Wednesday, July 19, 2006

POLITICS - Fiscal Responsibility

"Guess who's more fiscally conservative?" by Froma Harrop, Rhode Island Journal

Back in 1949, the great Minnesota liberal Hubert Humphrey was pointedly asked on Meet the Press whether progressives like himself cared about holding down the costs of government. Humphrey answered yes, but "economy in government to me doesn't necessarily mean spending little. It means spending what you have and spending it well. . . ."

Fast-forward to a new study by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. The group found that in 2005, House Democrats and Republicans voted to raise government outlays by nearly equal amounts, and that in the Senate, Republicans spent only somewhat less. The foundation's verdict was basically fie on both houses of Congress, and on both parties, too.

The problem with such surveys is that they don't address Humphrey's point -- that it's not simply a matter of how much politicians spend but also how well they spend it. The person who spends $40,000 on education may be a more prudent financial guardian than someone who leaves $20,000 at a casino.

As for White House comparisons, there's no contest. The current Republican administration leaves its Democratic predecessor in the dust for both amounts spent and money wasted. Bush is the biggest spender since Lyndon Johnson, according to the Cato Institute. In domestic discretionary spending (which doesn't include defense or entitlements), Bush has Johnson beat. By contrast, Bill Clinton stands as a paragon of restraint. Domestic discretionary spending jumped an average 8 percent a year in Bush's first term, versus only 2.5 percent a year in Clinton's eight years.

Many conservatives are amazed that Democrats haven't made more hay of their superior record in containing the size of government. The Democrats' dilemma is that they are not philosophically opposed to expanded government, even if in practice they have shown far more spending discipline.

Democrats really ought to brag about their Clintonian track record. Not only did they keep government growth in check, but they paid its bills the old-fashioned way, with tax revenues. That's what fiscal rectitude is all about. And it shines next to the Bush administration's disgraceful habit of borrowing on the backs of future generations.

Even more important, Democrats have spent the taxpayers' money with greater care. The reason, in part, is that Democrats don't maintain a childlike faith in the good intentions and can-do of the private sector. They believe in regulating these guys -- and that government can do some things better than can business.


Duh! No kidding, "paid its bills the old-fashioned way, with tax revenues," and "don't maintain a childlike faith in the good intentions and can-do of the private sector." The only "good" intentions of the private sector is to line their pockets and can-screw everybody else.

No comments: