Big Spenders
The Lost Vision of the GOP
By Daniel Muniz

Perhaps nothing disillusions fiscal conservatives more than the runaway federal spending that was accomplished courtesy of a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Republican President. And even without Republican majorities in Congress, many GOP office holders are still willing to play the earmark game of pork.

So what does the GOP really stand for if it cannot reign in bloated bureaucracy and stop wasteful spending?

That is a question that has bothered too many Republicans.

When Bill Clinton was elected to the presidency, the GOP stood united in defying the largest tax increase in history as well as opposing the enlargement of big governmental programs such as health care reform. Although Clinton enjoyed Democratic majorities in both houses, he was often frustrated by a rigidly organized and carefully choreographed Republican Party. In fact, Democrats paid the price for their largesse in the sweep of 1994 which put Republicans in charge of both chambers of Congress.

All of sudden, there was serious talk about reducing the enormous size of the federal government and eliminating many Great Society departments and entitlement programs. Of course, Bill Clinton stymied those efforts and it was soon evident that a Republican President would be needed in order to accomplish those objectives.

However, with the election of George W. Bush to the White House nothing substantial happened.

Although Bush was adamant about cutting taxes to fuel economic expansion, he was lukewarm to the conservative principles of cutting outrageous spending and eliminating huge governmental waste that only benefited Big Business and special interest groups. In fact, federal spending continued to spiral out of control and ridiculous items began to appear on the budget like the “bridge to nowhere” and the “railroad to nowhere.”

In fact, what was once a very ardent right wing of Republicans who were committed to pro-growth policies, like former Congressman Tom DeLay, soon became the antithesis of fiscal conservatism.

These elected officials morphed into the freewheeling big spenders of their Democratic counterparts by accelerating the outrageous growth of federal deficit spending. It seemed like every district and every state was getting some kind of obscene perk from the taxpayer’s pocket.

So what did all of this wheeling and dealing get Republicans? Did it solidify and enlarge their majorities?

Instead, they suffered devastating Congressional losses of 2006 and with a Republican president is at the mercy of a Democrat controlled Congress. But what really would have been so different if the GOP had retained power?

The answer is that not much would have changed.

Yes, a GOP controlled Congress would have stopped some of the excesses of Democrats but when it comes to earmarks, Republicans are not much different than their counterparts.

But what is truly frustrating to fiscal conservatives is that the GOP had a historic opportunity the change the very dynamics of the economy and of government itself. The President’s tax cuts fueled one of the largest economic expansions in history even though the press hardly reports it as such. Although the tax receipts exploded because of the good economy which sliced up the federal deficit, budget largesse still reigned supreme.

Bush could have seized this opportunity to implement substantive cuts in the budget by the curtailment of spending and entitlements. Not only could he have balanced the budget but he could have also tremendously slashed the national debt and introduced a healthy fiscal regimen to our government that would have become very difficult to undo. Such tremendous progress would have been the impetus to solve other gargantuan problems like social security reform and create a juggernaut to implement for spending cuts.

In fact, Bush could have been transformed into the next Ronald Reagan.

Reagan could never realize his aspirations because of a belligerent House of Representatives controlled by Democrats but Bush had the advantage of a Republican Congress. Instead, the GOP pandered to their Big Business allies and special interest groups which got them absolutely noting in 2006.

Now in fairness to Bush, many of the visionaries of the 1994 takeover were either gone or had lost their fiscal conservative values. The President didn’t have the huge number of pro-growth supporters in Congress that he would have needed to accomplish such lofty goals. However, although Bush is a tax cutter, he is also a big spender. He was never the right person to introduce true tax fiscal reform to our government.

For future elections, it is time for more rank and file Republicans to support the candidates in primaries who champion pro-growth philosophies and values even if it means going against entrenched incumbents. Big spending incumbents didn’t get us anything for 2006 and they aren’t prone to do so for the future. For the office holders who lived up to limited government policies, kudos to you but for everyone else, it is time to find another profession somewhere else.

Any opinions or views expressed herein belong solely to the author and does not represent any employer, organization, political party, governmental agency, or any other entity and do not necessarily reflect the views of the site owner or its participants.