Redstate

And Denny Hastert is no Newt Gingrich.

Tom DeLay was a great Whip, but unfortunately his skills as a Whip are exactly what should disqualify him from going any higher.

As good as he is at getting things done by giving his members what they want and maintaining discipline, he doesn't realize that there are higher goals than maintaining discipline, just like people should have higher goals than making money.

So yeah, if DeLay wants to keep the kind of discipline he has with his members and lobbyists, he needs to do a lot of people a lot of favors.

Unfortunately, he's not doing the country any favors.

The GOP must begin to honor their fiscal conservative history, or the lock on the next 50 years will be lost.  At least come out now with a new Contract to say what you will do over the next terms to provide hope.  Hope is weakening.

I think some are missing the point with old Tom. He is challenging people to come up with some pork to cut. His comments are worded so people will automatically see his comments and challenege him that there is room for cuts.  But since no one so far has come forward to offer cuts he is saying the Republicans must have won the budget battle and it is time to claim victory.  He knows this is not true and is waiting for the Democrats to bite the bait.    

Excellent post, John. Thanks for putting this out there. As I wrote over at Charging RINO on this, fiscal conservatives have got to keep up the pressure on the current GOP leadership to quit this nonsensical and unhealthy addiction to pork. Sooner or later someone's got to raise the standard of fiscal sanity again.

is that fiscal conservatives will quit allowing themselves to be bought off with tax cuts and will step to the forefront of the party and lead.

The real problems facing this country: runaway pork barrel spending, crumbling infrastructure, a looming health care crisis, tax policy, foreign policy, the need for coherent long term energy, clean water (as pointed out and largely ignored on the front page this week)and clean air policies, all cry out for strong leadership and a clear fiscal head and I would love to see a strong fiscal conservative step up to the plate.  Instead the fiscal conservatives seem to be hiding behind the skirts of the social conservatives.

in his show this morning.  DeLay is "pulling a Limbaugh", as Rush said it.

Obviously, everyone knows the budget is full of pork and is very overloaded.  Saying something like DeLay did forces any dems who want to take issue with him to point out specifics in the budget that DeLay could then say "Ok, well let's cut it!".

It's a rather coy move, one designed to catch attention.  He's not just being stupid...

I missed that part of the discussion, could you provide a link to it?

Thanks :)

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in my entire life.  If Delay believes that, he's out of his mind.

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/9/12/13034/4851

Because the lack of fiscal discipline is starting to really, really grate.

Too bad the Democrats are So. Much. Worse.

-TS

and I think Rush is right.

I'm not a DeLay fan, but I don't think he's stupid, either.

I think he's saying "show me the money (with specific cutting proposals)!!!"

Of course, Democrats don't actually have control of the House.  So if what Rush says is true, the next question is, why is DeLay waiting on the Dems to come up with things to cut?  If he thinks there are things to cut, he has the power to get them cut.

It's the magic of winning elections - you get to call the shots.  

Duh.

Get real people,Bill Clinton has been the only fiscal conservitive you hve had in a long time.Pork barrel politics is a time honored tradition for both parties.Both parties are hostage to special interests,and it is them that set policy.Democracy indeed.

Cut spending on the criminal war in Iraq

But too stupid to stay there.

Goodbye.

You are saying that

A) DeLay lied

B) Rush calls lying "pulling a Limbaugh"

C) You guys are OK with that

????

PS - If you guys are going to keep winning elections, could you at least put some fiscal conservatives in office?

And unfortunately, your side of the aisle is demonstrably worse.

Curious how Bill become a fiscal conservative right about 1994.

what happens when one party controls both Congress and the White House.

Democratic President and Democratic Congress?  Lots of pork.  Lots of entitlements.

Republican President and Republican Congress  Lots of pork.  Lots of entitlements.

You guys want to say "well the other side is so much worse"?  Ok, basically you're just giving your side a free pass.  And since both sides are willing to give a free pass to their party, I don't see much changing.

For one thing, if DeLay and the Republicans go and cut things at Democrat suggestion, then the Democrats will look awful to turn around and criticize the Republicans for making the cut.

Just an idea.

Clinton bit the bullet with the Budget reconcilation act of 1993.  You of course will remember it as a tax increase and the dems will remember it for the domestic spending cuts.  And what did Clinton get for his efforts: a beating by the reps.

What did the country get (and Clinton in the long run) a booooming economy.

I suppose it's just a coincidence that from 1995-2002 there's a fairly dramatic change in the federal budget deficit as percentage of the total budget?

