Andrew Sullivan thinks last night's SotU "the worst Bush SOTU yet." Not a big surprise, given the red-meat Bush tossed to his fiscally liberal, culturally conservative base.* Kevin Drum, in turn, calls the Democrat's response "crappy," and offers some advice.
Sheesh. Everyone's unhappy -- save me. I missed both speeches.
Now, go read Katherine's latest on Arar (Arar #14). It's important.
*Thorley will surely take issue with the fiscally liberal line. A detailed case is coming (but not today) .
As I have said before, I agree that President Bush has agreed to or pushed for too much spending. I have merely pointed out that the idea that any of the Democratic candidates would be better rather than
worse is simply ludicrous since they have:
1) All disavowed entitlement reform (which is a far greater issue than discretionary spending and loss of federal revenue even if the tax cuts are made permanent) while Bush has consistently advocated it and actually brought it into his State of the Union Address (again) including some market-based reforms for health care (albeit modest). Electing a candidate other than Bush will inevitably mean the issue gets put back on the back burner until the baby-boom generation begins to retire which will make it even more difficult and costly to enact.
2) Three of the current remaining candidates (Lieberman, Clark, and Kerry) have either voted for all (or most) of the current spending, voted for a more costly Democratic alternative, and/or have criticized him for not spending enough in which case it is dishonest to try and lay the blame for it solely on the President or the Congress since both are culpable (especially since Democrats did control the Senate during the earlier days of the spending splurge).
3) None of the Democratic candidates is calling for cutting back the spending either which means then that have tacitly agreed to it. Most of the most pernicious spending increases it should be pointed out (education, agricultural subsidies, prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients, AIDS funding) is pretty much Bush taking away issues from Democrats by giving them most of what they wanted (a bad strategy IMO), in which case it is even less likely that they would oppose the spending or not spend less if given the chance.
4) And yes, each of the Democratic candidates has called for
even more new spending above and beyond Bush’s.
I reiterate again, none of this should be construed as a defense of the growth in discretionary non-defense spending enacted by a bipartisan Congress and President (regardless of the political motivations behind the spending) but rather to make the point that none of the Democratic candidates offer a better alternative. Bush is still the better candidate even if only this is due to the sheer awfulness of his challengers.
Posted by: Thorley Winston | January 21, 2004 at 09:58 AM
If tax cuts are an intrinsic good, Bush is still the best bet. If they are means to the end of a strong and growing economy--more and more people think we're headed for a fiscal crisis. That is good for nobody.
I think Dean, Lieberman, and Edwards, probably in that order, are the ones we could count on most to balance the budget. I have complete confidence that they'd do a better job of it than Bush--especially Dean. I think Kerry and Clark would unquestionably be better than Bush too....of the serious democrats, the only one I worried about spending-like-drunken-sailor tendencies was Gephardt.
Posted by: Katherine | January 21, 2004 at 10:06 AM
Er, Thorley, see Bird Dog's shame over at Tacitus for using the thoroughly pimp-handed NTU figures. Better link next time!
Posted by: Harley | January 21, 2004 at 11:43 AM
Katherine wrote:
The “fiscal crisis” we are headed for is the train wreck of entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security which by far outweigh the growth in discretionary spending and “cost” of tax cuts (even if made permanent).
Thus far Bush is the only candidate to propose any sort of reform to alleviate the unfunded liabilities of these programs whilst the Democratic wannabes have all either (a) called for expanding them further than has been done, (b) adamantly opposed any such reform, or (c) both.
You’re kidding. Dean grew State spending while governor of Vermont by 109-176% and has shown absolutely no ability to restrain spending. Further, with Gephardt out of the race, Dean gets the drunken sailor designation for calling for new spending. Lieberman, Carey, and Gephardt either voted for all or most of the new spending (much of which was enacted when their party controlled the Senate - so much for "divided government") and/or voted for most costly Democratic alternatives (such as the prescription drug benefit in the case of Edwards).
The actual records of the Democratic contenders shows that they are even more likely to spend than Bush.
Posted by: Thorley Winston | January 21, 2004 at 02:02 PM
There was some analysis somewhere in blogland showing that the primary determiner in how much spending increases is not party, but whether the legislative and executive branches are controlled by the same party. Apparently a house divided is the only one with any sense.
By that argument, one could reasonably vote Democrat to control spending, regardless of proposed policy, on the assumption that he'll have to veto half the crap that comes along anyway.
Posted by: sidereal | January 21, 2004 at 03:10 PM
It's worth noting that Bush's first proposal for Social Security--shifting to private accounts--would actually not decrease spending in the medium run. Even if all SocSec taxes are shifted to private accounts immediately, new retirees need to get their checks, and they won't have private accounts.
Worse--if you count the contributions to private SocSec accounts as spending, it actually involves a massive medium-term increase in spending--the same benefits for new retirees plus the SocSec contributions. If you don't count them as spending, then it involves no increase in spending, but it cuts off the revenue stream that pays for that spending (since you don't get to count SocSec taxes as a revenue stream). Either way, it blows a massive hole in the budget.
Posted by: Matt Weiner | January 21, 2004 at 03:34 PM
I've been thinking for a while that "fiscally conservative" is a phrase that's outlived it's use--and Moe's is the first time I've heard "fiscally liberal" in a while. Herewith, a three-part classification to replace it:
(1) Deficit hawk/deficit dove
(2) Big government/small government
(3) Redistributive up/redistributive down.
Like a good liberal, I favor hawk/big/down. Bush, in my opinion, is dove/big/up. If Thorley's hopes come true Bush might turn out to be dove/small/up, or even hawk/small/up, but IMO that's not how it's played out so far.
(All evaluations are relative--you get counted as redistributive up if your program involves less redistribution down than everyone else's, even if it involves some redistribution down. Similarly, the biggest deficit hawks aren't talking about running huge surpluses any more.)
Posted by: Matt Weiner | January 21, 2004 at 08:49 PM
and Moe's is the first time I've heard "fiscally liberal" in a while.
Yo, it's von. I'm the seldom-heard from centrist of the group. Moe is the surprisingly well-mannered VRWC deathbeast.
Posted by: von | January 22, 2004 at 05:33 PM
Sorry, von. That occurred to me after I'd posted. (Also, I see I put an apostrophe in "it's"--I hate that.)
OK, there's no reason for me to post this really, but I'll take any excuse to put other folks' names in bold. (Hm, I forgot to do that with Moe. It wasn't him anyway, so it all works out.)
Posted by: Matt Weiner | January 23, 2004 at 04:09 PM