Posts
Every president since Franklin Roosevelt has presided over and increase in social spending as a percentage of GDP, the category listed as "Human Resources" by the Office of Management and Budget, with the exception of Jimmy Carter. That exception would not have held except for the increase of the brief administration of Gerald Ford. Had Nixon completed his term and implemented the exact same spending policies, spending under Jimmy Carter would have been greater overall than that during his administration, so there would be no exception at all.
Barrack Obama has already set a new record on Human Resource spending as a percentage of GDP, and average spending on this is likely to set a record as well. Before stating that those who want smaller government have won the battle, we should wait until they actually succeed in reducing the size of government, not from what the government has proposed in the past but from what the government has actually spent in the past.
The upshot of the article is that people in the Tea Party should just stop complaining. Once again people who argue that we should have smaller government are being told that they don't have anything to contribute to the discussion. Of course people who think that that is the case have a right to make their argument, but it is dishonest for them to claim that they are in favor of smaller government while dismissing those who actually do want smaller government as extremists.
Now I will not identify myself as part of the Tea Party movement. I view this as being a conservative movement, and I do not self identify as a conservative. I believe that to do so would create confusion. Identifying myself as a libertarian more clearly communicates my views on a great many political issues in a rather succinct manner.
I view the Republican failure to limit the size of government as a consequence of the legal arrangements that were made to authorize spending in the past coupled with the GOP's interests in government spending programs. Spending on social programs tends to be "mandatory" whereas spending on the military is "discretionary". What this means is that it requires an act of congress to change this social spending in contrast to spending on "national defense" which requires an act of congress in order to continue. If it is true that the Republicans want more spending on the military and less on social programs, this puts them at a decisive disadvantage. In the event that they fail to reach a deal, most of the social spending programs will continue while spending on the military will come to an abrupt halt.
What we see here is a result of a long period of success for the Democratic Party. They have been able to define the issues so that the playing field is tilted in their favor no matter who is in charge. The options that the Republicans have for dealing with this are few and difficult to implement. They could attempt to amend the constitution, but this is made difficult and quite rightfully so. They could attempt to change the composition of the supreme court, but in order to do this they will have to occupy the White House for an extended period of time, which is difficult as well. They could negotiate reductions in "mandatory" social spending in return for increases in "discretionary" spending, but this would probably require that they put up with a short term increase in social spending.
In contrast the libertarians are in a much better position. They want lower spending all around. In the absence of an agreement spending will automatically go down. There is no form of spending that they want more of than either the Democrats or the Republicans. Thus the result of a failure to reach an agreement is likely to go better for them than for the Republicans, that is if they manage to actually get elected. Perhaps they could make some headway in that regard by pointing this out to those who want smaller government.
The upshot of the article is that people in the Tea Party should just stop complaining. Once again people who argue that we should have smaller government are being told that they don't have anything to contribute to the discussion. Of course people who think that that is the case have a right to make their argument, but it is dishonest for them to claim that they are in favor of smaller government while dismissing those who actually do want smaller government as extremists.
Now I will not identify myself as part of the Tea Party movement. I view this as being a conservative movement, and I do not self identify as a conservative. I believe that to do so would create confusion. Identifying myself as a libertarian more clearly communicates my views on a great many political issues in a rather succinct manner.
I view the Republican failure to limit the size of government as a consequence of the legal arrangements that were made to authorize spending in the past coupled with the GOP's interests in government spending programs. Spending on social programs tends to be "mandatory" whereas spending on the military is "discretionary". What this means is that it requires an act of congress to change this social spending in contrast to spending on "national defense" which requires an act of congress in order to continue. If it is true that the Republicans want more spending on the military and less on social programs, this puts them at a decisive disadvantage. In the event that they fail to reach a deal, most of the social spending programs will continue while spending on the military will come to an abrupt halt.
What we see here is a result of a long period of success for the Democratic Party. They have been able to define the issues so that the playing field is tilted in their favor no matter who is in charge. The options that the Republicans have for dealing with this are few and difficult to implement. They could attempt to amend the constitution, but this is made difficult and quite rightfully so. They could attempt to change the composition of the supreme court, but in order to do this they will have to occupy the White House for an extended period of time, which is difficult as well. They could negotiate reductions in "mandatory" social spending in return for increases in "discretionary" spending, but this would probably require that they put up with a short term increase in social spending.
In contrast the libertarians are in a much better position. They want lower spending all around. In the absence of an agreement spending will automatically go down. There is no form of spending that they want more of than either the Democrats or the Republicans. Thus the result of a failure to reach an agreement is likely to go better for them than for the Republicans, that is if they manage to actually get elected. Perhaps they could make some headway in that regard by pointing this out to those who want smaller government.
No comments:
Post a Comment