The Wall Street Journal compares George W. Bush's place in history to Lyndon B. Johnson's. Johnson's "Great Society" programs, were a second wind following on the epochal heels of the New Deal, one that gave liberalism long-term political strength that lasted from the 1960s to the 1980s. If Bush succeeds in his programs for an "Ownership Society," they argue, the foundations of American politics could shift in important long-term ways, as the neoconservative critique of the welfare state model gets a second wind that follows on the epochal heels of the Reagan Revolution.
This may be so. There are certainly a number of parallels there. Time will tell, and YMMV.
Personally, I worry about another LBJ parallel: a President whose primary vision was domestic, and whose refusal to make spending choices in the face of competing demands from a war he hadn't asked for created long term fiscal problems for the nation. We'll see - but since neither party has any serious incentive to rein in spending, I'm not an optimist.
Neither party?
First of all, the Democrats have been griping and moaning about deficits for several years now. They're mostly the result of Bush's tax deferrals.
Second, the GOP is in charge and has been for some time. It's the President's budget and the GOP Congress's. The Democrats have little to do with any of it.
Iraq is NOT Vietnam.
Neither, Praktike.
Democrats...
They will piss and moan, therefore, and push for measures that will increase spending sharply, and work to blame any deficits on the Republicans.
Republicans...
So the imperative for Republicans is to keep spending, and while there will be isolated voices of fiscal discipline, I don't see a huge change in the pattern.
What forces do our readers see here that I'm missing, and that will act to push politicians in the direction of spending less over the next 2 years?
ymmv?
Mouse over it and see. (Your Mileage May Vary)
Except of course they’re not. The deficits break down about 50 percent due to overall macroeconomic factors (lost of revenue from the burst of the tech bubble, economic contraction, etc.) with the remainder divided fairly evenly between tax cuts and increased spending. Considering that the Democrats ran a guy who campaigned on adding another two Trillion in spending on top of what we already have and whose proposed tax increases did not even come close to “paying” for his new spending, “griping and moaning” is about all they’ve added to the debate.
Except of course for the fact that Democrats had control of the Senate when we had the explosion in non-defense/homeland security discretionary spending (including Tom Harkin’s agricultural subsidies) and used the threat of the filibuster to bid up the Medicare prescription drug benefit from $130 to $300 to $534 Billion and even then, they held out for their alternative $700-900 Billion plan.
Bush was free to veto or threaten to veto any of that. But he didn't. In fact, he hasn't vetoed any spending bills. Meanwhile, fresh on the heels of the corporate tax monstrosity, here comes a ginormous road bill and a new push on the energy bill, spearheaded by the GOP House.
Ah, the first principle of republican fiscal responsibility: cut taxes, spend more. The tax and spend liberals were bad enough, but how do we deal with this new crop of CINOs?
Dingo,
4 ways to solve this, looking from your side of the fence and all somewhat long term. I do not see a short term solution here, for the reasons noted above:
[1] Field a credible opposition party with credible policies and candidates. Win at the Presidential level, restore balance to the Force, and let competitive political dynamics take their course.
[2] Lapse fully into insane leftist moonbattery. Make sure your party's supporters keep vilifying Christians in bigoted terms, keep talking about "secession", and become even more rabid in obstructing the War on Terror and finding reasons never to confront Islamofascists. Have enough party members who believe that if George Soros and other dilettantes fund them enough, they have to win. Go the way of the Whigs, who didn't have a sane or sensible answer to the big issue of their day either. Watch the Greens or someone similar pick up large sections of the Dems activist wing, while centrist Democrats and many political professionals cleave off and begin doing their own thing or crossing the floor.
Watch this raise the temperature in the Republican camp as many moderate Republicans begin trickling into a centrist party or group that ends up swallowing large parts of the Republican base as well. Eventually, the Republican coalition splits too and you find yourselves with a 3-party system whose dynamics (though not political positions) are similar to Canada's. Competitive political dynamics may (note: may) create greater odds of fiscal sanity during and afterward by shattering some of the loyalties freezing the 2 parties' spending behaviour in place. Plus, more parties does = more room for policy competition, even as it brings negatives in other areas if carried beyond a certain point.
