Republicans like to talk about small government and liberty, but the reality is that the Republican Party supports Progressive ideas and embraces Keynesian central planning. The proof of this is everywhere, but certainly nothing illustrates this better than the most recent Omnibus spending bill.
Before we get to the current bill, we need to travel way back in time to last year, and last year’s Omnibus spending monstrosity. Of course, one could look at every year previous to that and see the exact same thing, but Republicans always argued that without the presidency and with control of only one part of the legislature their hands were tied.
Last year the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, and they still sent the president a bloated, crony, pork-filled Omnibus. You may remember that the Republican base was furious. Our Representatives and Senators largely ignored the base, but it got so intense that Roy Blunt and Blaine Leutkemeyer and Ann Wagner sent minions to the St. Charles County Republican Central Committee to explain the reason for their votes.
I was there, and I listened to the excuses and rationale. There wasn’t enough time to do it right. They all hated it too. This would never happen again. They would demand that appropriations be done in regular order, one at a time. They assured us that since Republican voters had given them control of both houses they would now do the right thing. And, also, didn’t you like all the shiny new pork we brought home?
Clearly, we ended up with another bloated Omnibus and Ann Wagner is once again crowing about bringing home the pork. Perhaps we misunderstood them. Maybe the folks they sent to the meeting got it wrong.
The Republicans will claim, of course, that they TRIED to do it right. They will point to the fact that the House of Representatives did pass appropriations bills in regular order, but Harry Reed blocked those bills in the Senate. Obviously Republicans control the Senate but, they will argue, Harry reed threatened to filibuster each of the appropriations bills and so they had no choice but to agree to the Omnibus.
I don’t remember the filibusters. Does anyone remember Harry Reed on the floor of the Senate, reading poetry way into the early morning hours, refusing to yield the floor? Did the evil media not cover it, or did that not happen? It didn’t happen, of course. I assume Mitch McConnell was afraid that Republicans would somehow get “blamed” if Harry Reed filibustered an Energy or Transportation or Agriculture bill.
Let’s be clear here…this is where the plan (or rather, their excuse) broke down. The proper thing to do is to draft and present a fiscally conservative, reasonable appropriations bill and then have a vote in both the House and Senate on the bill. If there is opposition to the bill and they wish to filibuster you shut down all other activities in the Senate and let Harry Reed be responsible for not allowing a vote on a reasonable spending appropriations bill in regular order.
But that is all fantasy land. None of that happened. None of that is going to happen. The reason it will not happen is that if Republicans offer a reasonable, fiscally responsible appropriations bill and it passes, then there will be no leverage for anybody to get any of their special crony pork passed. If there are no backroom deals, then there are no backroom deals for anyone. Republicans and Democrats cannot have that. After all, their constituents demand pork and special treatment.
A bigger deal is easier to make than a small one. In the bigger deal they can hide all of the horse trading and back scratching and citizen-screwing. Nobody gets blamed because everyone gets blamed. Nobody is responsible because everyone is responsible.
I am represented in Washington by four elected officials. In my case they are Barack Obama, Roy Blunt, Blaine Leutkemeyer, and Claire McCaskill. Three of the four voted for the Omnibus, one did not. In an ironic twist it was my Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill who voted No. Cynics will claim that she voted just for show, that she likes to be seen as a centrist and her vote was not needed so she could vote No and claim to be a budget hawk. My Democrat friend Chris Kelly says Claire is indeed a budget hawk and voted her conscience.
Since Claire supports Obamacare and Abortion I am not a fan and I will remain cynical but she did vote correctly on the Omnibus, and Blunt and Leutkemeyer did not. One has to ask, if Claire voted No for show (since her vote was not needed), then why didn’t Roy Blunt vote No, even for “show”? The answer is that Roy Blunt voted in favor of the Omnibus because he favors the Omnibus.
Keynes and Hayek were contemporaries, with Keynes arguing the need for central planning of economies with government playing a vital role in controlling and shaping economic activity. Hayek, inThe Road to Serfdom, argued the opposite, that central planning must ultimately lead to failure, with more and more power being required by the planners to try to control the economy. Republican leadership is decidedly Keynesian, rejecting the view of Hayek in favor of an ever-expanding government that doles out goodies to favored groups.
More specifically, Blunt and Leutkemeyer embrace Keynesian philosophy. Like Teddy Roosevelt they are Progressive Republicans. They LIKE bigger government. They LIKE central planning. They LIKE big deals that allow them to insert their little authoritarian measures into legislation for their favorite cronies or big donors.
Roy Blunt and Blaine Leutkemeyer do not want to pass regular appropriations bills in regular order because it takes away their power. If they have to be fiscally responsible and if they have to be transparent they know they will lose their cozy arrangement and they are not willing to give it up. They voted for the Omnibus because they PREFER the Omnibus. And so do most Republicans in the US legislature, but most especially the leadership is firmly behind central planning and ever-expanding government and against fiscal responsibility.
Don’t believe it? Mitch McConnell and Harry Reed teamed up to put rules in place which prohibited debate or amendments or challenges to the Omnibus. Paul Ryan was bound by a rule that says a bill must be considered for three days. Speaker Ryan did not want there to be three whole days to consider the Omnibus, so he interpreted three days as being 26 hours; one hour the first day, then 24 hours, then one hour the third day and he fulfilled his obligation.
The Republican base is once again furious, but there is nothing the base can do. Roy Blunt and Blaine Leutkemeyer will probably not have primary challengers because all of their crony favors have brought them lots of donations with which to attack anyone who challenges them. The system protects itself.
I know many of you are as angry as I am. You are as frustrated as I am and many of you think that you can make a difference with your vote in the race for President. Clearly the Progressive Republicans will favor Bush or Kasich or Christie or perhaps Rubio (who, for obvious reasons, skipped this vote). But many will think that a vote for the right candidate will provide the opportunity to make big government work for conservative causes, not liberal ones.
And this is where the definition of conservative gets muddled. Is it “conservative” to overspend on conservative causes and to favor “conservative” handouts rather than “liberal” ones? Do conservative big government candidates simply shift spending from social programs to defense contractors and big business? This is probably where Blunt and Leutkemeyer are, philosophically. They are not fiscal conservatives. They don’t want to change the system; they want to win the game, for their side.
Some of you may be choosing a presidential candidate for the same reasons. You don’t want to stop the goodies; you want the goodies to start flowing to your team. You want a candidate that will win the game…for your side.
I want transparency. I want fiscal responsibility, which means cutting spending across the board and living within our means and paying off our debt. I want an end to corporate subsidies and bailouts and loopholes and special treatment. I want a return to personal responsibility and an end to the idea of entitlements. I want a reduction in the size and scope of government.
Unfortunately the biggest obstacles to what I want are the Progressive Republicans that represent me. For me to change the system I will have to get past Roy Blunt and Blaine Leutkemeyer, and they are not giving up their power easily. They are going to fight any attempt at reform. I will need your help. I will be starting with the St. Charles County Republican Central Committee, which is dominated by Blunt and Leutkemeyer cronies who will also be fighting any attempt at reform tooth and nail.
I realize that the Republican Party is not likely to be able to reform itself to embrace limited government and fiscal responsibility and to abandon Keynes in favor of Hayek. They are too invested. But I am going to try, before I abandon them. It appears we are headed for significant change in one form or another.
I would ask you to consider your own philosophy and where you stand on Keynes and Hayek. Consider the candidates you are supporting and ask yourself if they favor limited government, and curbs on their own power, or whether they are simply promising to use big government to your own personal advantage. Finally, if you think like I do, please consider running for office. Now would be a good time.
No comments:
Post a Comment