Big Government: The cultural issue
posted at 5:56 pm on February 1, 2010 by Karl
As Pres. Obama’s $3.8 trillion budget lands with a thud, The Hill asked commentators, legislators and intellectuals whether approving it will hurt Democrats in November. Kudos to Sydelle Moore for ordering the responses to allow the Instapundit to prebut the founder of Craigslist:
Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit said:
Yes. One telling indicator is a growing effort by the remaining Obama partisans to paint Bush as an equivalent big spender, even though the Bush deficits were much smaller than Obama’s, and declining thoughout most of his second term. Not that Bush was any prize, but Obama’s deficits are of an entirely different magnitude.
Obama’s deficits are unsustainable, and obviously so. To use Al Gore’s frog-boiling metaphor, the stove may have been on “simmer” before, but Obama has turned it up to “11″ and now the frog is kicking.
Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist, said:
Most of the deficit was directly or indirectly inherited from prior years. If that’s honestly communicated in the media, then the people who caused the deficit will have problems.
If honestly communicated, then this helps the Democrats.
Seems like the people who complain about this budget are the people who caused it. We need more honesty about that.
The Instapundit’s link provides a graphic refutation of Newmark’s claim that Obama’s deficits were inherited from the Bush administration or the GOP Congress. Ironically, Newmark is correct in the larger sense. The federal government’s structural deficits are inherited from an entire series of prior administrations. Quite a bit of those inherited problems stem from entitlement programs passed on a bipartisan basis — though Democrats prefer to take all of the credit, and none of the blame for them.
However, the smartest answer to the question of whether Obama’s big-taxing, even bigger-spending, deficit-growing and government-growing budget will hurt Democrats may come from National Review’s Rich Lowry, who compares Obama’s current predicament to that of Bill Clinton:
The backlash against Democrats in 1994 was famously attributed to “gays, guns, and God.” Obama has mostly avoided stoking opposition around that hot-button triad, but faces a very similar backlash. Why?
Big government became a cultural issue. The level of spending, the bailouts, and the extent of the intervention in the economy contemplated in health-care reform and cap-and-trade created the fear that something elemental was changing in the country — quickly and irrevocably.
Just as Clinton ran up against the country’s cultural conservatism, so has Obama. But Obama is encountering its fiscal expression, the sense that America has always been defined by a more stringently limited government than other advanced countries. If Obama is rebuked in November, it won’t be a “gays, guns, and God” backlash, but an “American exceptionalism” backlash.
Obama has added fuel to it with his serial apologies for America and his cringing attitude abroad, which has made him sound, in John Bolton’s evocative phrase, like a “post-American” president.
Arguing the numbers in Pres. Obama’s budget is a crucial and important debate… among policy wonks. In the broader public, it merely adds to the perception that Obama is keen on converting the United States into a Euro-style, corporatist, social democracy. That is a bad look for an election year.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Bayam: That (already outdated) Heritage Foundation bar graph cited above in someone’s link included the expenditures for Iraq and Afghanistan.
onlineanalyst on February 1, 2010 at 7:58 PM
Karl, good catch.
Glen, way to stay on your toes.
Graig, I’m afraid you are indeed a moron.
JusDreamin on February 1, 2010 at 8:11 PM
It’s a good thing that since we started to drill for our own oil and energy supplies, we are so flushed in extra cash to pay for this without borrowing a $0.10…
Oh, wait!
Seven Percent Solution on February 1, 2010 at 8:14 PM
Budget-preparation should take the long view and prepare for the unexpected “rainy days.”
Our growing entitlement sector is destined to crash our currency and our economy. The number of entitlement schemes continues to grow while the earning, tax-paying population is shrinking, whether from the aging of America or the recession.
Baby boomers were described by a writer once as a “pig in a python.” An observer could trace the digestion of that pig by watching its movement in the snake. The boomers are a large cadre. Their numbers affected shortages throughout their lifespans; eg.,inadequate schools for their population. Now, as they reach retirement or Medicare years, they will again find themselves shortchanged because of government Ponzi schemes (even though they have spent their working years paying into these rackets).
The executive and congressional budget makers are not considering much beyond their licking chops for power and personal pocket lining.
onlineanalyst on February 1, 2010 at 8:20 PM
Imagine if we had a 1% surplus each and every year and that was invested into an All American Trust Fund where only the money made from the interest could ever be spent. We would be SOOOOOooooo rich as a nation. Our current leadership is simply insane.
