The party of born-again fiscal hawks?
posted at 3:50 pm on September 4, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
One year after massive government spending, spiraling national debt, crushing budget deficits, and an arrogant bid to take over the entire American health care system sent droves of angry voters to town-hall meetings across the country, Democrats have begun to figure out that they may have overreached just a tad after gaining full control over Washington DC. Actually, only some Democrats have realized it, and the Washington Post describes their sudden conversion to fiscal conservatism, even though the very same Democrats approved the spending binge that touched off the anger:
“We have managed to acquire $13 trillion of debt on our balance sheet,” he fumed to a roomful of voters. “In my view, we have nothing to show for it.”
And that was a Democrat, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, who voted “yes” on the stimulus, the health-care overhaul, increased education funding and other costly bills Congress approved under his party’s control.
Faced with a potential wipeout in November’s midterm elections, candidates such as Bennet are embracing budget cuts with the enthusiasm of Reagan Republicans.
Paul Hodes, the Democratic Senate candidate in New Hampshire, recently proposed $3 billion in spending cuts that would slice airport, railroad and housing funds. Elected to the House four years ago as an anti-war progressive, Hodes lamented that “for too long, both parties have willfully spent with no regard for our nation’s debt.”
The new push for austerity could prove too little, too late for Democrats, who fear losing their majorities in both chambers of Congress. In dozens of House and Senate races, incumbent Democrats are struggling in polls, leading political analysts to raise the serious prospect of Republican takeovers in the House and even the Senate.
Will anyone buy this sudden conversion? Doubtful. Actions speak louder than words, and for the last four years, these very same Democrats have been spending at a rate that made their Republican predecessors look positively miserly. In just three budget cycles, Democrats added over a trillion dollars in annual spending, hiking federal outlays by 38% while the economy tanked. They spent almost all of this session pursuing yet another entitlement program while existing entitlements began melting down, and only when their own jobs are on the line have they discovered that Americans are most concerned about job creation and unemployment.
They can’t say they weren’t warned, though. The town-hall meetings from last summer were the wake-up call Democrats ignored. This line from My Cousin Vinny sums up the Democratic reaction best:
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
Hey Dems,
“What you do speaks so loud, I cannot hear what you say.”
- Henry David Thoreau
anXdem on September 4, 2010 at 3:55 PM
Democrats have proven that they are a total waste of time and money, in my humble opinion
Vntnrse on September 4, 2010 at 3:55 PM
Democrats = Inept Communists
darwin on September 4, 2010 at 4:00 PM
The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.
— Maya Angelou
SkinnerVic on September 4, 2010 at 4:01 PM
“Look, it’s either them(RINOs) or me(Democrats). You’re getting f-cked one way or the other. Heh heh!” – Vincent Laguardia Gambini
Doughboy on September 4, 2010 at 4:01 PM
Pelosi took control six years ago. That is when the spending started. Bush being bi-partisan.
barnone on September 4, 2010 at 4:02 PM
The entire democrat party is one gigantic web of lies.
darwin on September 4, 2010 at 4:03 PM
Well, it worked for John McCain so… maybe?
sharrukin on September 4, 2010 at 4:03 PM
They are scurrying to get in front of the parade in order to appear to be leading it.
pedestrian on September 4, 2010 at 4:15 PM
We need lots of new fiscally smart people elected.
Jamson64 on September 4, 2010 at 4:15 PM
Yup. And if they were really serious, the Dems would put out a budget this year, showing how awesomely awesome their plan is.
Weight of Glory on September 4, 2010 at 4:17 PM
Democrats, give lie cheat and steal a bad name.
Hey, sure I robbed the bank, but I was only doing it for you.
tarpon on September 4, 2010 at 4:24 PM
I think it’s a little late for them to have a Death Bed Conversion.
Tav on September 4, 2010 at 4:32 PM
Dear Mr. Hodes, and other late to the party guests…
How about:
1. 10% across the board cuts in all federal spending.
