GOP Has the Upper Hand in the Government Spending Battle

February 3, 2011 RSS Feed Print

Battle lines are being drawn for a showdown over government spending. It will no doubt make the hard-hitting Super Bowl contest between the Steelers and the Packers look like a game of touch football. For those outside of Green Bay and Pittsburgh, the outcome of this debate could be much more important than who takes home the Lombardi Trophy.

Republicans have stayed consistent with the message that swept them to huge victories in November—our government must spend less. They have taken steps to ban earmarks, demanded spending reductions in the debt limit debate, and have offered detailed plans to cut spending. Republicans have to hope that Americans' concern over the deficit isn’t simply an extension of a weak economy. [Read more about the deficit and national debt.]

Democrats are making a much more cynical gamble. They’ve read the polls and understand that spending cuts are popular in the abstract, but disliked when you start offering specifics. A party that offers cuts to any beloved programs, even in the name of deficit reduction, opens themselves up to voter scorn. Democrats are attempting to leverage that reality to turn the spending debate in their favor. Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent wrote:

Don’t look now, but there are increasing signs that Democrats are adopting a surprisingly aggressive and unapologetic posture in the looming political battle with Republicans over government spending. Rather than running from the issue ... they are treating this as an argument that can be turned to their advantage, if it’s framed in the right way.

Obama used his State of the Union to argue that this is America’s “Sputnik moment,” in which government spending will help the economy break through its doldrums. Yesterday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called a mock hearing to pressure Republicans into implementing Obama’s call for more spending. Now the DCCC is getting in on the action, using radio ads to attack Republicans in 19 districts for wanting to cut spending on “education,” “science and technology,” and “research and development.” [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on Democrats.]

A recent Gallup poll shows that it may be a workable strategy. Although 84 percent of Americans cite the federal budget deficit as either extremely or very important (trailing only the economy and unemployment), majorities disapprove of many means to cut spending. Gallup finds that 55 percent oppose cuts to anti-poverty programs, 61 percent oppose cuts to Medicare, and 64 percent oppose cuts to Social Security.

This may work for President Obama, who just needs to skirt fiscal disaster long enough to get reelected in 2012, but do other Democrats really believe this is a sound long-term strategy? [Check out a roundup of political cartoons on Obama.]

Last week, the CBO reported that the deficit would likely hit $1.5 trillion this year, the highest figure in our nation’s history. A report by CNN finds that interest payments on the national debt could total $7.5 trillion if debt and interest rates continue their steady climb. The situation is growing so bad that Senate Democrats, such as Kent Conrad, are bucking the party line to declare, “We’re going to have to deal with the entitlements of Social Security [and] Medicare.”

I’m not sure what Democrats think they can gain by attempting to turn Republican’s spending cuts against them. Implicit in the argument is that our current fiscal course is sustainable. Such deficit deniers may succeed in the short term by scaring voters into thinking Republicans are trying to impede progress or threaten social welfare programs. When reality sets in and the bill comes due, Democrats may wake to find that their party platform has shrunk considerably. After all, it is difficult to promote an active role for government when there are simply no dollars to spend.

I may not be able to predict a Super Bowl winner with any accuracy, but it doesn’t take ESP to see that Republicans have the upper hand in this battle over spending. 

Tags:
Kent Conrad,
deficit and national debt,
Nancy Pelosi,
Congress,
democratic party,
unemployment,
2012 presidential election,
republican party

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

"The tax cuts of the 1920s"

"Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent."

"The Kennedy tax cuts"

"President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation)."

"The Reagan tax cuts"

"Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation)."

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/08/the-historical-lessons-of-lower-tax-rates

"MYTH: Raising taxes in the 1990s caused the boom years of that decade. This proves that raising taxes leads to economic growth."

"FACT: Tax cuts, not tax hikes, caused the boom years of the 1990s..."

"Dr. J. D. Foster":

"Following the [Clinton] tax hike, the economy performed reasonably well, but not as well as one would expect given the conditions at the time. The real economic boom came later in the decade, just when the economy should have slowed as it made the transition from a period of recovery to normal expansion. Further, this acceleration coincided to a remarkable degree with the 1997 tax cut. . . ."

(http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm1835.cfm)

"Lying About Bush's Tax Cuts"

"... According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total."

"In fact, the Bush tax cuts actually increased government revenue."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

Bill Hedges of MO 7:31PM February 03, 2011

1. "Social Security and Medicare are NOT paid for with Taxes!!!!"

Yes, they are !!! Giving you benefit of doubt that you meant general fund. There is no S/S peggy bank to speak of. Just IOU's for the most part.

"Social Security in the red this year"

12:08 p.m., Thursday, August 5, 2010

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/5/social-security-red-first-time-ever/

2. "The budget was balanced under Clinton"

Let's chekout Bill's 8 years. Why didn't you mention SURPLUS ?

"So why do they say he had a surplus?"

'As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors."

"Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security."

"Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:"

"Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy."

"When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security)."

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Bill Hedges of MO 7:09PM February 03, 2011

@DeeToo,

How about some sources to back up the numbers you have posted? I know the Social Security Numbers are not correct. Until recently SS taxes were more than SS payments. In 2010 SS taxes were about 40 billion less than payments. This does impact the deficit in a negative way. The problem with SS and medicare is that the ratio of people working to those collecting benefits keeps on getting smaller. So the taxes that were sufficient to fund the programs in 1998 are not sufficient today. So we either raise taxes on workers or cut benefits for those who are retired. How much are you willing to have your taxes raised or benefits cut?

Bob of TX 3:22PM February 03, 2011

Brandon Greife

Brandon Greife

Brandon Greife is the political director for the College Republican National Committee.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

Get God Out of the Gay Marriage Debate

The government shouldn't tell churches who they should marry, but neither should churches tell the government which marriages it can recognize.

Mary Kate Cary

Obama Attacks as Economic Cliff Looms

The president can't afford to talk about the economy, but with a 2013 fiscal time bomb approaching, the rest of us can't afford not to.

Concordia Ship Disaster

The Costa Concordia luxury cruise ship keeled over after it ran aground off the coast of Italy.

advertisement