Kind of. It’s not hard to understand. He’s saying yes, they campaigned on reducing the deficit, and then they did it, and then those same lawmakers passed large tax cuts that grew the deficit again. So if you’re looking for evidence that they cared about deficits, them campaigning on it and implementing it shouldn’t count because their further actions show they didn’t really care about deficits, it shows that their end goal was to have tax cuts for the rich. They just couldn’t go out and say that on the campaign trail, so deficits become the rallying call they use.
In 2017, they just cut out the middle step, that’s all. They went straight to cutting taxes on the rich, and didn’t pretend to worry about the deficit.
I mean, it’s not like e.g. Grover Norquist hasn’t been perfectly open about this strategy. Cut taxes on the wealthy, which creates a deficit crisis, then respond to that deficit crisis by cutting social services spending, which reduces the deficit, then cut taxes on the wealthy again. Repeat as necessary until you can drown the government in a bathtub.
That’s nonsense. You’re talking about a difference of 8 years. Some of those folks weren’t even the same people
Hell, even if your theory that it was all some super long game to pay for tax cuts, that is actually fiscal conservatism itself, because it actually cares about paying for stuff instead of just cutting taxes without doing so.
The suggestion was that none of the GOP revert cared about fiscal conservatism. That’s observably false. The actually enacted such principles.
You can take them for all kinds of crap. I do. But THAT statement is just partisan hackery and revisionism.
If Dems hold Congress and a Republican is President, then Republicans did it.
If Republicans hold Congress and a Democrat is President, then Republicans did it.
So…both some blame and some credit belongs to each party when laws are passed with non-trivial support from both parties. Why is this an argument, exactly?
He’s talking about the Gingrich Congress. Even there, it’s hard to give much credit to the Republicans. Clinton took office in 1993 with a Democratic House, and immediately passed the Omnibus Reconcilation Act of 1993. Despite the fact that it was designed to address the runaway deficit, not a single House Republican voted for it. Why? Because while the bill cut some spending, it also raised taxes, largely on the wealthy.
The law was designed to reduce the deficit, and by all accounts it did. The Gingrich revolution happened in 1994, and the resulting Republican House immediately moved to take advantage of the improving budget projections resulting from unilateral Democratic action by — you guessed it — proposing tax cuts for the wealthy combined with social spending cuts. Clinton declined, leading to the government shutdown, etc. Clinton won the shutdown fight, Republicans accepted his budget, and as far as I can recall, he never actually signed any budget proposed by the Gingrich House Conservatives. Why they should get the credit for deficit reduction is way beyond me.
Edit: As a footnote, noted principled deficit hawk Kasich was in the House in 1993. How did he deal with Clinton’s effort to reduce the deficit? He proposed an amendment which would have eliminated all of the tax increases and replace them with — you guessed it again — cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. He was voted down, and as a result he voted agains the final bill.
Let’s look at what’s happening right now… and tell me which party really cares about the deficit, but only when the house is controlled by the Democrats… so they have someone to blame.
Edit: Sidetracked! Meant to post this; it won’t get enacted, of course, but it’s a damn good proposal to run on I think.
Campaign finance
Public financing of campaigns, powered by small donations. Under Sarbanes’s vision, the federal government would provide a voluntary 6-1 match for candidates for president and Congress, which means for every dollar a candidate raises from small donations, the federal government would match it six times over. “If you give $100 to a candidate that’s meeting those requirements, then that candidate would get another $600 coming in behind them,” Sarbanes told Vox this summer. “The evidence and the modeling is that most candidates can do as well or better in terms of the dollars they raise if they step into this new system.”
Passing the DISCLOSE Act, pushed by Rep. David Cicilline (RI) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), both Democrats from Rhode Island. This would require Super PACs and “dark money” political organizations to make their donors public.
Passing the Honest Ads Act, championed by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (MN) and Mark Warner (VA), which would require Facebook and Twitter to disclose the source of money of political ads on their platforms, and share how much money was spent.
Ethics
Requiring the president to disclose his or her tax returns.
Stopping members of Congress from using taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment cases or buy first-class plane tickets.
Giving the Office of Government Ethics the power to do more oversight and enforcement and put in stricter lobbying registration requirements.
Create a new ethical code for the US Supreme Court, ensuring all branches of government are impacted by the new law.
Voting rights
Creating new national automatic voter registration that asks voters to opt out, rather than opt in, ensuring more people will be signed up to vote. Early voting and online voting would also be promoted.
Restoring the Voting Rights Act, part of which was dismantled by a US Supreme Court decision in 2013. Ending partisan gerrymandering in federal elections and prohibiting voter roll purging.
Beefing up elections security, including requiring the Director of National Intelligence to do regular checks on foreign threats.
The problem is that most of these just make too much sense, which means Trump will never sign it, in the unlikely event that McConnell even allows a vote on it. Just sad how things like voter rights and ethics are highly partisan issues.
Elizabeth Warren has her own good government bill. Those with their ears to the ground can hear distant rumblings of the 2020 Dem race:
(So with her bill not just the president needs to disclose their tax returns, but also candidates for federal office. Maybe you have some particular candidate in mind, Senator Warren? Perhaps a New England neighbor?)
Noted Moderate John Kasich is basically a Democrat, I heard. They should nominate him! Surely then they’d get all the votes from the Silent Majority in the Enlightened Center.
