as an issue - which is what I gather is Nick's argument from the beginning (see here, for example).  Sadly for me, the desire to see government cut, streamlined, smaller and much scarier is what got me involved in politics in the first place.  I have a hard time motivating myself to see nothing better for my efforts than big-government with a conservative spin.  But then again, really, where am I to go?  Back to the LP?  Feh - they're not a serious political party and never will be.  The Democrats?  Guffaw.  Big-government with a liberal face - been there, done that, NOLA is what we get - thanks but no thanks.

Heaven help the RSC - looks like they need all the help they can get.  Swimming against a tidal wave must burn a ton of calories, though.

Cheers.

The hostility of the House Leadership to the RSC's proposals for spending restraint is sad but not surprising.  While there is much truth in the idea that power corrupts, there is even more in the notion that, for the House Leadership, all politics is local.  A belief in the local-ness of politics may be the only rational explanation for the Leadership's consistent refusal to cut back on spending and to cut out entirely the "earmarked" nonsense that so bloats the federal budget.

That spending should have gotten out of control with a conservative Republican administration, working with a conservative Republican Congress, was not how this movie was supposed to end.  But it's hard to think of anything that will lead to an improvement.  The normal reward meted out to irresponsible politicians is a dose of "throw the bums out!"  Here, however, the Dem alternative is hardly an improvement, but it might be worth trying if there was a realistic hope that some time in the wilderness would bring the Republican leadership back to their fiscally conservative senses.  

If the electorate does get fed up with the spending spree, does anyone have any confidence that the Leadership would conclude that the reason for the voters' ire was a lack of conservative discipline, rather than the opposite -- if only they had spent more, the voting public would have kept them in power?  

In all events we can at least be grateful for the stalwarts of the RSC, who are trying to point the Congress in a more responsible direction.  

I can see where the leadership is coming from but as a matter of principle they are falling far short.  In reality, it shouldn't have to come to this.  

As a Democratic leaning independent, it seems to me that Republicans are using federal dollars in a shameless attempt to purchase electoral goodwill.  Of course, Democratic majorities have pretty much done the same thing but at least, in concept, the high spending wasn't outside of Democratic party principles.

We either need a President inclined to submit tighter budgets, or a Congress disinclined to approve excessive largesse.  When you have neither, it isn't pretty.  Fiscally, even with some notable exceptions, the balance during Reagan, Bush I and Clinton seemed a better situation than what we are facing today.

It would be interesting to see the dynamic if you had an avowed fiscal conservative Republican win the Presidency in '08.  I'm sure spending would go down under a Democratic President -- not because they might be less spendthrifty but because 1) the Republican congress would probably be less willing to cooperate on large spending increases and/or 2) a Democratic President is would be less veto-adverse facing a hostile Congress.

There's been a lot of discussion about the targeting of NASA in the "Operation Offset" on space-related sites (spacepolitics.com, nasawatch.com  and others).  Most aren't taking it seriously because it's so off on the numbers.  The cost is wrong, the year of retiring the shuttle is wrong, among other things.  It makes me wonder whether or not this was just thrown together to make a statement or whether it's a serious attempt at budget control.

The Flake-Pence cabal was the bunch that held out, refusing to vote for the Medicare prescription entitlement -- and sending the House leadership into a tizzy.  Adam, I didn't get a chance to read all of this (I'm at work...) but by skimming it and seeing that once again the big-government House leadership has gotten their collective panties in a wad -- Pence/Flake must be up to something worthwhile.

This guy is our dream candidate for higher office.  Senator?  Governor?  Speaker?  VP?  Who knows.  

Ever since former conservative champion Santorum threw Toomey under the bus, I've lost all hope that anybody who joins the GOP establishment gets to keep genuinely conservative ideals. The RSC is refreshingly a haven for real conservatives, and while it has an official-sounding name, it's a repository for GOP step-children and has no real influence on the establishment.

