Bush is no Reagan
This is a repost of a comment I made on Brian's blog regarding the fiscal recklessness of our current President. I was responding to a Bush supporter who pointed out that our current defecit, when measured as a percentage of GDP is not the highest ever (not the most debt ever! Who would have ever thought a conservative would be using that as a defense 10 or even 5 years ago?!):
The debt of the 80's and the debt of today have two huge differences.
First, Ronald Reagan had a goal in mind that was attainable in borrowing all he did- the defeat of the USSR. He figured if we could just borrow enough to build our military up enough to get rid of the Soviets, America would end up being the sole superpower and we could generate enough wealth to then pay it off. He was correct. After the singular goal of defeating the Soviets was achieved, we were able to trim defense spending and reap the benefits of all these new markets behind the former iron curtain, and pay off unprecedented levels of that debt. Bush on the other hand, has no such goal. Even if we take the hugh leap of faith the Iraq will become a prosperous, stable democracy by the end of the decade, the only savings we'll have are the 100 billion/year we're currently spending there, which only covers about a third of our annual new debt. It won't open up any new markets for us because we already have huge trade with most countries in the middle east. Additionally, that will be the time where we start to face the rising threat of China's military, so we won't be able to cut defense spending anyway.
The second difference is that while Reagan borrowed more as a percentage of the GDP, he did not even come close to borrowing as much from foreign countries as Bush has. In fact, Bush has borrowed more from abroad in the last 5 years than his previous 42 predecessors combined. How can any self-respecting conservative defend that? If our relations deteriorate with China, they could simply ask for their money back and send our economy into a tailspin. Even if they don't, it's not good to be so dependent on any foreign country, especially a potential future rival like China. I just don't think all these potential dangers justify making such huge top-heavy tax cuts. Our taxation system was not broken before Bush took over- we were the richest and most powerful country in the world, and were paying off a ton of debt. Why would you want to drastically change anything about that situation? Any true conservative should be rooting for the democrats to win big in 06, whether it's on economic or military matters.
The debt of the 80's and the debt of today have two huge differences.
First, Ronald Reagan had a goal in mind that was attainable in borrowing all he did- the defeat of the USSR. He figured if we could just borrow enough to build our military up enough to get rid of the Soviets, America would end up being the sole superpower and we could generate enough wealth to then pay it off. He was correct. After the singular goal of defeating the Soviets was achieved, we were able to trim defense spending and reap the benefits of all these new markets behind the former iron curtain, and pay off unprecedented levels of that debt. Bush on the other hand, has no such goal. Even if we take the hugh leap of faith the Iraq will become a prosperous, stable democracy by the end of the decade, the only savings we'll have are the 100 billion/year we're currently spending there, which only covers about a third of our annual new debt. It won't open up any new markets for us because we already have huge trade with most countries in the middle east. Additionally, that will be the time where we start to face the rising threat of China's military, so we won't be able to cut defense spending anyway.
The second difference is that while Reagan borrowed more as a percentage of the GDP, he did not even come close to borrowing as much from foreign countries as Bush has. In fact, Bush has borrowed more from abroad in the last 5 years than his previous 42 predecessors combined. How can any self-respecting conservative defend that? If our relations deteriorate with China, they could simply ask for their money back and send our economy into a tailspin. Even if they don't, it's not good to be so dependent on any foreign country, especially a potential future rival like China. I just don't think all these potential dangers justify making such huge top-heavy tax cuts. Our taxation system was not broken before Bush took over- we were the richest and most powerful country in the world, and were paying off a ton of debt. Why would you want to drastically change anything about that situation? Any true conservative should be rooting for the democrats to win big in 06, whether it's on economic or military matters.
posted by Rich at 10:50 PM
5 Comments:
God, what the FUCK is it with those spam comments? You gotta enable those Blogger spam control tools there, Rich.
Become Rich? I thought you already were Rich. I'm confused. (Will's right, you've got to do something about the spam.)
