Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
An Unwillingness to Fight?
One common argument we’ve heard this election cycle is that people are angry at Republicans because of the GOP’s fecklessness and unwillingness to reign in the Obama Administration. But based on this data, that anger may have been misplaced:
A president’s budget proposal tends to be a curious document that acts as part wishful thinking and part a projection of hope into the future. For example, Bush’s last budget proposal showed a federal government that was on track to produce a balanced budget within a few years. Obama’s budget, on the other hand, anticipated a massive spending increase in the first year (due to stimulus spending) followed by pretty typical increases of about 6 percent per year. That “6 percent” is important because in 2009 it was the rate at which federal spending had grown year over year for almost 30 years. So that is the number the Obama team used as their standard for how quickly spending should keep growing. But after Republicans took control of Congress in 2011, despite what you may have heard, they really did put a brake on federal spending. A really good brake. In fact, since 2011, federal spending has increased at only 1.3 percent per year … the slowest rate since the aftermath of World War II.
That looks pretty good to me, and it translates into some serious money:
The projected federal spending number in this chart is the initial spending projection for those years taken from Obama’s budgets. It represents how the Obama team anticipated to spend given a standard 6 percent yearly increase in spending. The orange bar is what the federal government actually spent.
In 2009, Obama promised to cut federal spending by $100 million, which sounds big but is actually hilariously small in terms of federal spending. By contrast, by 2012 (the first fiscal year the majority GOP could even influence), the Republicans had slashed Obama’s budget expectations by $217 billion … more than 2,000 times that amount.
And that was just the beginning.
The difference between Obama’s 2015 spending projection and what was actually spent was an astounding $697 billion dollars. That’s more money than we spent on Medicaid.
Let that sink in.
In five years, the Republicans managed to hold back Obama’s spending increases by more money than if they actually got rid of Medicaid. And so far 2016 looks like it will hold to that trend.
If you took the difference between Obama’s projected spending and the actual spending appropriated by Congress for all five years, it’s a jaw-dropping difference of $2.5 trillion.
That’s some real walking around money in Federal Budget Terms.
There is an extremely long way to go and plenty of reason for frustration, but this is more than a decent start on the spending front. That they managed this with a hostile president is even more remarkable.
Not bad for the party that never fights.
Published in Domestic Policy, General
Apparently you care since you asked the question.
I think that is mostly the case, unfortunately they outnumber us by a good margin.
Does that same media get any credit for the success in the 2010 and 2014 elections?
I agree they play up the sensational angles to drive ratings. Heck, even Ricochet has devolved into that tactic. However, I don’t think we can hold them accountable for the candidate’s statements during the elections.
Off topic, sort of, but this reminds me of a discussion we had here a long while back about creating a center-right version of the BBC or NPR. Something with the kind of in-depth stories they present, but without the left-wing bias. (Not that I’d want it to have a flagrantly conservative bias, but one where if it strays from objectivity, it leans our way.) I’d like to watch something with more reporting and less opinion.
They should.
I like the Washington Free Beacon from that perspective. Have you checked them out?
One of my favorite columnists there is Elizabeth Harrington. She is a national treasure on fiscal issues in my opinion.
My favorite news source!
That proves my point. Since the very idea seems crazy, it shows how much you are willing to ceed the argument to the Dems.
Gun rights is popular at the moment. Imagine the Dems being forced to argue that a right granted in the Constitution is less worthy of reciprocity than driving, which causes more deaths, and is not enumerated.
Heavy handed forcing of the states to Honor a right enumerated in the Constitution = Bad?
I don’t think it would play out that way, as I point out above.
Is that directed at yourself, me or the electorate in general?
Except, Gun rights are popular, even among some of the Democrats. More popular than the GOP as a whole.
Let’s have the fight and not shy away from it.
Well since Trump’s platform is a far cry from “very conservative” (as is Trump in general), you citing the fact that nationwide honoring of concealed carry permits is in Trump’s platform is complete red herring. Hence, my response of “who cares”. I figured that would be obvious but guess not.
On its face I agree, but that isn’t how the Constitution is enforced.
I never said it was bad, good or indifferent. What I said was that coercing states to honor every other states concealed carry laws is not “very conservative”. My sense is that it is a political loser as well. Not a high priority at all for the vast majority of voters.
You seem to be confusing concealed carry with the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The current GOP has done plenty of fighting to protect the 2nd Amendment nationwide.
Not you. You seem to get it. And I flatter myself that I am a little bit informed about the basics. No, I mean the electorate in general.
It isn’t a red herring, but thanks for the insult [redacted].
It is a part of Trump’s platform and one I criticized.
Have you read his platform? You may be shocked how conservative it is.
Why do we need to have a fight that turns an issue from a winner into a loser? Just for the sake of having a fight? So that we will be “fighting”? I don’t hear any clamor for nationwide carry permits. Why do we have to trample on federalism and turn public opinion against us on gun rights, just to achieve a goal that nobody particularly wants? What kind of strategy is that?
