The House Blue Dogs on Wednesday quickly introduced a deficit-busting pay-as-you-go rule which seeks to ensure that new spending programs are paid for.
“This is not rocket science,” Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.) told reporters, arguing that foreign creditors would soon recoil from lending money to the U.S. if it kept up its deficit. “We either get our house in order…or we lose our economic freedom.”
The Obama administration’s budget calls for reducing the deficit over the course of his first term, but quite frankly that’s not good enough. With the amount of money we’ve spent in the past year, Rep. Tanner is exactly right — if we don’t get our fiscal house in order, we’re going to have a lot of trouble getting other countries to keep funding us.
Next year’s budget will probably still have to spend heavily, as we will most likely still be coming out of the recession. After that, Congress should eliminate the deficit. As always, this will require the same compromise I always advocate: Congress must raise revenues and cut spending. This isn’t rocket science — it’s just what needs to be done.
Jeff’s comments illustrate that fiscal conservativism has, of necessity, become a core value of the Democrats. We used to yield that ground to the Republicans until they adopted their scorched earth approach to the economy. The base of the Republican Party has strayed so far from its conservative roots and the results have been so disastrous that defecting Republicans and fiscally conservative Democrats have had to fill that void. We need to nurture moderation in both parties. There is such a severe dearth of moderation amongst the Republicans that it does not look hopeful for them at this point. Our once worthy opponents have forsaken worthiness for the truthiness that their handlers have used to manipulate and control them. It is sad to see. You can’t have a healthy exchange of ideas with an unhealthy opposition.
100% on board with Paygo as proposed. Make it happen.
DantheMan,
I have a Republican friend who likes to say “Quote me if I’m wrong on this”. In that spirit I would like to know if you are truly moderate, as your comments seem to suggest. If that is the case then why are you a frequent target of attack here? I have only been following this blog for a few months now but you often seem to take the moderate view. You acknowledged that health care reform is necessary but you had reservations about government run medicine. If I remember correctly, you noted that gays should enjoy the benefits of civil unions and understood the needs of the gay folks you work with but wondered about whether they needed to be “married”. You accept paygo without railing against small government or raising taxes. You recognized that talk show blowhards exist in all political flavors.
Have you moderated your positions but are are still paying for the sins of the past or have you always been this way? I am asking this in all sincerity because I believe that the Republicans will need a moderate base if they are to survive. Someone suggested on another thread that you would be a good BlueDog Democrat but I think that if you identify as a Republican, you should talk some sense into those people. They desperately need it and the Democrats desperately need a healthy opposition.
I am not trying to put you on the spot here but I am curious. I may not always agree with you but your apinions seem pragmatic and reflective of your own values and not those of the Hannity/Limbough persuasion.
Good questions. I’m often surprised by the response I get as well.
If I could pick three past and current MN pols whose positions I identify with, they would be Elmer Andersen, Arne Carlson, and Jim Ramstad. Call me a conservative who never signed up for the Pro-Life movement. I guess that makes me a moderate.
The issue of PayGo, for example. I don’t know if I have the Democrat view, or Republican view, but all I know is that we should find ways to pay for spending as we go. In my case, I think that spending needs to be examined thoroughly, and in many cases I would argue that it isn’t necessary when others on these boards would say it is. But that question aside, once we decide that spending is somehow necessary, then let’s pay for it. Seems like common sense, common sense that the old fashioned MN IR would have assumed is true.
I think there are three things that have given me a reputation of being further right than I am: 1) I was a critic of Obama’s inexperience, and tendency to promise everything to everyone during the campaign; 2) I strongly believe in entitlement reform, which mathematics would tell us is the ONLY way to not really screw our kids and grandkids in 30-40 years, and 3) I believe that the single most important thing to having good jobs in America is having companies and businesses that can create and groom those jobs. Not supporting Unions on these boards blinds many people to ones other views which may be quite a bit more centrist. I am not a Union supporter. I’m not anti-Union, I just think that without businesses creating jobs, Unions are kind of a moot point.
Those are my guesses as to why I get the response I do.
Thanks for the response. I have a great deal of respect for all of the politicians you mentioned. I would throw in Dave Durenberger. I was living out of state at the time but it seemed to me that he got a raw deal.
When you strip away all the foolishness, most problems have a relatively narrow range of workable solutions as you seem to conclude when discussing your own opinions.
The positions you describe don’t really fit into the stereotypes of either Party. I understand the concerns you would have had about Obama but he will do fine.
The Unions, gay marriage, and inflexibility on gun issues weakens both parties. These are bogus issues that have been used to polarize the electorate for political expedience. The solutions are obvious to all but the ideologues on both sides. Obama is a pragmatist and I believe he will be able to diffuse many of these hot button issues.
I appreciate your point of view.