On the actual subject here...I'm sorry I never got around to replying over at mi casa. It happens. The long and the short of it is, don't expect me to defend Bush's spending. As with all politics, though, there are a couple of caveats.
First, I hardly think the borrowing is such a big catastrophe. You write about Reagan and the debt-reduction associated with Clinton's cuts in defense spending, and much of that's true. It's also true that there is no foreseeable end to the current conflict, and that there is consequently no definitive point at which we can say 'right there, we can cut back on the military and pay off debt.'
Those points are well made, but they don't get you as far as you'd like. The reason is, while we may not ever be able to make big cuts in defense spending, it's pretty obvious that there are other areas in which we could make HUGE cuts if it ever became really neccessary. It's a sad fact, but an ordinary citizen with a red pen could balance the federal budget in about half an hour. As you might imagine, I'm talking about both pork and entitlements here.
Second, you say that "If our relations deteriorate with China, they could simply ask for their money back and send our economy into a tailspin." That's true. Of course, we could respond by telling them to go fuck themselves, thereby throwing their economy into a tailspin. That would be less than ideal, of course, but the Chinese understand that it's a possibility. So don't look for them to go trying to sink the US economy in this way any time soon.
Lastly, as a political issue you've got a lot to do to convince me that Democrats would be any better. Everybody's pissed at the Republicans right now, and for good reason. But on Election Day most of us see only two choices: a Republican and a Democrat. If you want us to vote for the Dem, you've got to convince us not only that the Rep is bad, but that the Dem is better.
Unfortunately the Democrats themselves are really falling down on this last point. They're doing a great job convincing the country that Republicans suck, but they're not even trying to convince us that they'd be any better. Last year John Kerry and his bunch went on and on about the budget deficit. This might have been a winning issue, because Bush's base was really pissed at him over it. The trouble was, when he wasn't harping about the deficit Kerry was proposing massive new spending programs! Most of us figured (correctly) that while the current Reps are bad on spending, the Dems would not be better; rather, they'd be even worse. That's why we didn't vote for them last year, and that's why many people won't vote for them next year.
Hey Brian,
Points well taken. Regarding your ctirique on a lack of a democratic alternative, I definetly agree that Kerry ran an incompetent campaign on that note, and also lacked the credibility to attack Bush's spending. My vote was definelty more against Bush than for Kerry, as was perhaps everyone who voted blue in 2004. Like I remarked before that election, only those two candidates would have had the close election against eachother that they had- vitrually any other presidential nominee of the 20th century from either party (perhaps, Mondale or Dukakis notwithstanding) would have blown either Bush or Kerry out of the water. (and yet, 2004 had the highest turnout in a generation- go figure). The further John Kerry receeds from the memories of Americans, the better for the Democratic party.
So my question to you is this: would you vote for a Democrat for congress running in 2006 if they had bonafide fiscal-conservative credentials like a Bill Clinton or a Fritz Hollings or an Evan Bayh and ran on this platform?
If a true-red Repub like yourself answers "yes" to that question, I would feel very good about the 06 elections.
Sorry, but you won't get an unequivocal yes out of me. It's a mixed bag, I'm afraid. Taking it point by point...
1. We ain't ready. The approach you're talking about would work if renewable energy were an issue for engineers and entrepreneurs. It's not. The basic technologies needed to harvest renewable energy do not exist yet. That makes our energy situation a problem for scientists, not engineers. Put another way, the problem is not that renewable energy technology needs to be perfected or invested in; it's that these technologies need to be invented. There's not really any way to do that by government fiat.
2. You're doing well (although I'd emphasize spending cuts much more than tax hikes), until you get to taxing my bourbon and Coke. Higher taxes will just piss me off; you'll pry the bourbon from my cold, drunk hand!
3. Good. I'd add that somebody's got to put a leash on the colleges; university administrators publicly acknowledge that they have meetings to figure out how to gobble up every increase in aid to students. Any new increases in student aid should come with strings that keep it from being consumed by greedy administrators in this way.