2. Eliminate at least two cabinet level departments.(I don’t much care which ones.)
Want serious budget reform? That would get the ball rolling.
massrighty on September 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM
WHILE RUNNING FOR OFFICE: Talking like Conservatives.
IN OFFICE: Voting like Socialists.
The curtain is up, guys.
You’re exposed as the phonies you are!
(I prefer the “Singin’ In The Rain” comparison to the “Wizard of Oz” reference)
Lockstein13 on September 4, 2010 at 4:37 PM
Protect the borders, deliver the mail. After that we can negotiate.
Mord on September 4, 2010 at 4:42 PM
Isn’t this the Colorado senator who said well ahead of the ObamaCare vote that he didn’t particularly care what the will of the Colorado residents was, he was voting for ObamaCare whether they wanted it or not? Even if it cost him his job? Well he did and it will so what’s he even spending a dime for.
Marcus on September 4, 2010 at 4:46 PM
They tried Keynesism. Now they will try a bit of trickle-down economics. Anything to help the leftist political cause.
keep the change on September 4, 2010 at 4:49 PM
There are no fiscal conservatives in the Democrat Party. Some of them will run a campaign that says that they are. But when it comes time to vote for the most expensive and liberal legislation of all time, they’ll vote for it.
Every time.
SlaveDog on September 4, 2010 at 4:57 PM
Oh, for a minute I though you were talking about the Republicans again….
[We wouldn't be in this mess if the Republicans had been fiscal hawks under Bush, when their power was unchecked. Bush, his unqualified cronies, and his Congressional cohorts grew government as fast as they thought they could.]
dtestard on September 4, 2010 at 4:58 PM
Beware of charlatans!
They fooled the nation twice, 2006 and 2008.
Be fooled again, and deserve them royally.
Schadenfreude on September 4, 2010 at 5:05 PM
CHARLATANS!
The Unbearable Lightness of Being CONSERVATIVE
Lockstein13 on September 4, 2010 at 5:16 PM
OT/
A new poll has U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski beating Joe Miller by six percent if she runs on the Libertarian ticket. The bigger news? The Alaska Libertarian Party isn’t as opposed to the idea as it sounded a few days ago. The party’s candidate for senator, David Haase, said he would support Murkowski if she agreed to certain Libertarian principals.
“If Lisa Murkowski will take up the banner of the people’s bailout, then she’ll have my support,” said Haase, 68. “But with sincerity and for real,” he added, chuckling. “I’m not going to buy a pig in a poke here.”
“We are open to a sit-down chat with Lisa, anytime,” said Scott Kohlhaas, the party’s chairman and a candidate for House District 20 in Anchorage.
http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/09/04/lisa-murkowski-the-libertarian/
sharrukin on September 4, 2010 at 5:20 PM
He tried to spoon feed me the same crap one morning in a local restraunt. I was afraid he would poke my eyes out with his nose.
boomer on September 4, 2010 at 5:21 PM
Paul Hodes proposing a cut of $3 billion… that’s pathetic and laughable. That’s like going to the barber and getting a single hair trimmed and calling it a haircut.
beatcanvas on September 4, 2010 at 5:26 PM
Liberalism is a mental disorder that keeps on keeping on. The only cure for obvious intellectual bankruptcy is losing an election. At least there is a cure.
volsense on September 4, 2010 at 5:54 PM
This change in direction is what the bluedogs do every election year. They lie and deceive their constituents and then stab them in the backs as the polls close. It works repeatedly with the leftwing nutjob lemmings. Until it doesn’t work, no reason to stop what has always worked in the past.
volsense on September 4, 2010 at 5:58 PM
Oh how we forget that Bush had a democratic congress but when it comes to blame time it’s all bushies fault.
mixplix on September 4, 2010 at 6:08 PM
Bush had a Democratic Congress for 2 years, and he would have dragged them kicking and screaming if necessary (it wasn’t) to participate in his crony capitalism.
