The Deficit Trap
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post
There is a striking line in a new Weekly Standard piece about how the Decider can keep on deciding despite those pesky Democrats on Capitol Hill.
According to unnamed aides cited by Fred Barnes, Bush feels "liberated" to insist on fiscal restraint in opposing a Democratic Congress. He felt obligated to sign spending bills passed by a Republican Congress, the piece says, but now "he can be bolder," an aide explains, in blocking Democratic spending.
Really?
Is it just me, or does this suggest a breathtaking degree of cynicism? Republican spending is good, Democratic spending bad? Is that why the president is coming out against special-interest earmarks now, six years too late?
If Bush believes in keeping federal spending under control, why did he sit back and allow his party to pass one pork-laden, budget-busting bill after another while his veto pen rusted? Even many Republicans grew disenchanted with their party's belated embrace of big government.
Which brings me to the Democrats.
They ran in '06 as the party of fiscal sanity, and delivered last week by restoring the pay-as-you-go rules in the House. This means no new spending can be approved without cutting other spending or raising taxes.
The problem is that this will prevent the Dems from delivering on other promises they've made on health care and other issues. And the truth is, you get very little public credit for reducing the deficit. It's an abstraction to most people. Ross Perot helped make it an issue in 1992, but other than in that brief interlude, politicians know it's easier to win reelection by pointing to new (and costly) initiatives than a reduced flow of red ink. Bush, after all, turned a surplus into a huge deficit and still got himself reelected.
(There is more, here.)
Washington Post
There is a striking line in a new Weekly Standard piece about how the Decider can keep on deciding despite those pesky Democrats on Capitol Hill.
According to unnamed aides cited by Fred Barnes, Bush feels "liberated" to insist on fiscal restraint in opposing a Democratic Congress. He felt obligated to sign spending bills passed by a Republican Congress, the piece says, but now "he can be bolder," an aide explains, in blocking Democratic spending.
Really?
Is it just me, or does this suggest a breathtaking degree of cynicism? Republican spending is good, Democratic spending bad? Is that why the president is coming out against special-interest earmarks now, six years too late?
If Bush believes in keeping federal spending under control, why did he sit back and allow his party to pass one pork-laden, budget-busting bill after another while his veto pen rusted? Even many Republicans grew disenchanted with their party's belated embrace of big government.
Which brings me to the Democrats.
They ran in '06 as the party of fiscal sanity, and delivered last week by restoring the pay-as-you-go rules in the House. This means no new spending can be approved without cutting other spending or raising taxes.
The problem is that this will prevent the Dems from delivering on other promises they've made on health care and other issues. And the truth is, you get very little public credit for reducing the deficit. It's an abstraction to most people. Ross Perot helped make it an issue in 1992, but other than in that brief interlude, politicians know it's easier to win reelection by pointing to new (and costly) initiatives than a reduced flow of red ink. Bush, after all, turned a surplus into a huge deficit and still got himself reelected.
(There is more, here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home