4. Great. You're talking about the National Science Foundation, I presume, who in addition to getting more money should also be told to invest more of what they get in basic research. As it is, we spend the most tax dollars on research that is most likely to be directly profitable, and thus most likely to be carried out without tax support.
5. Tax cuts are good.
6. I agree. America should be open to anyone who wants to come here and work hard to build a life for his family. And you're right that the lack of border security is dangerous as hell.
7. Good.
8. Good.
9. Good.
10. Not sure what you mean here. The 'CEO' approach is naive at best, and will never work in a system with checks and balances. This, really, is Bush's biggest failing. He thinks that he can order Congress around like a bunch of employees, and he's dead wrong. All kind of mayhem ensues whenever he tries. Dems would be really ill advised to try the same thing.
11. Really? Stop, for a moment, and think about what you're asking for. You want the government, which is famously bad at almost everything it does, to control your healthcare? Not me, thank you. I'd like the government to keep its grubby, incompetent mitts out of my medical care. Seriously; this is a total dealbreaker for me.
Of course, on top of all that you've got to convince me that a specific '06 candidate will be running on, say, points 2-9. Unless, you know, you're running for something. I may be living in New York come June, so, hey, anything's possible.
PS. I'm trying to decide whether I'm disturbed that you characterize me as a 'true-red Repub'. Am I a partisan flack? Like, really?
Ok, ok, it's a start that I will definitely take. Just a few clarifications"
1. Renewable energy via the hydrogen economy is nowhere close to being a reality, but currently energies like wind power and synthetic-pollution-free coal fuel are currently available and profitable and they can be encouraged.
2. I'd be willing to abandon the alcohal tax to prevent a backlash- lord knows I love a nice glass of scotch before bed (or 10 before a party).
3. Agreed- we do need to make sure the education $$ are spend wisely and more generally I would propose some type of government agency on taxpayer waste to do routiene checks for corrupt embezzlement of taxpayer dollars.
4. Agreed
5. Agreed
6. Agreed
7.Agreed
8. Agreed
9. Agreed
10. By the "CEO approach" I mean just running thing efficiently- I'm not trying to undo any seperation-of-powers principles. Basically I mean just good governance, like what we see from Mark Warner, or Mike Bloomberg or Tom Suozzi or Brian Schweitzer.
11. I know this will cost some dough, but every other industrialized country in the world has it and they seem to be ok. Besides, we basically have businesses providing it for everyone right now anyway, which is a tax on business and a big reason why companies are becoming more hesitant to invest in America. If we put everyone into one pool, we could bargain better drug prices for everyone and relieve this enormous burden on businesses. It doesn't even have to be the government that does it- it could be through a nonprofit organization. The current system is totally broken because 1- a large part of the US population is uncovered, and 2- medicaid disencentivizes people from finding jobs because if they can potentially lose their coverage if they pass a certain income benchmark. If you have a solution to these problems, I'm certainly open to suggestions.
I'm very flattered that you're considering throwing your support my way, but I won't be running for office for at least 10 years. But I'm sure whoever the dems run in Mississippi will probably be pretty fiscally conservative- perhaps you'll consider the donkey if the candidate is right? And if you come to NY, you better let me know- I'd be glad to extend some northern hospitality your way!
And it's not that I think you're partisan or anything- you just strike me like many other republicans I know- people with good intentions who for some reason continue to vote elephant even as the elephant abandones one after another of the principles it was supposedly supposed to stand for. I feel like so many people still think the Republican party is what it was under Ike Eisenhower- uncorruptable, fiscally conservative, militarily competent. But there has been no republican like Eisenhower since, well, the Eisenhower days. I would even consider myself an Eisenhower Republican, which in 2005 means a Clinton Democrat. Basically, that is the big question on my mind- when will everyone realize Eisenhower was a democrat?
Post a Comment
<< Home