A Conservative Case for Voting Democratic

[ShapeShifter]

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,611869,00.html?cnn=yes

THE ECONOMY
A Conservative Case for Voting Democratic
Give either party complete control of government, and the vaults are quickly emptied.
By Doug Bandow

Republicans have long claimed to be fiscal tightwads and railed against deficit spending. But this year big-spending George W. Bush and the GOP Congress turned a budget surplus into a $477 billion deficit. There are few programs at which they have not thrown money: massive farm subsidies, an expensive new Medicare drug benefit, thousands of pork-barrel projects, dubious homeland-security grants, expansion of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps, even new foreign-aid programs. Brian Riedl of the Heritage Foundation reports that in 2003 "government spending exceeded $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II."

Complaints about Republican profligacy have led the White House to promise to mend its ways. But Bush's latest budget combines accounting flim-flam with unenforceable promises. So how do we put Uncle Sam on a sounder fiscal basis?

Vote Democratic.

Democrats obviously are no pikers when it comes to spending. But the biggest impetus for higher spending is partisan uniformity, not partisan identity. Give either party complete control of government, and the Treasury vaults are quickly emptied. Neither Congress nor the President wants to tell the other no. Both are desperate to prove they can "govern"—which means creating new programs and spending more money. But share power between parties, and out of principle or malice they check each other. Even if a President Kerry proposed more spending than would a President Bush, a GOP Congress would appropriate less. That's one reason the Founders believed in the separation of powers.

Consider the record. William Niskanen, former acting chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, has put together a fascinating analysis of government spending since 1953. Real federal outlays grew fastest, 4.8% annually, in the Kennedy-Johnson years, with Congress under Democratic control. The second-fastest rise, 4.4%, occurred with George W. Bush during Republican rule. The third-biggest spending explosion, 3.7%, was during the Carter administration, a time of Democratic control. In contrast, the greatest fiscal stringency, 0.4%, occurred during the Eisenhower years. The second-best period of fiscal restraint, 0.9%, was in the Clinton era. Next came the Nixon-Ford years, at 2.5%, and Ronald Reagan's presidency, at 3.3%. All were years of shared partisan control.

Bush officials argue that it is unfair to count military spending, but Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, and Ronald Reagan also faced international challenges that impeded their domestic plans. Moreover, if you do strip out military spending and consider only the domestic record, GOP chief executives emerge in an even worse light. In terms of real domestic discretionary outlays, which are most easily controlled, the biggest spender in the past 40 years is George W. Bush, with expenditure racing ahead 8.2% annually, according to Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth. No. 2 on the list is Gerald Ford, at 8%. No. 3 is Richard Nixon. At least the latter two, in contrast to Bush, faced hostile Congresses.

Given the generally woeful record of Republican Presidents, the best combination may be a Democratic chief executive and Republican legislature. It may also be the only combination that's feasible, since in 2004 at least, it will be difficult to overturn Republican congressional control: Redistricting has encouraged electoral stasis in the House, while far more Democrats face reelection in the Senate. Thus, the only way we can realistically keep Congress and the President in separate political hands is to vote for John Kerry in November.

Returning to divided government would yield another benefit as well: Greater opportunity for reform, whether of the budget process, tort liability, Medicare, Social Security, taxes, or almost anything else. Niskanen has observed that the prospects for change "will be dependent on more bipartisan support than now seems likely in a united Republican government." He points out that tax reform occurred in 1986, and agriculture, telecommunications, and welfare reform a decade later, all under divided government.

The deficit can be cut in half if Congress "is willing to make tough choices," says President Bush. But GOP legislators are likely to make tough choices only if he is replaced by a Democrat. History teaches us that divided government equals fiscal probity, so vote Democratic for President if you want responsible budgeting in Washington.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He served as a special assistant to President Ronald Reagan.

From the May. 3, 2004 Issue

[ShapeShifter]

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0
,15114,611869,00.html?cnn=yes

The link did not work for me. What is the gist of the article?

Thanks for pointing it out.

[angus]

Excellent article.  I'm glad some serious conservatives are finally trying to make the case for Kerry.  I have been trying, with some limited successes, to make the Liberal's case for Bush.  It's about time some of you conservatives try to do the analogous exercise with Kerry.  (I'll give credit to rightwingnut for occassionally stumbling onto this idea.)  It's a fun exercise, and you get great new perspective rather than just repeating the same old crap you've heard a million times on the Fox news channel.

[ShapeShifter]

Excellent article.  I'm glad some serious conservatives are finally trying to make the case for Kerry.  I have been trying, with some limited successes, to make the Liberal's case for Bush.  It's about time some of you conservatives try to do the analogous exercise with Kerry.  (I'll give credit to rightwingnut for occassionally stumbling onto this idea.)  It's a fun exercise, and you get great new perspective rather than just repeating the same old crap you've heard a million times on the Fox news channel.

Interesting.

What would be a Liberal Case for Voting Republican?

I guess, the war on terrorism maybe, but even that have holes in it.

[angus]

Excellent article.  I'm glad some serious conservatives are finally trying to make the case for Kerry.  I have been trying, with some limited successes, to make the Liberal's case for Bush.  It's about time some of you conservatives try to do the analogous exercise with Kerry.  (I'll give credit to rightwingnut for occassionally stumbling onto this idea.)  It's a fun exercise, and you get great new perspective rather than just repeating the same old crap you've heard a million times on the Fox news channel.

Interesting.

What would be a Liberal Case for Voting Republican?

I guess, the war on terrorism maybe, but even that have holes in it.

Dude, I've made 1850 posts from the perspective of a recovering lifelong socialist bound and determined to see this president re-elected.  I won't repeat them all here.