That said, this way we know who the good guys are.  Pence should, in due time go for it all -- the Captain Picard chair, the Big Seat.  Absolutely would get murdered by the GOP, but as Rush likes to say [paraphrased], every time a genuine conservative brings a genuinely conservative message straight to the people, the masses, you find that Americans are solidly conservative..  Witness Prop 200 (AZ), and the dozen + state marriage amendments (and counting) winning by overwhelming margins, even in non-red states.  I realize those are props and not candidates.  But I'd crawl over broken glass to vote for Pence in any election.  Ditto for Toomey, Flake, Coburn, and DeMint.

My initial opinions:

If a real, bonafide GOP fiscon won the presidency in 08, you'd see him/her vetoing or using the veto threat to try to curb the pork instinct.  it's likely you'd see that president attempt (and most likely fail) to repeal the Medicare prescription thing.  Very likely the GOP leadership in Congress would conspire with Dem establishment to thwart every such effort.  If that president was one glib, charismatic SOB (or B), and was ready and willing to take well-spoken message straight to the American public, he/she might have some success.  Otherwise, not.

I agree with your assessment of a Dem.  First, in a full sprint it would be hard to outspend this current president/congress, and second, just the nature of a hostile congress means they'd fight new spending just to land some political blows.

But the Republican response to the offsets are troubling at the very least. Our spending when we control the Senate, the House and the White House is unacceptable. They are losing the base on a number of issues. Spending is totally out of control. Our party Democrat lite.

Don't even get me started on Karl Roves's Guest Worker Program which threatens to destroy our very sovereignity. Our immigration levels are out of control, and all the president wants to do is make the illegals legal...Great plan.

We need new leadership, we need true fiscal restraint and we need it now!

We need unabashed Reaganites that don't care what the msm says. A little courage can win lanslides. So many of the dem party yellow dogs are conservatives that will only vote GOP when emboldened by a strong conservative who leads.

Put another way: Southerners admire courage with a bit of a rebel touch.

As you diary points out, our fearless leaders are busy trying to "persuade" the RSC to stand down.

I've always thought of Tom Delay as an upright and fearless man of principle. I guess I need to rethink that.

In the land of the blind, is Tom Delay king?

And the RSC is finally telling him he wears no clothes.

Thank goodness.

SunTzu, how much of that do you suppose can be attributed to our having to defend Tom Delay against various smear attempts?  I.e. we spend so much time defusing bogus "ethics" complaints that we begin to lose sight of whether the guy is otherwise doing the job we want him to do because we don't want to dump him merely because the Left demands it?

Not to mention the GOP Leadership.

I simply want to know why the heck the Republican Study Committee is insisting on a full-out frontal banzai charge into the mainstream media and the Democrats.  Have we forgotten the Mediscare campaign, and how that got Bill Clinton re-elected?

Does anyone here really think that the Democrats aren't going to throw in the whole line about how "the Republicans want to starve children, throw old people out on the street, and rob from the poor to feed the rich."?

How do we deal with that this time?  Do we really think we can win this sort of fight?

The Republican Study Committee might be relying on the Congressional Budget Office's Budget Options 2005, puts to rest any questions regarding the accuracy of this particular section of the "Operation Offset" report. According to CBO, the reform "considers the savings from avoiding all planned and expected activities associated with the initiative.  It would cancel Moon/Mars Exploration Initiative activities while continuing to phase out the space shuttle as currently planned."  CBO estimates these savings at $1 billion in 2006 and $10 billion over five years.  

Regarding the retirement date, the CBO document states, "Current NASA projections indicate that much of the funding for the initiative will come from phasing out the space shuttle by 2012.  NASA envisions returning humans to the Moon not later than 2020."

The following is the excerpt from the RSC report outlining the NASA reform:

Cancel NASA's New Moon/Mars Initiative

In 2004, the President announced a new initiative to explore the Moon and Mars with the goal of returning humans to the Moon by 2020.  NASA currently intends to use the savings from phasing out the space shuttle in 2012 to fund this program.  Savings:  $44 billion over ten years ($11.5 billion over five years)

Unless the CBO Budget Options has incorrect information, it looks like to me, that the RSC got this one right.

