Why the GOP gave in on the budget
I’ve heard it opined that the reason the GOP capitulated on the budget is that they want Hillary Clinton to be elected, because they prefer being the opposition party to having to accomplish anything. But I don’t think that’s the reason, although my explanations are only slightly less pernicious. Heck, maybe they’re even more pernicious.
I’m assuming that when Ted Cruz called the deal Boehner’s “golden parachute,” what he meant was that Boehner would be assured of a lucrative post-Congressional future if he pleased the lobbyists and moneyed interests. But what about the others? Here are my theories:
They don’t think most people except a fringe of activists are paying attention, and they think that’s just a small group of extremists who don’t really matter.
They think most people in America want them to stop squabbling and avoid shutdowns, and that this will gain them votes and not hurt the GOP presidential candidate either.
Naturally, as with nearly all politicians, they want to placate their donors and big business.
They live in a Washington DC bubble and will continue to do so, unaware of the depth and breadth of the rage against them.
Even if turned out of office as a result, they (like Boehner) are constructing their own golden parachutes.
As I said, I don’t think they want Hillary to win. They just don’t think this will help her win.
When someone is in power, the idea of cutting government spending goes against the grain. As time goes on, power and more power is seductive, and it takes an unusual person to hold fast to the ideals of small government in the face of such temptation.
They don’t think most people except a fringe of activists are paying attention, and they think that’s just a small group of extremists who don’t really matter.
The patriotic counter propaganda networks have matured greatly since the IRS dropped a nuke on the Tea Party. These Know Nothings up at the top, haven’t realized that. They think they wiped the Tea Party out as an effective fighting force.
The TP were just a bunch of moderates that believed in political reform. They were the reform wing. Guess which wing the rest of us come from, although that’s not very monolithic.
When someone is in power, the idea of cutting government spending goes against the grain.
That’s because spending money is how they get political leverage and power. Without it, they would be eaten up by those who spend the most on their serfs.
That’s why when gov temporary “income taxes” are brought about… they aren’t temporary. And they don’t go back to lower levels either. The feds find the money too useful.
The last time an income tax got returned to null as promised, I believe, was the Republican party after Civil War I.
After that, the Democrats took over the South and well, totalitarian culture here we go.
“Naturally, as with nearly all politicians, they want to placate their donors and big business.
They live in a Washington DC bubble and will continue to do so, unaware of the depth and breadth of the rage against them.
Even if turned out of office as a result, they (like Boehner) are constructing their own golden parachutes.”
And yet, somehow, the urge to vote prevails over the urge to hang a few to encourage the many. It stands to reason that if there’s nothing to fear, there’s nothing to stop them. One might consider strongly worded election reform laws — but then everyone would double over in a hurt of laughter.
There is one possible, although unlikely, peaceful resolution, namely, a Constitutional Covention of the states with 3/4s amending the Constitution. First an amendment to strike down the 16th and 17th amendments, and secondly an amendment to place term limits on representatives…. say two four year terms with a permenant ban on returning to DC as a lobbyist. These measures will not end all of the cronyism and corruption, but they would go a long ways towards cleaning out the district of whores and thieves.
neo: “They think most people in America want them to stop squabbling and avoid shutdowns, and that this will gain them votes and not hurt the GOP presidential candidate either.”
This describes the views of the 50-60% of voters who are LIVs. Only about 40% or less of citizens are paying attention and have formed opinions about government spending. In my neighborhood, mostly LIVs who lean left, almost 90% would subscribe to that view of government. They don’t want to be bothered by the details of the budget. Just do it, is what they say.
Here’s the problem. Government overspending has been a problem since the days of LBJ. Mostly it has been the result of the democrats holding majorities in Congress. People keep warning about the danger of national bankruptcy, but we’ve been talking about it since the 1960s. Nothing has happened, so it has become like the little boy who “Cried Wolf.” It is not considered a credible threat. In past years our economy has been able to grow enough to keep our creditors satisfied. However, the last seven years have not been normal as far as the economy rebounding from a deep recession. Our national debt is now at 102% of GDP, the highest it has been since the end of WWII in 1945. When you add in the promises of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid the unfunded liabilities of the U.S,. government exceed $84 trillion. Anyone who has looked at this seriously knows that it is akin to a family with a $100,000 a year lifestyle living on a $60,000 a year income. Eventually, the creditors are going to refuse to loan more money. Yes, the government can print more money, but then you become Zimbabwe or Argentina. The government, like a family, must cut their spending and grow their income.
Most of the politicians are like drug addicts. They know they have to quit spending or it will ruin the country, but they also know that cutting spending will likely result in losing their elective office. Losing their office is more of a threat to them than the threat of a future national bankruptcy.
The GOP, if they want to cut spending, need to lay the groundwork by showing how it can be done and not letting the MSM deter them. They need to get their budget and spending work done early enough that it can get a thorough vetting in public long before the voting deadline. They have to show how and why the democrats and President Obama are wrong. They have to get enough public opinion on their side to not fear a shutdown, if it comes to that. The last time it was done was when Newt Gingrich was Speaker. Unfortunately, it is tough work and requires dedication to building the foundation in Congress. Maybe Paul Ryan can do it. I hope he asks for Newt’s guidance. It would be a terrific struggle but could make all the difference to our future.
Cutting government spending is one aspect of solving the problem. The bigger challenge is to deregulate the country enough so that businesses start growing again. Only by growing our GDP AND reducing spending can we hope to avoid a fiscal calamity that looms in our future.
