Soccer Dad

Hey big spenders

One disappointment for conservatives during the Bush presidency has been the government's growth. Ironically it was a Democratic president who declared that the era of big government was over but his successor introduced the era of huge government.

At the Volokh Conspiracy, Ilya Somin writes in George W, Richard Nixon, and Big Government Conservatism

I do not think that W is personally venal and paranoid in the way that Nixon was, nor has his administration (at least so far) produced a scandal comparable to Watergate. But the similarities between their domestic policies are real and, to my mind, extremely disturbing.

He spends time quoting from 3 conservative commentators who are all critical of President Bush's lack of fiscal discipline.

Strangely that made me recall that the President has (had?) at least one defender: Michael Barone. Barone in Choice and Accountability argued that Bush was not a "liberal" spender but was redefining conservatism

Bush has redefined conservatism. It is now not the process of cutting government and devolving powers; it is the process of installing choice and accountability into government even at the cost of allowing it to grow. This is an attempt to move government in the same direction as the private sector, which now offers much more in the way of choice and accountability than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when big corporations and big unions established wage rates, when you worked for one company until age 65 and then depended on that one company and Social Security for your retirement income.

Though I like Barone a lot, I don't find that defense all that convincing.

Instapundit takes a look at spending from the Congressional side and concludes

I think we should term-limit some folks this November, but he's right. The argument against going ahead on term limits was that electing Republicans would fix things. It didn't.

Yes, when Republicans were in the minority it was easy for them to abide by principles of fiscal discipline. But if the power to tax involves the power to destroy it is also a truism that the power to spend is the power to get re-elected and few narcotics have the addictive power of incumbenc.

When Clinton was President the fiscal discipline of the Republicans was a function of their trying to deprive him of initiative. With President Bush Republicans have no such motivation. Bush's spending helps them.

But what if a politician was term limited? The appeal of better committee assignments or more institutional power would be limited. Without the temptation of having his sense of indispensibility enhanced, a politician would be more willing to govern for the good of his constituents rather than for extending his tenure.

To some degree the Republicans were true to their word as they insisted that committee chairmen have limited tenures. Unfortunately that wasn't enough. Only those for whom politics is a secondary interest will willingly cede power or not seek greater power. And that is a rarity in either party.

Technorati tags: Politics, Congress, President Bush, Republicans, spending.