It is my personal opinion that the RSC has gone to the American people with "Operation Offset" in order to get the attention of the GOP leaders you defend, who have clearly remained unwilling, to cooperate with the fiscal hawks on reducing the size of government during the 109th Congress.  As for the Administration, Peggy Noonan addresses their spending habits in her September 22nd article stating:

George W. Bush, after five years in the presidency, does not intend to get sucker-punched by the Democrats over race and poverty. That was the driving force behind his Katrina speech last week. He is not going to play the part of the cranky accountant--"But where's the money going to come from?"--while the Democrats, in the middle of a national tragedy, swan around saying "Republicans don't care about black people," and "They're always tightwads with the poor."

In his Katrina policy the president is telling Democrats, "You can't possibly outspend me. Go ahead, try. By the time this is over Dennis Kucinich will be crying uncle, Bernie Sanders will be screaming about pork."

That's what's behind Mr. Bush's huge, comforting and boondogglish plan to spend $200 billion or $100 billion or whatever--"whatever it takes"--on Katrina's aftermath. And, I suppose, tomorrow's hurricane aftermath.

George W. Bush is a big spender. He has never vetoed a spending bill. When Congress serves up a big slab of fat, crackling pork, Mr. Bush responds with one big question: Got any barbecue sauce? The great Bush spending spree is about an arguably shrewd but ultimately unhelpful reading of history, domestic politics, Iraq and, I believe, vanity.

The article continues on in much further detail, and it is a must read for anyone in question of this Administration's true position on spending.  We must remember that being a conservative is not just a matter of being pro-life, but that the true conservative is committed to limited government as well as preserving traditional family values.  Our President may make the grade on the latter, but certainly not on the former.

Moving on.  Since when do conservatives fight for a cause based upon what the Democrats will say in response?  At this point, the Democrats, and I believe most GOP leaders, are so out of touch with the American people, that to gauge our response to Katrina based upon what the Democrats might say, would prove foolish.  Considering the legislative and executive branches are both controlled by Republicans, we can adequately deduce that Democrats have been unable to understand what the public wants.

"Do we really think we can win this sort of fight?"  Should the possibility of "losing" keep us from trying?  And, have conservatives really lost if "all" that is achieved through "Operation Offset" is to raise the level of debate in this country regarding federal spending and the appropriate size and scope of the federal government?  Would that truly be a "loss" for the conservative cause? I think not. The weak only fight the fights they can win. The truly principled individual fights for the cause, regardless of the outcome.

Or is the mainstream media and the Democratic party going away anytime soon?  By your logic, the GOP could never attempt to tackle the big entitlements for fear of Mediscare compaign.  

The "whimpering in the corner" crowd always want to preach impossibility and caution against losing elections.  Well, when does it stop?  When do Republicans -- with Congress and the White House -- begin to regain that which we lost when Newt blinked?  (And did we really lose the 1996 election because of efforts to reign in spending or did a dull Bob Dole and a prosperous economy have something to do with it as well?)  

Is now not the time to use the power of the American people's compassion (to pay for needed relief and recovery) as the pressure to slow spending?  Let Democrats stand in the way of Katrina aid coupled with fiscal offsets.  

I fear the consequences of losing a Mediscare-level fight.  Between the conduct of Bill Clinton from 1993-2001, the nomination and background of John F. Kerry, and the conduct of the KosKidz/MoveOn.org crowd, it is patently obvious (at least to me) that the present Democratic Party is so incompetent in national-security matters that I do not think the country can afford to have Democrats in charge.

Take a look at the race-baiting and attacks that came right after Katrina.  Do you really think there is no level that the Democrats and their allies would not stoop to?

As Nick Danger has pointed out quote well:

People don't want it. They say they do, but when you threaten to give it to them, they vote for the Other Guys. It took Republican politicians decades to figure this out, and most Republican voters still haven't figured it out. The fastest way to become the minority political party in the United States is to become the party of government frugality and fiscal discipline. Let the Democrats do that. We've been there, done that, and have Bob Dole to prove it.

Quite frankly, I think there are bigger and more important fights to deal with - like another Supreme Court nomination coming up.  Operation Offset is a distraction that will lead to a battle that probably cannot be won.

First priority for me at this point is the war on terrorism.  Second priority, tax reform.  third priority, judges like Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.  Futile battles to cut spending are not a priority for me.

That we're doing what we've always done - and why do you expect me not to expect the same result we've gotten in the past?

I was born in the late afternoon - but not yesterday afternoon.