Conservative Groups Break with Republican Leadership

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
From the Washington Times:



Quote:

National leaders of six conservative organizations yesterday broke with the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, accusing them of spending like "drunken sailors," and had some strong words for President Bush as well.



"The Republican Congress is spending at twice the rate as under Bill Clinton, and President Bush has yet to issue a single veto," Paul M. Weyrich, national chairman of Coalitions for America, said at a news briefing with the other five leaders. "I complained about profligate spending during the Clinton years but never thought I'd have to do so with a Republican in the White House and Republicans controlling the Congress."



Warning of adverse consequences in the November elections, the leaders said the Senate must reject the latest House-passed omnibus spending bill or Mr. Bush should veto the measure.



"The whole purpose of having a Republican president is to lead the Republican Congress," said Paul Beckner, president of Citizens for a Sound Economy, whose co-chairman is former House Majority Leader Dick Armey of Texas. "The Constitution gives the president the power to veto legislation, and if Congress won't act in a fiscally responsible way, the president has to step in ? but he hasn't done that."



"If the president doesn't take a stand on this, there's a real chance the Republicans' voter base will not be enthusiastic about turning out in November, no matter who the Democrats nominate," Mr. Beckner said.



Mr. Weyrich warned that if the Senate passes the omnibus bill and the president fails to veto it, "in all probability the party's conservative-activist core voters aren't going to work to help win the election for Bush and the Republicans, and they may well not even vote."



The Heritage Foundation has projected that passage of the bill would "mark the third consecutive year of massive discretionary spending growth" following increases of 13 percent and 12 percent in the previous two years.



"Congress' continued fiscal irresponsibility is clearly exhibited in the thousands of pork projects contained in the bill," the Heritage report noted.




Read the rest of the article here



Are these guys a bunch of crackpots? Or do they have a legitimate point?



What's the counter argument in favor of keeping a lopsided federal government? Aren't these results the product of zero checks and balances?



Does this help the Democrats in '04? Will there be a referendum on keeping our federal government in the complete control of the GOP?



Historically, American's prefer a balance and the elections usually restore this balance. GOP victories in '00 and '02 to maintain control of everything is definitely unprecedented. Can it be repeated in '04?

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 5
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    It's going to be very difficult to defeat Bush, because those who support him tend to have more personal feelings towards him than they did for presidents past, due to the whole 9/11 issue.



    But these sorts of things leave him open to defeat. The budget is a wreck, and the more republicans and republican affiliates that come out and state that fact, the more Bush will be open to defeat.
  • Reply 2 of 5
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Northgate

    From the Washington Times:







    Read the rest of the article here



    Are these guys a bunch of crackpots? Or do they have a legitimate point?



    What's the counter argument in favor of keeping a lopsided federal government? Aren't these results the product of zero checks and balances?



    Does this help the Democrats in '04? Will there be a referendum on keeping our federal government in the complete control of the GOP?



    Historically, American's prefer a balance and the elections usually restore this balance. GOP victories in '00 and '02 to maintain control of everything is definitely unprecedented. Can it be repeated in '04?




    Sheesh, the Drudge Report and the Washington Times?!? How could you even start a thread with those sources?!?



    I think it will cause a bit of questioning within the party regard what true fiscal conservatism looks like. If the nominee after Bush appears to be a free spender as well I could imagine a challenge from a third party Perot type again.



    As for the Democrats, they will only come across as a viable alternative on spending when they stop complaining that Bush hasn?t spent enough on every program proposed. That is what is the most amazing thing of all. I?ve not seen a single Democratic press conference deploring Bush for spending too much. Even Clinton, who fought against the newly Republican Congress only had balanced budgets with the help of the Social Security surplus for most years. Yet Clinton was credible in some regards because he would claim some spending proposals were too much and would argue to target efforts instead. (Again he was the absolute master of this)



    The point is that both Republicans and Democrat spend way too much. The only real difference is who will kill the economy while attempting to do so or who will kill a 85% working solution to take care of the 15%. I have read a few theories lately about raising the top rate a few percent as Clinton did when the economy is roaring along as a sort of hedge against inflation. I?m going to do some more reading on those as it does have some credibility in my book. I?m sure the middle class would approve of that instead of interest rate hikes as well.



    Likewise Clinton and to his own credit, Dean as well have suggested using government programs to plug holes in medical coverage instead of ripping the whole enchalada up for everyone. Of course if they were both honest, they would start tackling the AMA, toss out the prescription medication benefit (and replace it with nothing) , realistically address medical care for illegal immigrants, and finally just admit that everyone can?t live to be 100 for the cost of free. (Medicare)



    The lie Republicans have bought into is that they can ?hold down? the costs of many of these programs, and not have to be the bad guys cutting them or gutting them, while trying to grow the economy at 4-5% to try to keep up with the program growth. The Democrats don?t lie in this regard, they just want to tax us to death.



    Nick
  • Reply 3 of 5
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    I'm stunned.



    I agree with trumpt. I think... I may have to reread it again to be sure.



    I think both parties and the country would be better off if we actually operated within our means... it's ok to go over a few billion here and there... when domestic stimulation is needed or when foreign problems need attention... but in general a balanced budget and responsible planning should be a priority. A do no harm strategy.



    We could debate WHAT the money should be be spent on... but it would matter a bit less if we knew we weren't breaking the bank.
  • Reply 4 of 5
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Here's what Andrew Sullivan has to say about Republicans, Democrats, and conservatism:



    Quote:

    Here's the truth: If you take defense and entitlement spending out of the picture altogether (and they have, of course, gone through the roof), Bush and the Republican Congress have upped domestic spending by a whopping 21 percent in three years. That compares with an actual decrease in such spending of 0.7 percent in the first three years of Bill Clinton. Spending on education is up 61 percent; on energy 22 percent; on health and human services 22 percent; on the Labor Department a massive 56 percent. There really is no spinning of this. Bill Clinton was a fiscal conservative. George W. Bush is a fiscal liberal of a kind we haven't seen since LBJ. Maybe the Democrats would be worse. But naitonally, the GOP is outspending Democrats wherever they get the chance._ A USA Today study found that GOP-controlled state legislatures increased spending an average of 6.54 percent a year from 1997 to 2002, compared with 6.17 percent for legislatures run by Democrats. Fiscal conservatives really have no place to go any more. But if you had to pick, you'd have to support the Democrats.



    (His site seems to be having some problems, but this post is from Thursday, Jan. 15th.)
  • Reply 5 of 5
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    It's true. Republicans have begun to spend money utterly recklessly. I'm not quite sure how they will be able to continue to justify this to the public at large, but I'm sure they'll try it before considering reform.
Sign In or Register to comment.