I haven’t read it. Has Trump?
Wow, I don’t think you are following this correctly and no need to start calling names. My original question was in regards to who claims that coercing the states to honor every other state’s Concealed Carry laws is a “very conservative” position. You said it was in Trump’s platform. My response was that it is irrelevant (and a red herring) that it is in Trump’s platform because his platform is not “very conservative”. You then call me a jerk….ok.
I have indeed read Trump’s platform. Some conservative elements in there – although very little of which involves shrinking the state (which is one of the core goals of conservatism…at least as I understand it) – his lower tax rates (those that he hasn’t already walked back) will generate so much revenue that we don’t have to shrink the state!!! Lots of not very conservative stuff as well.
I have the same question.
In the early days after he declared he referenced it or at least alluded to it.
Then he either started experiencing early onset of Alzheimer’s or dementia (I am being serious, that is what he reminds me of sometimes when he talks) or he just got caught up in the cult of personality the media created around him and he went into full reality TV character.
This is my biggest concern about him is the lack of consistency and principles. There are some things he seems to ‘get’ or understand and has highlighted some issues others have ignored.
His prescriptions for those issues are marginal, less than conservative, and highly malleable and thus my concern about him becoming President.
I am not wasting your time floating red herrings so no need to accuse me of it.
You asked an honest question and got an honest answer. You didn’t like the answer so then you claimed you weren’t interested and insulted me.
So yes, I think that makes you a jerk.
Don’t ask questions if you aren’t prepared for the answer. If someone takes the time to respond to your question in good faith you should consider that and not go off on petty tangents.
Agreed.
Please, stop with the dramatics about being “insulted”. You attempted to answer the question, but your answer wasn’t actually a response to my specific question…hence, red herring. It has nothing to do with liking or not liking the answer.
Following the logic you used to answer my question, any policy in Trump’s platform is, by definition, “very conservative”. We both know that is absolutely not true.
You have a lot to learn about good faith and fundamental reading comprehension.
Not true, but once again I appreciate your mischaracterizing my attempt to honestly answer your question.
You show your true colors and cement my assertion about your character or lack thereof.
Because we are losing by not fighting. Since we are losing anyway, how about fighting some and seeing if we can win?
What kind of a strategy is it to keep losing?
But we are not losing. We win more than we lose. Which is incredible when we don’t hold the White House! What kind of strategy is it to keep taking victories and declaring defeat? What kind of masochistic insanity is this?
And if you want a fight, why don’t you pick something important? Something that matters? Something that helps us?
The States, are required to offer “Full Faith and Credit” AND the 2nd Amendment spells out right to carry guns around (note it is not just keep them at home locked up). If that is not enough, the 14th Amendment gives Congress the right to intervene as it sees fit.
But no, you are scared to even go there. So is the GOP. And this is on item after item after item.
The left moves its ball down the field, taking every victory it can get. It always takes risks to get more of what they want.
Your path is to sit on a lead in one area and not rock the boat.
It is time to rock the boat. Rock it hard. Do whatever it takes to get and keep power. Stop being in a gun fight with bare hands.
The Democrats are a party of crooks and liars and criminals. The GOP should call them such, and every time a Democrat speaks, a Republican should be there to point out how the Democrat wants nothing less than the complete and total destruction of freedom and liberty.
THAT is fighting. And the GOP, and people like you, are unwilling to do it.
Thus, there are voters willing to follow anyone who even sounds like they are willing to fight.
Please explain the reading comprehension issue. Responding with “it’s in Trump’s platform” is not an answer to the question posed…at least not an answer with any sort of logical consistency. The only person showing lack of character, bad faith and engaging in petty name calling here is you.
As far as I can tell from this back and forth is that the reason your answer wasn’t a red herring is because you don’t waste people’s time and providing an answer that is a red herring would be wasting people’s time, ergo your answer was not a red herring. This is commonly know as begging the question…
The fight you are advocating for here on Concealed Carry is almost certain not to be a fight worth having. Other fights definitely are but not this one.
We are winning?
What wins? What lasting roll back of Leftist policy have we won in the last 50 years. Name 1.
We have not closed 1 Federal Agency. We have not won on one social policy in the culture war. We have not reduced the debt. We have not won a war since WWII. We have seen every Leftist program survive, with not one staying cut.
We cannot even keep the EXIM bank dead. Paul Ryan brought it back to life.
Don’t speak to me of winning more than we lose, unless you have solid examples of how we have rolled back, not slowed, rolled back the Leftist agenda.
You don’t seem willing to fight for anything. And this one is worth fighting for. And we could have passed when we held all three.
Fight. Fight. Fight. Don’t claim you are really fighting, and blame the rubes for not understanding it.
The candidates you cite as having offered up plans didn’t gain much traction. That goes a long way toward explaining why these plans aren’t being “pushed.”