The whole appropriation process of letting legislators allocate areas of responsibility and making a coherent budget used to be in play, but no longer. The House does these things, and the President just vetoes the work, and then puts the GOP over a barrel on shutting down the government. It is a no win arrangement. The best hope is to hold a GOP House and Senate AND get a GOP Potus, and then enact backup funding laws to kick in when future budget impasse/shutdown events occur. Shutting government down now DIMINISHES the chances of a GOP trifecta. With a GOP trifecta, I would remove the Senate fillibuster rule on an emergency funding legislation. The Press will whine, the voters will yawn.
The FBI and ATF will use blackmail to make the GOP trifecta into a Democrat appendage.
Now that these people have globalized big-government failure, I’m wondering just where they think they are going to stash their ill-gotten gains and families.
Besides the reasons already given, the GOP gave in on the budget because taking the budget off the table goes far toward gelding Congressional conservatives in the House. It certainly benefits Ryan, by giving him time to broaden his base of support but by taking discussions of the budget off the table it undercuts conservative attacks upon the GOP House leadership by delaying discussion for two more years on the House’s primary responsibility.
Mark30339, 6:07 pm — “The best hope is to hold a GOP House and Senate AND get a GOP Potus, . . . .”
Friendly amendment:
. . . AND news/information media that are balanced and reliable, that neither mislead nor undermine [good luck with *that*],
. . . AND sufficient pairs of cojones, to be distributed errrrrmm, *liberally*, where and when needed — ’cause the piglets are sure to snort and squeal when the gravy train runs dry.
Kicking the can down the road works fine until you run out of road. Then things will get interesting in a hurry.
Our entire political class is unserious. Almost anybody with two brain cells to rub together knows that you cannot live beyond your means forever, and that if you try to, sooner or later you will come to grief.
Our Political Betters are importing Mexican drug gangs and Muslim terrorists as fast as they can, while simultaneously advocating the disarmament of white Americans.
Civil War II is going to make Civil War I look like a children’s birthday party.
“Cival War II is going to make Cival War I look like a children’s birthday party.”
In many states if will be fought on the county, township, and preceinct levels. Know your local LEOs and neighbors well.
Congress is a crack-house, with spending addicts flopped every which way.
You must believe that a spending addict — and his co-dependent — honestly feel that a larger largess is not just optimal — it’s obligatory.
As for the general public — even the pundits — there is a general ignorance that in a fiat money system — such as ours —
Congressional Spending = Taxation.
The idea that we are saddling the next generation with our debt has to be entirely dropped.
We are saddling it upon ourselves — right in the here and now.
“Borrowed funds” ARE a tax mechanism. It’s a tax upon the capital markets, not income, not gross receipts, not an excise.
This tax is befouling the private economy — and is almost solely responsible for the ramping unemployment rate.
For it terminates new enterprise formation — the mechanism that generates new employment.
( The Fortune 500 ALWAYS shed jobs. Capital investment is used to replace human talent. )
The only people who want a smaller government are not in the government.
In Civil War 1, the US (Republican, not Democrat as many blacks seem to believe now a days) President Lincoln gave pardons to the Southern Democrats, military and plantation owning draft dodgers included.
Then they killed Lincoln for being a “tyrant”, so to speak.
If Demoncrats start up another traitorous war to enslave humanity in Civil War II, and they happen to end up defeated… who is going to be evil or stupid enough to pardon them… again? Remember the last person that pardoned Democrats and what happened to him.
IMO, Roger Bootle, a British economist has put his finger on what our problem is:
“The whole of economic life is a mixture of creative and distributive activities. Some of what we ‘‘earn’’ derives from what is created out of nothing and adds to the total available for all to enjoy. But some of it merely takes what would otherwise be available to others and therefore comes at their expense.
Successful societies maximize the creative and minimize the distributive. Societies where everyone can achieve gains only at the expense of others are by definition impoverished. They are also usually intensely violent….
Much of what goes on in financial markets belongs at the distributive end. The gains to one party reflect the losses to another, and the fees and charges racked up are paid by Joe Public, since even if he is not directly involved in the deals, he is indirectly through costs and charges for goods and services.”
He calls this the “financialization of the economy.”
We used to much more creative – agriculture, mining, oil and gas drilling, logging, fishing, manufacturing, and construction, all wealth building activities, are being suppressed by government regulation and taxation. The distributive side of our economy – big government, banking, insurance, stock/commodity markets, real estate brokerage, shipping, transportation, retail, etc. – has become much larger than the creative side. When we are trading products/money around and not creating enough, our wealth begins to shrink. and job creation suffers. These are the problems that can only be solved by government refusing to put barriers in the way of wealth creative activities. Since the 1960s the environmentalists and other anti-business idiots/Marxists have forced the government to erect those barriers. In the meantime the wealth redistribution activities of the government have become so deeply entrenched in the popular psyche that it is hard to change. Change is possible but will require hard work and dedication by people who understand what the problem is and how to solve it.
Change is possible but will require hard work and dedication by people who understand what the problem is and how to solve it.
Which is why the police executed people in Waco 1 and Waco 2. Which is why the IRS and other alphabet soup agencies worked together against the Tea Party fund raisers.
The only way to end lobbying is to take the money out of Washington. Tax money should go directly to states for the states to use as they see fit – this goes for education $, transportation $, etc. Once that happens, the lobbying becomes a state-level thing, which is much easier to control by the voter, since it is closer to home.
I also think we MUST push for term limits in Congress. It literally made me sick this morning to listen to Boehner talk fondly about his zillion years in Congress. That is NOT how someone’s career should be…20 years+ in government. These guys get in there, buy a place in Washington D.C. and hardly have any idea about the issues that matter to their constituents.
Hoping for a lot of REAL change after the 2016 election. We’ll see.
Changing the capital every 6 months would also make it very difficult for lobbyists and political long time denizens to accrue power. Much of DC’s power comes from the nepotism and patronage system they have going there, where to get a job requires connections, not merit. Also why they tend to machine gun shoot cars full of pregnant women.