The document (I've only scanned summaries, no use killing brain cells over 21 pages) says one reason why they are doing it is because of "self-appointed elites making decisions, issues mandates and enacts laws without accepting or requesting the input of the many." I think this broke my irony alarm. Aren't the members of the GOP the ones acting like they are supposed to rule and democracy is an annoying hindrance?
One item of the platform is summarized this way:
* Require congressional approval for any new federal regulation that would add to the deficit
Doesn't Congress approve all federal spending anyway? I notice it doesn't say anything about actually trying to reduce the deficit.
Ezra Klein in Newsweek explains why that campaign promise is missing, even though that's what the Tea Party is running on. First he notes that the nominees the Tea Party favors attack the deficit the usual ways, Rand Paul: he "couldn't spell out a proposal to do that before the Nov. 2 election." Christine O'Donnell: "Waste." Yup.
Back in 2006 William Niskanen of the Cato Institute wrote a paper titled, "Limiting Government: The Failure of 'Starve the Beast.'" For a good long time the GOP mantra was that cutting taxes would "starve" the government of revenue, forcing it to reduce spending. Worked well, hasn't it. Go look at how many digits are in the federal debt. Niskanen's point is that the opposite happened. Politicians found out they could cut taxes without cutting spending. Then they found out they could increase spending without penalty. The result: more spending, not less. The GOP stopped being a party of fiscal responsibility.
Yes, that gets the Tea Party riled up. But think about what happens when (if) these candidates sit in Congress. Politicians don't love deficits. Politicians love even less the anger of voters when favorite entitlements are threatened.
No comments:
Post a Comment