[ShapeShifter]

Excellent article.  I'm glad some serious conservatives are finally trying to make the case for Kerry.  I have been trying, with some limited successes, to make the Liberal's case for Bush.  It's about time some of you conservatives try to do the analogous exercise with Kerry.  (I'll give credit to rightwingnut for occassionally stumbling onto this idea.)  It's a fun exercise, and you get great new perspective rather than just repeating the same old crap you've heard a million times on the Fox news channel.

Interesting.

What would be a Liberal Case for Voting Republican?

I guess, the war on terrorism maybe, but even that have holes in it.

Dude, I've made 1850 posts from the perspective of a recovering lifelong socialist bound and determined to see this president re-elected.  I won't repeat them all here.

Sorry. I only been here since March and you been here from January. Maybe I missed the bulk of your argument. I guess I will have to shift through all of your previous post but a nice summary would be nice.

[angus]

Fair enough.  A quick response then I must get back to work.  First, I'll admit my hypocrisy:  I am largely voting against democrats.  (I often bitch about people voting against rather than for candidates.)

Beyond that, a large part of the reason I intend to vote for Bush and have recently changed my registration to republican and have been giving the GOP donations has to do with the war, as you mention.  You would not have found a more vocal opponent of the Iraq war than I, so I can safely put myself in the anti-war pro-bush crowd.  (Outside the San Francisco area, that seems a rare combination, but here in the bay it is not uncommon.)  Bush made this mess.  He will clean it up.  I think that among the Dem candidates, Carol Moseley Braun's stated position during the primary debates best sums up my general attitude about US military involvement in Iraq.  You can look that up:  in brief, "no matter how you felt a year ago, we ALL support the war now.  we support our troups, we don't cut and run"  I like that.  For better or worse, the boys who have been cunningly planning this venture are the best equipped to see it through to an acceptable conclusion.

There's also the matter of national defense.  And I am thoroughly convinced that Kerry is weak in this area.  Since you're new, I'll repeat here that I voted to reelect Kerry to the US senate in 96 and I have nothing against the man personally.  If I find myself a resident of the commonwealth in 2008, which is not beyond the realm of possibilities, I may yet vote to reelect him again.  He is a fine senator, and I'll do what I can to help him keep his seat.  And that includes voting for Bush.

There's also the matter of nationalism.  Every time I hear a foreigner say he likes Kerry better than Bush (which is pretty much every time a foreigner opens his mouth; I should know, I live with one)  it strengthens my resolve to vote for Bush.  That fact alone (that others, not those to whom the USA is number one, but others, want Bush to burn in Hell) should send up a thousand red flags in your mind.  Mull that over a long time.

Also, I'm a bit of a bleeding-heart.  In the Power of One, for example, I nearly came to tears.  And the nastiness the of the pseudo-sophisticated hollywood elite, et al, toward George Bush makes me like him even better.  These people are largely unsophisticated twits who have had some form of social elitism pounded into their heads.  The only way they can make themselves look better is by putting others down.  I'm not usually given to violence, but I want to take a baseball bat to Michael Moore's big head.  

Oh, and I'm very lazy.  Ain't it good to be rid of the Clintonista workaholic 90s?  Tell the truth.  Pizza and sleazy interns and reports way into the night, or lazy days in crawford with Crown Prince Abdulla, and hunting expeditions with the King of Spain?  Some things I miss about the 90s.  But the transformation from a 40-hour workweek to a 50-hour workweek was not one of them.  I get six weeks off with pay every year.  I usually take about eight.  (frck 'em)  You people are as nutty as fruitcakes if you begrudge Bush this vacation, and dumb as stones if you want to go back to Clinton.  I'm all for maintaining a huge aggregate GDP, but take a moment to stop and smell the roses.  

There's also the fear factor.  Even when I was a socialist I was never a very religious one.  Oh, I subscribed to the economics (like a moron) but not the personal.  And I'm still 100% on the personal scale of the libertarian quiz.  The New Authoritarian Left scares the hell out of me.  Book-burning, political correctness, and the like, is really frightening.  Maybe it makes me a pussy, of sorts, but I'll admit to being scared white by those who would restrict my civil liberties.  I've never owned a gun in my life but I feel very strongly about the second amendment rights.  If they ever outlaw guns, you can bet your bottom dollar that's the day I buy one. or two.  or a case.  Screw Big Brother.

Finally, I absolutely abhore elitism.  I deal with it every day, usually academic elitism, but elitism nonetheless.  The french in 1789 and the Bolsheviks in 1918 are some of my greatest heroes.  (Though I certainly don't claim we should follow their example)  Bush disdains elitism too.  I know some are laughing at me just now.  They'll say this Bush is the richest, most ivy-league prep-school waspy New England Yankee there ever was.  I say yes, but he went far out of his way to overcome that.  He lives on a ranch in the hill country of central Texas and clears brush with his hands.  That is sooooo John Wayne!  don't you think?  Sure, he's a spoiled rich drunken coke-snorting fratboy at heart.  But he pulls off that plain-spoken macho-man image very well.  Works for me.

[ShapeShifter]

Fair enough, Angus. I really enjoyed your posts and respect your point of view. Good to hear an honest response as to why you like Bush. You sure had me wanting to vote for him for a minute. But I don't know how long that minute will last.

[angus]

Shapeshifter,
MortfromnewYawk made an excellent and more sober version of what I was trying to say regarding the war in the thread just below this one.  Check it out.

[ShapeShifter]

Shapeshifter,
MortfromnewYawk made an excellent and more sober version of what I was trying to say regarding the war in the thread just below this one.  Check it out.

I am one step ahead of you. Already read it and made a comment on it.

[opebo]

A lot of Democrats on this forum are prediction they'll gain control of the Senate.  I agree it is possible, so I think I'll vote Bush for gridlock.