Soccer Dad

Spoiling the dividers

Yesterday, quoting commenting on a Jacob Sullum article in Reason, Outside the Beltway asks "Is divided government better?"

So OTB asks

Again, though, many of these decisions were being made during the post-Jeffords defection period when the Democrats seized control of the Senate. And, anyway, does Sallum really believe that a Congress controlled by Democrats would be less likely to pass increases in social welfare programs? Or that they’d suddenly stop inserting outrageous earmarks into the budget? Really? Thought experiment: Imagine a world where Robert Byrd was chairman of the committee in charge of allocating highway monies.

Though it's 6 years old Mickey Kaus may have an answer. In Don't Rush Me Part I Kaus argued (using a decision matrix) that the best arrangement for fiscal sanity is a Republican Congress and a Democratic President.

He may have a point.

It's been said that the power to tax is the power to destroy. What isn't said is that the power to spend is the power to get re-elected. Given that a Democratic president is more likely to govern by proposing domestic spending initiatives, a Republican Congress would be inclined to restrict his ability to do so (and thus restrict his popularity). Whereas if both the presidency and congress are represented by the same party neither one will be inclined to limit spending as both will want to expand programs to boost their chances for re-election.

The only problem is why a Republican president with a Democratic congress wouldn't be as effective at keeping spending down.

Technorati tags: Politics, Democrats, Republicans.