Posted on 02/13/2004 5:23:01 PM PST by MikeJ75
William Niskanen is a fiscal conservative of the first rank, a lifelong advocate of government parsimony.
His doctorate in economics is from the University of Chicago, the pantheon of conservative economic thought. He was an economic adviser in the Reagan administration. He now is chairman of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
In short, he is a devoted believer in the mantra of lower taxes and smaller government.
Yet now, in a painful twist of political stereotypes, Niskanen is so perturbed about President Bush's proposed $2.4 trillion budget that he speaks the seeming unspeakable when asked whom he would like to see elected president.
"Any Democrat," Niskanen said the day after Bush's budget was announced.
Indeed, Niskanen and a small but growing number of other fiscal conservatives are beginning to wonder if the best thing for the country would be to create more fiscal balance by maintaining a Republican-controlled Congress but electing a Democratic president.
Predictably, Democrats have criticized Bush for seeking to make tax cuts permanent in the face of a deficit projected to hit a record $521 billion this year. But beyond those purely political shots from the opposing party in an election year, growing numbers of fiscal conservatives - a supportive fan club for Republican administrations - are grumbling, exposing cracks in the conservative base.
"Yes, I thought Bush would be a fiscal conservative, but he has interpreted compassionate conservatism as using big government for conservative goals," Niskanen said.
Bush has proposed some good ideas, Niskanen said, such as offsetting the cost of a Medicare drug program with reforms in Medicare spending. But he said Bush has abandoned those ideals to get something, anything, passed for which he can take credit.
On NBC's "Meet the Press" Feb. 8, Bush said conservatives are wrong when they criticize the spending by his administration. The administration counters that some of the biggest spending increases, at least in percentage terms, have come in programs related to the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq, such as the $87 billion measure that Congress approved last fall.
Moreover, Bush has promised to trim the deficit by half over the next several years by reaping the rewards of faster economic growth spurred by tax cuts and imposing limits on spending growth.
"I will insist upon spending discipline," Bush said.
A recent survey by The Wall Street Journal and NBC found that support for the president remains strongest among those who call themselves conservatives. But the poll of 1,002 adults also found that 18 percent of self-described conservatives do not approve of his job performance.
Last week, the chairman of the Republican Party, Ed Gillespie, conceded there was frustration being expressed by fiscal conservatives, but added that it was concentrated in the Washington think tanks.
The concern, however, also has been expressed by such influential conservative voices as the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal and radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
A few days before the budget officially was released, Limbaugh said Bush's campaign strategy seemed to be taking the "shape of outspending Bill Clinton on the domestic side. This immigration bill and the $400 billion (now $534 billion) Medicare entitlement makes conservative voters feel taken for granted."
Conservative critics say the president has yet to enforce discipline on himself, let alone the Republican-controlled Congress.
They have measured spending during the Bush administration in about every way but how many times around the globe the dollars spent would stretch.
In a recent position paper, Alison Fraser of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research center, made these observations:
The inflation-adjusted cost of government is now "over $20,000 per household - its highest level since World War II - and growing."
Spending has increased twice as fast under President Bush as it did under President Clinton. From 2001 to 2003, total spending grew 16 percent.
Presidents Roosevelt and Truman signed budgets during World War II and the Korean War that decreased nondefense spending. In contrast, nondefense spending since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks has increased 11 percent.
Fraser went on to say that Bush's budget proposal to hold to 3.9 percent spending for discretionary programs - those outside programs with mandatory budgets, such as Medicare and Social Security - sounds like an accomplishment. But with both Medicare and Social Security projected to become insolvent with the baby boom generation retiring in about five years, "the proposal falls short of a grand vision predicated on fiscal discipline and conservatism necessary to curb big increases in spending now and into the future," Fraser said.
Once a sacred cow, defense spending under Bush also is a problem for some fiscal conservatives. The proposed budget seeks a 7 percent increase in defense spending next year, after large increases since the terrorist attacks.
It's the burgeoning deficit that most concerns Geoffrey Friedman, vice president of Investors Advisory Services Inc. in Overland Park, Kan. Increases in defense spending have exacerbated the deficit, he said.
