31/08: The Opinion Journal Disappoints
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
In today's Opinion Journal lead editorial, "Back to the Congressional Future: Let's think about how the Democrats would govern," the WSJ braintrust argues that the prospect of losing the House of Representatives to the Democrats augurs a return to the old "tax and spend" days.
Consider this excerpt:
"If you think Republicans have been spendthrift, don't expect much change from Wisconsin's David Obey (class of 1969) at Appropriations. Mr. Obey was one of those Democrats who ripped Mr. Clinton for endorsing a balanced budget in 1995. Rather than cut spending, his goal would be to spend less on defense and more on domestic programs and entitlements."
In reality, a change in majority would not mean a drastic change in policy. The Democrats might want to spend big and raise taxes, but that would never fly. Because the Democratic-controlled House and the Republican-controlled Senate would have different spending priorities, the most likely result would be deadlock. Which would be GREAT! The GOP would lose their unlimited credit card. I am convinced that the Republicans are incapable of disciplining themselves; therefore, some tough love from the American people might be a blessing.
The Journal tacks on this disclaimer at the end of the piece:
"The House is only one half of Capitol Hill, and Republicans stand a better chance of holding the Senate, albeit with some losses there too. Mr. Bush will also retain his veto power, and he would finally have to use it. So the amount of liberal legislation that actually became law might not be all that extensive. But the national debate would nonetheless shift notably left. Voters looking to send a message to Republicans this fall may be surprised at their return mail from Washington."
But it is too little too late. Shame on the Journal.
Consider this excerpt:
"If you think Republicans have been spendthrift, don't expect much change from Wisconsin's David Obey (class of 1969) at Appropriations. Mr. Obey was one of those Democrats who ripped Mr. Clinton for endorsing a balanced budget in 1995. Rather than cut spending, his goal would be to spend less on defense and more on domestic programs and entitlements."
In reality, a change in majority would not mean a drastic change in policy. The Democrats might want to spend big and raise taxes, but that would never fly. Because the Democratic-controlled House and the Republican-controlled Senate would have different spending priorities, the most likely result would be deadlock. Which would be GREAT! The GOP would lose their unlimited credit card. I am convinced that the Republicans are incapable of disciplining themselves; therefore, some tough love from the American people might be a blessing.
The Journal tacks on this disclaimer at the end of the piece:
"The House is only one half of Capitol Hill, and Republicans stand a better chance of holding the Senate, albeit with some losses there too. Mr. Bush will also retain his veto power, and he would finally have to use it. So the amount of liberal legislation that actually became law might not be all that extensive. But the national debate would nonetheless shift notably left. Voters looking to send a message to Republicans this fall may be surprised at their return mail from Washington."
But it is too little too late. Shame on the Journal.
Gossenius wrote:
In truth, a split legislature (or at least a party division between the President and the Congress) has been the best prescription for small government in this country. Neither party has been able to show restraint when they are in control of all three (presidency, House, Senate)-- shame on them both.