I wonder what happened in 1994 and 2001 that could have affected the figures?

Here's the chart - page 24:

http://a255.g.akamaitech.net/7/255/2422/23feb20050900/www.gpoaccess.gov/usb
udget/fy06/pdf/hist.pdf

Probably more and different pork and less entitlements now, but there's no telling where the medicare/medicaid budget is heading.

This may be so clever it gets in its own way. Then again, the silence of the democrats will make an excellent campaign ad next summer. It certainly has a "triple dog dare" quality to it.

do de lay is joking when he says "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."

doesnt sound like he's kidding to me

and i find it rather disconcerting, that many of the posters here, excuse his rhetoric with "the democrats are worse"

the trade deficit is out of control, spending is out of control, the deficit is out of control.

exactly how could the dems make it worse?

if delay wishes to keep a majority in the house and senate, he needs to explain his comments, and he needs to do so wisely.  

I have a program we can cut billions from? It failed it in original intention. It basically did not find any WMDs, which the programmer's main sponsor claimed we need to use that money to find.

I'm a conservative.  I'm a Republican.  I'm willing to vote for a moderate Republican over a Democrat because I know that the moderate votes right the first time (Speaker Hastert or Speaker Pelosi?).

So I drink the kool-aid every time I write a check to the RNC or volunteer for the general election.

But this is too much.  Rush meant well, I'm sure, but it was not a challenge from Tom DeLay to the Dems or anyone about finding pork to cut.

Now, DeLay is a canny guy, he's got a lot of immensely loyal staff.  He's probably going to get briefed pretty soon about how stupid his statement was and he'll pretend that he was doing what Rush said he was doing.

But until I see DeLay move a bill to the floor that cuts a couple billion in pure pork, I ain't buying and I'm looking for new kool-aid.

Then again, the silence of the democrats will make an excellent campaign ad next summer

What is the ad going to say "When Tom Delay said that we can't cut spending anymore Democrats remained quiet!"?

... always makes for great campaign commercials.

Especially on radio.

</snark&gt

Cheers.

Move along, nothing to see here.  Just someone spouting the Democrat line.

Giving me a link to read a 322 page document

guess there is no outsourcing going on either

im glad you dont have to work in my field (computer technology) where i run into the effects of outsourcing on a daily basis

but i guess thats how delay can get away with the things he says....

if we all close our eyes, it doesnt exist

Maybe you're just ignorant instead of Democratic.

Maybe you're one of the HTML monkeys living in the Bay area who got used to being vastly overpaid for being vastly underskilled, and once the venture capital bubble burst, your living beyond your skills caught up with you.

I'm not sure I get your point here.

From Clinton's first year in office to his last federal outlays went down and federal receipts went up.  This happened BEFORE the 94 change in Congress.  

Once he left office outlays went up and receipts went down.  

Are you seriously suggesting this is because of the GOP controlled Congress?

or should we leave zarqawi in charge of iraq and wait till he fly's planes into LAX and Atlanta's Westin Peachtree Plaza before finishing him off?

Would it have been criminal to invade Afghanistan on Sept. 10, 2001?

Hope that we have seized every Zarqawi bank account that we know of.

Start with a nice pan shot of a western panorama, say the high plains in Utah or Wyoming.

Cue announcer, describe Delay's quote.

"Here's the list of proposed cuts in programs and amounts endorsed by the democrats"

Scroll list:

1 _______

2 _______

3 _______

Have a pronghorn spring by.

Fade to credits.

Of course, the GOP needs to make cuts of their own, or have the deficit turn downward, which it seems to be doing anyway.

But how does Delay's comment further this line along?

You do that commercial and the Democrats will immediately have commercial with Delay saying "There is no fat to trim.  We've done a great job" or whatever it is he said.  

I really don't see how this comment is a positive for the Republicans or Tom Delay.  Seems pretty dumb to me.

I didn't want to cut and paste. It comes up quick on broadband, sorry if your on slow link.

A really interesting side note is that the historical chart seems to change with each year's update. I cannot begin to explain how that happens. I suppose they're retroactive revisions, but some of them seem to go back a ways.

"Of course, the GOP needs to make cuts of their own, or have the deficit turn downward, which it seems to be doing anyway."

He'll need to set it up. Then again, he could be stupid, but I don't think he's that stupid.

seem to have been outsourced.

Here I thought obnoxious, value free comments were sufficient. But a Known Fact! Oh, glorious day.

But I can see him making a comment like this in order to deflect criticism about why they haven't cut more spending.  