"A strong defense is great and important, but it is not the number one priority. The economy is," Friedman said. "We should have learned that lesson from Russia. If your economy falters, you can't afford a defense."
Deficits projected to last for years are a financial slap to today's children, Friedman said.
"I know the philosophy is that with a growing economy we will grow our way out of deficits," he said. "But I think you get to a point where it becomes more and more difficult to grow your way out."
The proposed budget projects a fiscal 2005 deficit of $364 billion. By holding down discretionary spending and growing the economy, the budget projects the deficit will fall to $237 billion in five years. There was a $236 billion paper surplus when Bush took office.
Those who have parsed the numbers see some sleight of hand that makes the projections unlikely to materialize.
For example, the budget does not include an estimated $50 billion for maintaining troops in Iraq next year, a funding request that will not be made until after the November election.
It also counts on tamping down spending in some programs, such as transportation, that Congress is unlikely to support. Those discretionary programs provide the so-called pork that members of Congress can take credit for with their constituents, especially in an election year.
On the other hand, some of the budget's estimates of economic growth are more conservative than projections from some private economists. If the economy grows as fast as they project, it will mean greater tax revenues and smaller deficits.
Still, the credibility of the projections used by the president have fallen into question, particularly after the budget projected the cost of the new Medicare drug program at $534 billon over the next decade, $134 billion more than Congress estimated last month, a disclosure that was particularly galling to conservatives who opposed the benefit.
Because the president has not controlled government spending and has let deficits get out of control, some conservatives think Bush has put his tax cuts in jeopardy.
"It is all very depressing for Americans in general," said Chris Edwards, director of fiscal policy for the Cato Institute. "With the deficits, Bush has left open the possibility that the next occupant of the White House can use the high deficits as a reason to repeal the tax cuts."
Fraser of the Heritage Foundation is willing to cut Bush a bit of slack. She said the transportation bill, which Bush threatens to veto if it exceeds his spending boundaries, will be the test.
"The president's budget is a first step toward reigning in growth in spending. He is responding to concerns by proposing budgets that have more modest growth," Fraser said
Given the recent fiscal record of Republicans, Friedman sees little chance for improvement.
"Republicans historically were fiscal conservatives. They wanted to reduce the size of government. They wanted to lower deficits," he said. "It has not been that way since Ronald Reagan. It has been just the opposite. Democrats have proven more fiscally responsible in the last 20 years."
Yeah, other people's money.
If Bush want's to be charitable, let him write a check.
Two questions:
1. What is this wonderful plan that will cut the deficit in half?
2. Where exactly does the $534 billion Medicare bill fit in with Bush's plan?
Now, we have to decide if we want to re-elect a moderate or go with someone who reflects more of our principles, even though they can't win.
It's a hard decision.
One word: Terrorism.
President Kerry, an anti-war, communist sympathizer, former Lt. Governor of Michael Dukakis, ain't going to protect America. And he sure in the hell ain't gonna be fiscally responsible, either.
The war on terrorism shuts the door on any arguments against Bush and supporting 3rd parties. Conservatives can always work with Congress on budget and tax policies. Victims of terrorism, however, cannot be brought back.
My sincere apologies. Unfortunately, others have posted similar things here and meant it fully. Anyway, I should have checked your other comments to gauge it.
No it's not. I'd define the two parties now as:
Republican: socially [traditional] kind-of conservative, fiscally liberal
Democrat: socially liberal, more fiscally [traditional] conservative
As a traditional conservative/Republican, I'm starting to question my loyalties. What's more important - the social or fiscal aspects of my political philosophy? The answer is important, since it could lead to a re-evaluation of my political party leanings.
However, even if I'm more inclined to go with the party of conservative fiscal policy (DemoRats), near recent history prevents that out of a lingering sense of disgust and filthiness after the Klintoon years. Nonetheless, I find myself in a quandary.
Libertarian perhaps? My 19 year old daughter, who just registered to vote last year, registered as an independent. Amazingly enough, I'm thinking she's pretty smart about now.
I didn't realize that Kerry supporters were allowed in here.
Why should I care about a small thing like an 8 trillion budget deficit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.