Counter-Revolutionaries
The New York Times offered a story on the budgetary habits of 30 of the original 73 freshman Republicans swept into power during the 1994 Gingrich Revolution. The results aren’t pretty (graphic after the turn). Josh especially has been a watchdog on what is now a sadly familiar refrain to fiscal conservatives and fiscally responsible liberals: “overall federal spending has increased twice as fast under Mr. Bush as under Mr. Clinton. At the same time, the federal deficit is projected to hit a record high of $427 billion this year.”
So what happened to the conservatives sent off to the House a decade ago? Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolutions looks over three theories: Congressmen get enured to higher spending by the culture on Capitol Hill, freshmen increase spending as they gain power, or “It could also be a selection effect, perhaps only those who become big spenders are reelected.” Unfortunately, I agree with him that this last explanation is probably the most likely, although more data would be needed to evaluate it.
I think this trend from cutters to spenders reflects a weakness in modern conservatism. While politicians found appealing rhetoric based upon small government and budgetary discipline, there’s no underlying cultural fortitude. People (myself included) still can’t bring themselves to say to Uncle Sam, “No sir, I want to do this myself,” for a large number or programs. Until they do, we’ll still keep sending politicians to Washington with a mandate to lower taxes and an ultimatum to raise spending.
5 Responses to “Counter-Revolutionaries”
Interesting that this analysis is based on sponsorship of bills, not voting records. Of course, it’s safe to assume that if someone sponsored a bill they probably voted for it. But what about bills they voted for that they didn’t sponsor?
What is the answer to the proposition offered in say, the transportation bill, “Mr. Congressman, we have decided that you may earmark $10,000,000.00 for your district. If you choose to not accept this money it will not be saved or reverted back to the treasury but will be split among your fellow congressmen so that they will have a bit more to earmark?” This same question is offered to farmers with their subsidies.
This is all bullshit.
It is our system of government, in collapse, in slow motion. Onlookers stare, slack jawed, at the spectacle, unaware that the falling debris is about to land on them and crush them.
Your article itself seems reasonable, but I can’t figure out what the numbers on the graph actually represent. What do the percentages refer to? Are they talking about one bill or all bills sponsored? Does Latorrete really want to increase government spending by 550%, or is that figure just a shocking result of the graph’s lack of context?
It creates a terrific visceral reaction when you first look at it. But there’s no real contextual information there. That’s not your fault, obviously, it’s the NYT’s sloppy reporting. But I can’t make head or tail of the thing.
Fiscal Conservatism
It seems some people need a reminder of what fiscal conservatism is all about. As the folks at ITA reported this week, ten years after the Gingrich revolution, a good number of those freshmen Speaker Newt brought to power with him* have abandoned the…