[3] Everyone spends like drunken sailors until the economy hits a real and serious shock, and suddenly that just isn't an option any more. Real and serious hard times hit, the rewards for frugality increase, and so does the cost of the status quo. Politicians who are serious about cutting spending suddenly have clout and prominence. Someone steps into the void and takes advantage. It has happened before. It will happen again.
The bad news is that unless something has changed and a lot of progress has been made by then, option #3 is likely to force changes in U.S. warfighting stratgy toward options that are either less wise or less humane (and one inevitably leads to the other anyway). Or, we could get lucky and it forces a true spirit of national mobilization. But constraints are what they are, and this game is played for high stakes with big toys, and you pays yer money and takes yer chances.
[4] Do nothing about it, and come out OK anyway. Public spending is not inherently bad, as long as it's wise spending whose results generate the future wealth needed to pay for it. Of course, public spending often fails to meet this criterion, but it's possible and some spending like major structural reforms to the K-12 educational system, some kinds of research, or social security could have this kind of long term effect. The world economy may also grow enough to lift all boats, and save your fiscal butts regardless. If you can't be good, be lucky.
The philosophy of the 1960s leads to option #2. Rocky ride, but fine by me. The philosophy of the 1980s suggests option #4. Sounds nice, but I'm dubious about its realism.
I suspect the real solution will be "none of the above," however, rising out of whatever synthesis comes into being once America's political parties fully grasp that both the 1960s and the 1980s are dead. Eventually, I think they'll have to, though I cannot tell you what form their solution will take.
In the meantime, my advice is to keep preaching fiscal sanity as a concerned and active citizen, and hang on for the ride.
The other eerie parallel with LBJ was that he also tried to fight a war and greatly increase domestic spending without raising taxes to pay for either. Increasing both government and consumer demand at the same time (plus an oil shock) was a recipe for the rampant inflation that plagued the 70's.
The only thing saving us from that here is the unusually high productivity -- although that's shown some signs of flagging a bit lately.
Joe:
I've seen the arguments about the dems not having a credible candidate, but I'm not convinced that's true. The election was close enough to make any dem worried about making massive changes too fast. Obviously there's a lot of discussion over what the election portends for the dems, but it doesn't seem like a slam dunk either way. However, if some changes are needed:
1) Changing the party's position on abortion is a non-starter. Maybe on the table are affirmative action, gun control, and gay rights. Don't know if the party would pick up more votes than they'd lose if those issues went away, however.
2) On stopping anti-christian bigotry, if we give up our irritation with the bombastic clergy and their followers, will the right give up loudly shouting that we have no values and are dirty perverts? Maybe we can make a deal there.
3) On economic policy, government spending has hovered at around 19-21% of GDP for decades. Sometimes a bit higher, sometimes lower, but it's unlikely to fall any time soon. Problem is, revenues have no fallen to around 16% of GDP. Seems to me that we have to get those numbers realigned somehow. I don't see being able to do it with current tax policy in place. I suspect taxes will go up before long.
However, as you imply by breaking out the options, it's not clear which course the administration and congress will take.
Dingo: "On stopping anti-christian bigotry, if we give up our irritation with the bombastic clergy and their followers, will the right give up loudly shouting that we have no values and are dirty perverts? Maybe we can make a deal there."
Politically, the anti-Christian bigotry is working out pretty good for us Christians, so if there's going to be a deal you guys are going to have to throw in a whole bunch of cash. And if all the cash is in ones and fives, then we're going to know you raised it by selling drugs to schoolkids, and you're going to be in big trouble.
Glen:
Forget it then. Screw the mullahs and their rabid followers. A few years in the minority won't be so bad, simply because you guys are always good for a chuckle.