Tue 26 Dec 2006
Democrats: The New Republicans?
Posted by Nate under Nate
From MSNBC.com:
Without more money, Democrats will face “a real struggle for which wins out: the political promises or the fiscal-responsibility promise,” said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that opposes deficits. “If the public perceives that they’re making real choices and cutting back on some things they want to do politically because they’re trying to be fiscally responsible, then they can declare victory.” But if people perceive that they’re honoring fiscal restraint in word but not in deed, then they’ll look pretty silly, Bixby said.
So far, Bixby said, he has been impressed by Democratic leaders’ commitment to deficit reduction, calling the elimination of earmarks “rather stunning.” Another Blue Dog leader, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), said the Democrats’ conservative wing will block any effort in the House to backslide on those promises.“Yes, there’s going to be tough medicine,” Cardoza said. “But we are incredibly united behind these goals. And they need us to do anything.”
I suppose I’d be lying if I told you I thought this amounted to anything more then pre-election bloviating, at this point. However, there’s a kernel of hope for solid governance from the Democrats, here.
I think that’s worth mentioning.
6 Responses to “ Democrats: The New Republicans? ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

December 28th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Dare I say… Clintonesque???
December 29th, 2006 at 10:25 am
O NO U DINT
December 29th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
You have to admit, of the last 4 presidents (at least), including the present, Clinton was the most fiscally responsible… People can try and claim it’s because he had a Republican controlled House and Senate for much of his tenure but to that I say bullshit… Bush had one the whole time up until now and see where it got us???
So….O YES I DID… heh
December 29th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Well, hang on a second there, Hillary.
I’m not going to debate Clinton vs. Bush on spending; Bush is, in all respects, utterly indefensible on that topic. However, take a look at this graph and tell me what you see.
I see national tax rates climbing steadily for every year ol’ Billary was in office. It is, after all, easier to maintain a veneer of responsible governance when you simply keep jacking up taxes to cover your spending. Bill did a far better job than Bush in this regard, but it wasn’t exactly a rosy picture if you dig deeply, and he also didn’t have 9/11 and the ensuing foreign wars to drag him down.
The question posed here is, will Democrats continue to champion lower taxes for the middle class while seriously putting their boots down on the neck of the pork addicts? This seems to be the message they’re trying to get out, and if it’s sincere and they follow through, they’ll win me as a fan.
December 30th, 2006 at 9:00 am
The link was broken so I’m not sure what graph you wanted me to see. The one I looked at was regarding Tax Freedom Day. No doubt taxes were higher but I didn’t see anything that compared taxes to spending. Did yours show that? If not I don’t see how it’s pertinent. You can say that higher taxes aren’t being responsible but if you’re using that revenue to pay off existing debt all the while keeping spending in check then that’s the epitome of responsibility IMHO.
January 2nd, 2007 at 9:14 am
Sure; like I said, Bush’s spending is indefensible. Particularly coming from a so-called “conservative”. Our ilk are supposed to be all about cutting government and letting you keep more of your paycheck, after all.
I guess that’s what “compassionate” meant. Next time around, I’ll be looking for the self-styled “heartless bastard” conservative.
The point is, Clinton wasn’t afraid to carry any level of taxation needed to keep a balanced budget. The question is, who was more responsible for keeping spending (somewhat) in check - the Democratic President,or the Republican House (and later, Senate)? Clinton took legacy credit for Welfare Reform, but it was the incoming Republican House that forced the issue. And lest we not forget the estimated 3 trillion albatross that would have been Hillarycare in today’s dollars (GWB, that compassionate man, only saddled us with some 700 billion). There are viable arguments to be made for both sides, but I think the moral of that particular story is that the country is healthier when one party doesn’t have monopoly control of government.
And higher taxes IS NOT being responsible. Any maroon can simply raise taxes over and over in order to cover irresponsible spending. If your tax rate for the 50-75k crowd is 30% as opposed to 19%, you can keep a lot of financial skeletons in the closet - for awhile.