It amazes me how the people who point at Obama’s leadership flaws (spending out of control, cronyism, federal overreach, etc.) can be so blind to his forerunner….
dtestard on September 4, 2010 at 6:18 PM
Many posts, on this blog and others, criticized GWB during his tenure for examples of these things, where they were found. Hot Air in particular doesn’t have a lot of lock-stepping me-too posters. We agree on some things, and disagree on others.
The problem that now confronts us now is this; even if one were to accept uncritically that GWB were guilty of all of thes things, BHO has taken them to outrageous extremes.
massrighty on September 4, 2010 at 7:01 PM
Obama’s FIRST DEFICIT was more than the first SIX DEFICITS under Bush.
Bush had to deal with the tech bubble burst plus 9/11.
Pelosi had only to deal with….what?
DavidM on September 4, 2010 at 7:02 PM
First SIX deficits COMBINED.
DavidM on September 4, 2010 at 7:02 PM
PERFECT!
cmsinaz on September 4, 2010 at 7:30 PM
(NYT)
Read this somewhere this PM and couldn’t believe the absurdity of it. This sort of hold out the carrot and pull it back on a string in order to get our own way is one of the things that got us into this mess in the first place. The level of fiscal stupidity in the WH has gone into another plane of existence. They have become unable to deal simply or intelligently with even the most obvious. We need to make blatant imcompetency an impeachable offense.
jeanie on September 4, 2010 at 7:33 PM
Are you new to this site? If you weren’t, you wouldn’t post such a stupid thing. There has been a lot of criticism of Republicans here and our side proves we are serious when we vote incumbents out.
We had 9/11 and wars on two fronts as well as the pop of the tech bubble. Republicans did make bad policy decisions because they are typical politicians but the last 4 years have proven that the dems are 100 times worse.
Vince on September 4, 2010 at 7:52 PM
Nice rant, could you site some examples of Bush’s crony capitalism?
There are lots of examples under Obama (auto, banking, wall street) but I’m not sure exactly what examples there were under Bush (real examples BTW).
whbates on September 4, 2010 at 8:05 PM
You’re kidding me right?
1) First, Bush signed TARP. The AEI (the receiving big-business end of crony-capitalism; the “Enterprise” in their name stands for free enterprise to the exact same extent that “Democratic” in China’s name stands for democracy) loved the subsequent stimulus it created, saying it boosted the economy (or at least their coffers) by 4%. More please, Obama, it’ll be bi-partisan because we support it!!!
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/aei-says-stimulus-boosted-economy-4
2) Second, the irresponsible housing policies pushed by the Bush White House (which were embraced by “carrots” given to Big Finance to increase their profits while decreasing their responsibilities) were the immediate precipitating cause of the housing bubble and collapse. Bush burned down the house, not just the Democrats, as this video explains:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLUbb2DUYGk
3) Third, the Bush Administration tried to destroy the U.S. Patent System because big business doesn’t like patents. (Yup, it was the Financial Sector and the U.S. IT companies, who no longer design their own products but want to be free to use Asian off-the-shelf products and designs to make a buck… go ahead, check out the companies in the “Coalition for Patent Fairness”… Bush’s bedfellows one and all).
The Bush Administration was shot down (completely) in court, you can read the decision here:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/PTO.pdf
4) I could go on and on, about the oil industry and its oversight during the Bush administration (do you remember Bush getting on TV and telling Americans why oil should be $4 a gallon?), about no-bid contracts by select Big Business for Iraq war support, about the flooding of the Justice Departmwent with partisan hacks in an attempt to make an economic shift (towards the upper end of the scale) judicially possible….
