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
What are you talking about? Because I won’t (and don’t think the
GOP should) fight for the federal government coercing all the states to accept the Concealed Carry policies of every other state, this means that there nothing for which I am willing to fight? That is a giant leap and makes no sense at all.
There are fights worth having…some of which are perhaps not all that politically popular with the electorate at large (including the base). This one absolutely is not.
So you are OK with Chicago denying inner city blacks the right to defend themselves? Would it also be OK if we censored them too? Any other rights of minorities you think the GOP should ignore?
See, we have arguments to make, we just won’t make them. If gun ownership is soooooooooo unpopular at the moment, why are their record sales?
Good post, Jamie. I have listened to you (and others) beat this particular drum for a while now. I’m more critical of the GOP than you are, but your position sounds more reasonable to me than it did a couple of years ago. I thought perhaps you’d appreciate knowing that your arguments are being well considered. We have to be cautious about treating everything as black and white, particularly when we can only speculate about how alternative courses of action would have played out.
Thanks.
Just so its on the record I think the Republican’s haven’t done nearly enough. I think they should have exercised the power of the purse a little more. I think they should have fought harder on certain issues (PP de-funding being one). What really bother’s me is when people ignore clear victories because they aren’t perfect, or because they didn’t address their particular pet issue.
I think of it as a manager: when an employee of mine accomplishes something beneficial to the company I reward them with praise and encouragement. That I could have done the job more efficiently or found even better savings doesn’t mean that the employee failed. If I berated them every time they weren’t perfect or accomplished the task with less than perfect efficiency I’d quickly find myself with no employees worth a damn.
The specific policy here is Concealed Carry and the federal government coercing every state to honor the policies of every other state. Not the 2nd Amendment in general – perhaps you should go back a few posts and refresh your memory. Further, because I don’t think this is a good idea over which to have a knock down drag out fight (to further conservatism), I am actively trying to disenfranchise minorities out of their constitutional rights? I repeat, what on earth are you talking about???
Also, your federal concealed carry policy doesn’t really solve your Chicago problem because the state of Illinois or city of Chicago could still not allow concealed carry for citizens of Chicago.
Sure. But what is Alaska decides to offer out of state CCW in a mail in system?
It would happen. Be a money maker. Freedom would spread.
It seems relevant to this discussion to raise the latest GOP Senate fiasco – the defeat of Sen. Lee’s amendment to defund the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule – accomplished with the connivance of the GOP leadership in what Jeremy Carl of NRO calls The Senate Republicans’ Latest Disgrace.
I’ve been following this issue pretty closely and it seemed like the perfect opportunity to deploy the power of the purse strategy that Mitch McConnell bragged about during the 2014 election. Guess not.
Oh but they do fight. The posters in this thread say they do. They have real, solid victories where they have rolled back liberalism.
Really, real ones. That are meaningful. Just wait 4 more years of Clinton, then when we have the Senate and House and Whitehouse (just like we did under Bush II), then we will really see some serious changes.
Just you wait!
This is the exact myopia and perfection demanding I’m talking about. If you can’t acknowledge and give credit when actual progress is made then there’s really no incentive for politicians to seek your vote.
Please reread my comments earlier in this post. Prior to 2014 I defended the successes of the GOP leadership. I thought the sequester was a good deal. They are the ones who have gone backwards since then, alienating many of us, particularly with their actions last fall. It should be clear by now that Mitch McConnell’s top priority is bringing to heel the unruly elements in his party, not using “the power of the purse” against the Democrats as he claimed he would do during the 2014 campaign.
Credit for what? What program of the Left has been rolled back in the past 50 years? The one thing was welfare reform, and Obama undid that with an Executive Order.
The Left always wins, slower or faster, but its agenda is always the winning one.
Give me something the Right has won on. Something that the GOP has managed to undo in the last 50 years. Hell, 70 years. Anything.
The last time the Right rolled back anything, it was Post WWI!
The debacle over the AFFH amendment is a great example of what’s wrong. Are there some issues that are tactically difficult politically? Sure. This wasn’t one of them. The summary by the author of the NRO piece is right on point:
Simple enough. It just takes a little perspective. A little time. Let’s go back to 1980. The big issues were crime, the economy, and how to deal with the USSR. On crime, the GOP wanted tougher sentences; the Dems wanted gun control and more “rehabilitation.” We won. Flat out won, and it worked. On the economy, the left wanted higher taxes and government stimulus. We wanted lower taxes and deregulation. We won. Flat out won, and it worked. On dealing with the Soviets, the left wanted a “nuclear freeze.” We wanted a stronger military and to face them down. We won. Flat out won, and it worked.
This is how it happens. The one and only thing we do not win is on cutting back government giveaway of goodies. We lose on that. Not because we don’t “fight,” but because the public refuses to get behind us on that. I can’t entirely blame them. They’ve paid into social security and medicare for decades, and they’ll be damned if they give it up when it’s their turn to get the benefits. But since I don’t have a time machine to go back to the 30’s…
Bryan, I’ve got to tell you — you won’t like it, but it is true. You are just like the lefties who insist on their victim status and refuse to look at reality. No matter what the facts, there is always something better out there and the politicians should have given it to you. You want to insist on being a victim? Fine. But believe me – we are never going to be as good at that game as the lefties. Either we get behind sanity, or we just plain lose. We have mostly won in the past, but we are going to lose in the victim game. And that will be on you and yours.