Congress has some role in the appropriations and budgeting process.

That's plain stupid.

Six of Clinton's "to his last days in office" were AFTER the GOP took control of Congress.

Receipts are higher this year than all but 1999 and 2000, the tech stock bubble years, of the Clinton years. The inherited recession, bursting of the bubble and the 911 induced slow down still only produced two years of declining receipts, thanks to the tax cuts.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/sheets/hist02z1.xls

However, I do not share some conservative's criticism of Clinton's first two budgets when he did not deliver the campaign promised tax cuts.

Woodward's book, "The Agenda," documents Greenspans influence and Clinton's anguish over being a "bond market watching repub."

But Greenspan knew that the bond markets needed a psychological boost to get interest rates down.

It worked, or at least it didn't hurt. Then when Gingrich came in and denied the dems any significant spending, the economy took off. Clinton also signed cap gains tax cut.

All of the spending cuts were defense.

But it really was the tech stocks and the efficiency gains from new technology that really spured the economy to the heights it reached.

But the drop in outlays started BEFORE Clinton took office and stopped happening AFTER Clinton left office.  

Certainly Congress played a significant part.  But the President is the one who submits the budget.  

me two. hope he's bartering with chickens and hogs now. But more likely prostitutes and dope.

I hope rush is right and the silence of the dems will be useful. But I want the budget cut. Not useful rhetorical predicaments. It should induce conservatives to cut, including DeLay himself.

Why bother with the middleman?  If the Dems are gonna go around suggesting spending cuts, what do we need the GOP for?  Why does DeLay need the Dems to lead on this issue?

He doesn't, I'm just trying to figure out -- like everyone else -- what the heck Tom is thinking.

Web Monkey is actually a term of endearment.

The posting rules for redstate.org are as follows:

  # No profanity.

  # No personal attacks.

  # No harassment or demonization of a particular individual.

  # No disruptive behavior or off-topic remarks for their own sake.

Truth is a defense against libel.

Nick correctly understood the monkey bit, but I'll try to stick up for myself.

1. I used no profanity that I can see, unless big-D democrat is profane.
   
2. I did get personal, but on the other hand, I replied about his personal situation only because he brought up his personal situation.  He opened the door, so it's not fair to ding me for entering it.
   
3. If saying he might be ignorant, or that his personal experiences might be skewing his views, is demonization, then we must be talking about the cute and cuddly demons in the Nippon Ichi games, where demons aren't evil and in fact have hearts capable of love.
   
4. I'm not the one who brought up the trade deficit.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9324078/

guess the labor dept report is untrue

or is it that you dont believe the trade deficit effects us?

or that policies by our government do aot affect trade policy, or manufacturing in the u.s.?

if i am ignorant, please educate me, dont attack me

or do you need me to cry, like tom coburn, about all the deviceness in america?  

"or is it that you dont believe the trade deficit effects us?"

Bingo.

My father was watching Wall Street today, and I couldn't help but laugh when Gordon Gecko makes his famous speech, complaining that America was in trouble because of the trade deficit and the budget deficit.

A little over-analysis here.  Why bother trying to read DeLays mind,what he said is standard boilerplate political p.r.  I'm struck by the reaction to it on this and other sites considering that the Dems where claiming Bill Clinton gave us,slugs that we are,the economy.  We heard it for years,that we owed our prosperity,all of us, to one man sitting in the White House.  Try that one on for size.   I do agree that spending should have been monitored more closely but whoever said the Republicans where a conservative party.  It's small solace but things could be a lot worse and may yet be.  Think of '06.

that both the budget and trade deficit debates are far overstated I don't think, as you apparently do, that they are meaningless.

A long protracted trade deficit is a problem.  Not so much the overall deficit but the specific deficit we hold with countries.  

The budget deficit is absolutely a concern.  While running a 3% of GDP deficit isn't, in itself a problem, it does contribute to our public debt.  When public debt becomes too large our nation starts to become overburdened with debt service.  

It's easy to say that the alternative to the Republican majority in congress would be much, much worse.  And I happen to agree strenuously.  The thought of Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Rangel, Chairman Miller, Chairman Obey, etc. makes me get sick to my stomach.

But that doesn;t mean we should sit idly by while DeLay burns down the house with excessive spending and exculpatory language to make fiscal conservatives seem petty.

There are billions and billions and billions wasted each and every year and the GOP is in control.  They must be held accountable by those of us that brought  them to the dance.

Here's a thought.  Maybe what he's thinking is exactly what he said.  After all, it's perfectly consistent with the way the House has been run for the last few years.