Obama is just following hard in Bush’ footsteps, economically speaking, using the plays from the Bush playbook, and accelerating our turn to socialism.
dtestard on September 4, 2010 at 9:00 PM
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-asks-for-tarp-money-for-obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1G2Jyvpje8
He made some mistakes. That of course doesn’t change the fact that Obama is far, far worse!
sharrukin on September 4, 2010 at 9:01 PM
P.S. If you don’t understand why a government-run economy needs “big business,” perhaps you could study WWII Germany. It has nothing to do with capitalism. (The Bush supporters always pointed to Bush tilting the scales to big business to show his “capitalism,” but fascism needs big business too, and won’t tolerate the other players of a free market.)
dtestard on September 4, 2010 at 9:05 PM
Hey, dtestard the Copperhead, when you can explain this chart showing the deficits dropping until you Copperheads took over the Congress (which is the only branch that spends money), I might listen to your crap.
SDN on September 4, 2010 at 9:16 PM
Hey, SDN, what’s a copperhead? So Obama isn’t responsible for the deficits because it’s all Congress’ fault? That’s a good talking point for his 2012 campaign. (sarc)
dtestard on September 4, 2010 at 9:36 PM
Hey SDN, I just looked at your old chart. What it shows is the TRUTH!!!
1) We had a surplus under Clinton
2) We had deficits under Bush and Obama.
The deficit(s) under Bush were the largest we’ve EVER had, until we had Obama. So you’re saying Bush is better than Obama? Omgosh, we are in trouble if that’s how Republicans rationalize.
You might want to raise your sights just a bit. We need a (Republican) president who doesn’t run deficits!!! RINOs run deficits as a way of life (oh, Bush ran eight of them, gee imagine why the younguns have no fear of debt now and spend like there’s no accountability).
dtestard on September 4, 2010 at 9:43 PM
I would like to be a fly on the wall listening to the democrats strategize for November. They’re screwed.
Hey let’s tell them that we’re gonna save money. Yah, that’d work.
Mojave Mark on September 4, 2010 at 11:56 PM
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!
chickasaw42 on September 5, 2010 at 12:05 AM
Heh… My Cousin Vinney. Funniest movie evah.
Oh yeah, the Dem’s are full of it too.
Hog Wild on September 5, 2010 at 12:50 AM
Both parties answer to the same master, monetized debt.
The two core duties of the Federal Government are to protect our borders i.e. physical safety and protect our currency i.e. economic safety. So what have we done for the last 100 years or so. Protect borders 7000 miles away and actually encouraged violation of our own border 700 miles away. Huh? You see, that franchise on monetized debt must be exercised. It’s so much easier to pile up massive debt with foreign entanglements. Why have we given the franchise to create and destroy our national money supply to private interests rather than maintain it as a sovereign right of the people via the federal government? Why do we routinely destroy and then (except for recessions and depressions) recreate ~ $3 Trillion dollars a year? Why is it necessary to routinely destroy and recreate a logical/legal construct designed to simply act as a “claim check” on goods and services? Why, to pile up the debt! And not just any type of debt but a special form that is destructive of money itself, MONETARY DEBT.
So, what’s the score? $21 Trillion of MONETARY DEBT & $13.9 Trillion of MONEY(M3). We are actually upside down in our money supply to the tune of $7.1 Trillion dollars. Milton Friedman got it right when he said monetary contractions are the cause of recessions and depressions. And what contracts our national money supply? Monetary destruction via monetary debt.
REFERENCES:
Monetary Debt: “Z.1 Flow of Funds”, Table L.4 lines 7 thru 10. FED.
Money(M3): http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/money-supply-charts | M3 Data Series | View (requires subscription).
Creation and Destruction of Money: “Modern Money Mechanics”, Pg1-13, Chicago FED.
If you don’t have a crystal clear understanding of MONETIZED DEBT and its love child, the now $21 Trillion DEBT BOMB, you will be gamed by both republicans and democrats in an endless game of economic PONG.
speed on September 5, 2010 at 8:27 AM