Mojave Mark on February 1, 2010 at 8:25 PM
Read Doctor Zero’s related essay in the Green Room.
publiuspen on February 1, 2010 at 8:27 PM
Didn’t Sarah do something like that in Alaska?
publiuspen on February 1, 2010 at 8:29 PM
From Instapundit:
The street protests hadn’t started yet, but the movement had already started. The Tea Party movement had it’s infancy during the Bush years with it’s overspending(with the Republicans in congress). I remember plenty of people (unfortunately not our elected officials) that complained about the Bush spending. It just didn’t get really organized until the start of the Obama reign. During the Bush years the number of self described Republicans kept dropping because the Conservatives had no representation in any party. If the Republicans had governed like the Conservatives they claimed to be there would have been no need for the Tea Party movement because they would still be in power.
Corsair on February 1, 2010 at 9:40 PM
The corruption would be breathtaking. Giving Congress control of an endowment so large that the interest could fund all our government operations? No thanks. Giving that ability to a “non-partisan” (read: utterly unaccountable) panel that Congress gets to select? Even worse.
Fabozz on February 1, 2010 at 10:16 PM
Republicans need do nothing about this budget. Democrats will kill themselves over it and they are going to lose HUGE in November.
drjohn on February 1, 2010 at 10:23 PM
Not at all a stupid question, knuck;
This is a proposed budget.
House can:
A. Craft a bill that incorporates stuff from this proposal (the usual practice.)
B. Create their own.
Senate can
A. Vote on the house bill.
B. Create there own.
Senate and house bills don’t match? They can form a conference committee – both houses vote finish product.
OR
Reconcilliation – one committee fuses both together, taking out/leaving in whatever elements they see fit.
This is what the design purpose of reconcilliation was: not to jam HC down our throats.
Could be a good process, for this job, if honored.
massrighty on February 1, 2010 at 10:37 PM
OT, but at this very moment, Obama is NOT, repeat, NOT on the Weather Channel.
I swear.
Hurry up if you want to catch some Obama free TV.
justltl on February 1, 2010 at 11:32 PM
Actually I am glad that a highly partisan Congress and President are doing their highly partisan best to push garbage through the budget. Why? I detest ‘bi-partisanship’ as it has meant the incremental expansion of government unabated for decades.
Americans do much, much better with clear choices and divisions between them. Would you rather have an appetizer, main course and dessert as separate courses or put in a blender and mashed into a single pulp? Partisanship offers distinctions and differences, and puts advocates on the hot seat… bi-partisanship puts ‘feel good’ mush through that erodes liberty and freedom via the backrooms Upon the Hill.
There has been no problem so great outside of World Wars that we need bi-partisanship. Even the Cold War only needed such for defense, but those wanting social programs started to bargain defense against huge social entitlements so that we got two increadibly overburdened, poorly run systems from it – one to protect the Nation and the other to give handouts to people. Prior to the Progressive Era, which we live with to this day in ‘bi-partisan’ government, we had distinctions between views in politics and the good feeling of sweeping the rascals out every couple of years to replace them with newer and more replaceable rascals.
You would not get such a vehement reaction against slowly bigger government without partisanship. It is a very, very good and healthy thing to have as it helps cleanse the Nation of bad ideas that use bleeding heart sympathy to convince us that bleeding wrists are just fine, too, to address the bleeding heart.
I welcome the partisanship. I detest the things that are being pushed, but that is part and parcel of partisanship and that is what is getting our reactions, today. I will never vote for someone wanting to ‘reach across the aisle’ outside of the realms of defense. And even then if you have to do the reaching, that means they aren’t serious about defending the Nation, so that is a hard, hard sell. More partisanship and lots of it, please. It is a very good thing and this budget is demonstrating that, along with TARP, the stimulus, bank bailouts, health care… please tell us how good government is that it causes more problems than it can ever fix at any cost… save your priceless liberty.
More of this garbage, please.
It needs to see the light of day and I do agree that the bi-partisanship that handed us this path needs to be seen in the light of day. That won’t help the D or R party very much, but it is very good thing for America.
ajacksonian on February 2, 2010 at 7:10 AM
Congressional Republicans are guilty of deficit spending, its true. But they are pikers compared to the Dems.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1900_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=G0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=US%20Federal%20Deficit%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s
Bush + GOP Congress average is 1.94 percent of GDP(2001-2006).
Bush + Dem Congress average is 2.2% of GDP (2007-2008)
Obama + Dem Congress average is 10.28% of GDP.
This isn’t apples and oranges. Its apples and Watermelons.
DavidM on February 2, 2010 at 8:56 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2