It kills me to agree with this line of thought, but I just cannot drink the Kool-Aide on this subject anymore.

No amount of Mary Kay product is gonna make this pig look any better.

Balanced budget by 2008 (FY 2009) - put it in writing and make it real or mark my words the GOP coalition will start to crack, perhaps irreversably.

I'd say balanced budget in FY 2010.  Give them five years to ratchet everything down, make the tax code more efficient, reform social security, re-reform medicare, re-reform the energy bill, re-reform the farm bill, and cut, cut, cut the pork.

I really wish the GOP would impose a rule in the House that no spending or authorization bill can have specific spending requirements (i.e., earmarks) unless each and every item is voted on independently and uniquely on the House floor.  I bet they'd see them shrink a whole lot.  (Could more than a handful get majority support?  Bridges to nowhere, wasteful activities for local benefit, ah that would be good stuff.)

First, it all but locks-in the 2008 GOP nominee to continuing the program left by GWB.  Could be good, likely not - particularly if the "program" is not getting the desired results.  Other problems with that as well, no time to elaborate - hungry and late for lunch.

Second, we'll be due for a fresh recession by about then - the budget had best be balanced by then or it won't be, period.

But fine: I would personally be happy with 2010, but if the best we're going to get is "deficit in half (well kinda, sorta) by 2010", I have to tell you that is not something I see the FisCons getting at all excited about.

Cheers

Sorry situation.

I, too, would rather that we not have a budget deficit.

I'm not panicking over the current ones, though.  America has pretty consistently run deficits in wartime, and we've done alright.

His and every politician's job would be to find the pork to cut.

We should demand more than polictical flak from our leaders.

The Republican majority can come pretty close to passing legislation in the House without the aid of and despite the interference of Democrats.  If you have the power to act responsibly and fail to do so, that is a good thing?  Or a wiser thing than calling on those without the power to make the hard choice.

Clearly, reducing government spending should be bipartisan, like most major initiatives, but the lack of a bipartisanship hardly justifies the failure to act -- it only lends some mild cover to the failure.

others though

tax cuts were never made during other periods of war

budget cuts were made, and the government was not expanded at the same rate it is expanding now

our manufacturing levels were much higher, and there was no such thing as "outsourcing"

yes, our economy is much more globalized than ever before, but the differences between the middle class and the rich was also never as great

but getting back to delay's statement...it still makes no sense, as both the energy and highway bills that were just passed, were both pork laden

to say that the other side would be worse, just doesnt pass muster any more...this side must show financial constraints

I must take issue with those who see Mr. Delay's remarks as a clever challenge to the Democrats.  The Democrats have an answer they've not been shy about before:  "soak the rich because they can afford it and we need it."  The Democrats will now point to Mr. Delay's comments as support for the "we need it" part of their argument.

Certain Republicans in Congress seem to believe they can act like Democrats and still get our votes by claiming that "Democrats are worse."  They fail to recognize that we have some other options.

are proposing 600 cuts totalling over $200 B. in 2006, which in turn add up to $2 trillion over the next five years.    I would hope that offsets spending on Katrina.     I think we need to call our representatives and ask them to return to some kind of fiscal discipline.   Here's more from the CAGW press release:

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today released Prime Cuts 2005, which catalogues 600 recommendations throughout the government that if enacted could save taxpayers $232 billion in fiscal year 2006 and $2 trillion over the next five years.  As reported in the Washington Times, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) yesterday asked for budget cuts to offset the cost of Hurricane Katrina relief, which has so far added $62.5 billion to the deficit.

"Rep. DeLay has challenged fiscal conservatives to come up with offsets.  Prime Cuts is the answer to his challenge," CAGW President Tom Schatz said.  "The federal government is fraught with wasteful, ineffective, and duplicative programs that can be trimmed or eliminated altogether."  

Prime Cuts includes examples of agencies, programs, and policies that are plagued by fraud or negligence, serve political or parochial interests rather than the general good, do not demonstrate results, duplicate efforts in the private sector, circumvent procedural checks for transparency and accountability, or wildly exceed their original mandate.  

when this ploy with the Dems doesn't work Delay will come up with some cuts of his own?

With all due respect, I think you are fooling yourself.

If there are some concrete moves towards the goal along the way.  More lipsticked pigs are not acceptable.

if you could get a lot of citizens, on both sides of the aisle, to push this.

Imagine the news you would generate and the kind of fear you would instill inside the beltway if the grassroots/netroots on both sides banded together on just one issue and demanded results...