America Just Checked Into Rehab

On Tuesday voters rejected President Obama's attempt to remake America in the image of an imploding Europe -- not just by overwhelmingly electing Republican candidates in the House, but by preferring dozens of maverick conservatives who ran against establishment Washington.

Why the near-historic rebuke? Out-of-control spending, unchecked borrowing, vast new entitlements and unsustainable debt -- all at a time of economic stagnation.

So what is next? Like the recovering addict who checks himself into rehab, a debt-addicted America just snapped out of its borrowing binge, is waking up with the shakes, and hopes there is still a chance at recovery.

It won't be easy. Obama and his Democratic Congress ran up nearly $3 trillion in new debt in just 21 months -- after running a disingenuous 2008 campaign that falsely promised to rein in the fiscal irresponsibility that had been rampant during the spendthrift Bush administration.

So the voters intervened and sent America in for rehab treatment. In our three-step road to recovery, we, the sick patient, must first end the denial, then accept the tough medicine, and finally change the entrenched habits that caused the addiction.

First, voters did not reject Obama's agenda because he was too centrist, borrowed and spent too little money, or did not more vigorously pursue unpopular agenda items like cap-and-trade and blanket amnesty. Nor was the Democratic meltdown because of Obama's inability to articulate his agenda. The vision itself -- not the talking points -- was the problem.

Obama failed miserably to keep the nation's trust. After just 21 months, the country concluded that he was an extremist, and that his attempts to manage the economy through massive borrowing, rapid growth in government size and spending, assumption of private enterprise, and serial harangues against business and the rich had turned a recession into a crisis of confidence and a near-depression. For some strange reason, Obama thought the cure for Republican big-spending was European-style socialism, when in fact, voters wanted an end to Bush-era borrowing and waste -- not far more of it.

Second, not being Obama will no longer be enough for the ascendant Republicans, many of them political novices or Tea Party mavericks skeptical of both parties. These outsiders told outraged voters that America will have to step up and start controlling spending in a manner Republicans never did as a majority in Congress from 2001 to 2006. Perhaps a good symbolic start would be to cut back on popular pet programs -- agricultural subsidies, for example -- whose end the republic will survive. This would be iconic proof of congressional willingness to alienate powerful special interests. Social Security, Medicare and some Defense programs all have to be on the table.

If conservatives plan to cut taxes, they will no longer be able to convince the public that the resulting supply-side growth in the economy will eventually bring in more money and balance the budget. Instead, right from the start, the new House majority will have to demand that we pay as we go -- every dollar lost in revenue will require a commensurate dollar cut in federal spending.

Republicans should be willing to be demagogued by a weakened Obama as heartless and cruel budget cutters -- even if the president may well be the ultimate beneficiary by running on the new theme of fiscal responsibility and a recovering economy in 2012.

Third, voters want their Congress and president to end the pathological value system that got us into this mess. Instead of the president barnstorming the country handing out borrowed cash to favored constituencies and playing one identity group against another, he had better stay in Washington, keep off Comedy Central and "The View," and only come out to brag when he has cut unsustainable spending for all of us.

It should also be an embarrassment, not an honor, for congressional members of either party to put their names on the latest pork-barrel projects. And instead of weekly newsletters from Washington that boast of bringing home the bacon, voters prefer hard proof that their government only spent what it took in. Any politician can promise a new project, an expanded entitlement or a special-interest tax break with someone else's money, but only a statesman can explain exactly how it is all to be paid for.

So for now, voters have said that they are sick of profligate Democrats. But if Republicans do not get that message regarding fiscal restraint, in two years it will be their turn -- again.

America may have checked into rehab, but can it break its addiction when the pusher (Obama) is still hanging around?

As I understand it (but I've been wrong before), all bills originate in the House and the House pretty much controls the purse strings and to rein in Obamacare for example, they just refuse to fund it.

Repeal on the other hand would require House action, Senate approval and the president's signature.

...he had better stay in Washington, keep off Comedy Central and "The View," and only come out to brag when he has cut unsustainable spending for all of us.

I don't think he's capable of any of these actions.

You are correct in that the House can keep us straight by cutting off our financial resources...if it will stick to the program.

That said, the pusher of our national drug (spending) is still in our circle of contacts and will continually to try derail our rehab.

As I understand it (but I've been wrong before), all bills originate in the House

Only Revenue Bills are required by the Constitution to originate in the House.

What the Appropriations Committee needs to do is refrain from passing any omnibus spending bill. They need individual spending bills for each department or agency. They should be frugal bills and the should speed them over to the Senate. Let the Harry Reid be the one stopping the bills in the Senate or make Obama veto them. The house should pass only the required spending.

However, the chief drug pusher, Bernanke, has just injected $600 BILLION newly-printed, rapidly-sinking dollars into the nation’s veins to “simulate” spending addicts into spending more. Too bad the nation can’t vote on throwing out the Federal Reserve that has destroyed the value of our currency.

Only Revenue Bills are required by the Constitution to originate in the House. What the Appropriations Committee needs to do is refrain from passing any omnibus spending bill. They need individual spending bills for each department or agency. They should be frugal bills and the should speed them over to the Senate. Let the Harry Reid be the one stopping the bills in the Senate or make Obama veto them. The house should pass only the required spending.

That is exactly how it must be done! An omnibus spending bill allows the president to "shift" the uses of that whole pot of funds. But if Congress passes individual bills allocating limited funds for specific departments and agencies, the president can only spend those amounts toward the uses for which they were appropriated.

The House of Representatives holds all the cards, since it alone may originate spending bills. What remains to be seen is whether or not the House has the guts to play its hand. Whig status awaits if the GOP folds...

That what was wrong with the government shutdown in 1995, they tried negotiating an omnibus budget with Clinton and threatened to shut down the government. This gave Clinton a huge political opening, through which he ran. This time pass the appropriation bills separately and frugally and let the dems stop, veto or whine.

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.