Budget-wise, Republicans are starting to sound like Democrats

[Thomas Veil]

What's wrong with the following paragraph?

"I will not vote for a House budget resolution that would result in real cuts to critical federal investments in education, health care, housing veterans' services, social and community block grants and encourage my colleagues ... to do the same," Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., told a cheering crowd of health and education advocates on Tuesday.Answer: the "R" in the phrase "Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del." Sounds exactly like something a so-called "tax-and-spend" Democrat would say.

And yet, that's where we are today: the neocons (motto: "The only good tax is a dead tax") are cutting so much that even traditional Republicans are starting to embrace the wisdom of judicious social spending.

For context, here's a bigger part of the article:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A battle is shaping up between conservatives who want to cut government spending and moderates seeking to protect education and health programs as House Republicans start acting on President Bush's proposed budget for next year.

The conservative-dominated House Budget Committee was expected to act favorably Wednesday on a $2.8 trillion budget blueprint for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.

Moderates already are demanding a rewrite to boost popular domestic programs.

"I will not vote for a House budget resolution that would result in real cuts to critical federal investments in education, health care, housing veterans' services, social and community block grants and encourage my colleagues ... to do the same," Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., told a cheering crowd of health and education advocates on Tuesday....

Democrats and moderate Republicans say popular domestic programs are being shortchanged. Their spending was cut slightly during last year's budget debate; Bush proposes an additional cut of about 1 percent this round.

The budget resolution is a nonbinding blueprint that establishes lawmakers' tax and spending priorities. It sets the outlines for bills that cut or raise taxes and spending....

An amendment by Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., to add $7 billion for education, health and job training programs passed by a 73-27 vote, even attracting support from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

Specter annually writes a huge spending measure for education and health programs and says the $7 billion would restore programs to their levels of two years ago. All told, senators added $16 billion above Bush's spending cap.

White House budget director Joshua Bolten — named Tuesday to succeed Andy Card as Bush's chief of staff next month — said in a statement that the president would seek to eliminate the additional money.

In the House, GOP moderates are emboldened by Specter's success. Twenty-three lawmakers, led by Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., signed a letter urging a 2 percent increase in domestic appropriations and warning that they "would have strong reservations voting for any budget that would result in real cuts in a number of programs."

Conservatives and GOP leaders such as House Majority Leader John Boehner of Ohio pledge to stick with Bush's spending cap, which may make it difficult to pass a budget. Even if the House does pass a budget that sticks to the Bush limits, Specter says he will not relent....Link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR2006032801460.html)

[OnceUGoMac]

I think this is because the GOP have their own programs that will get cut. The Dems controlled Congress for 50 years, so they got the labeled "big spenders" by the GOP. Now that the GOP has controlled Congress long enough to have their programs cured, the shoe is on the other foot.

[Thanatoast]

Is the obvious fix too obvious? How many hundreds of billions would we save/raise annually if we got out of Iraq and let Bush's tax cuts for the rich expire? Would it really be so hard to not occupy a country and put taxes back the way they were during the prosperous Clinton years?

[Thomas Veil]

Psst. One of the ways Clinton balanced the budget was by raising taxes on the wealthiest. There are some things you just do not do.

[solvs]

I think that most people are ok with taxes (not happy, but ok) as long as they are doing something. When the deficit is going wildly out of control and programs are still being cut, the smallest tax will feel like a waste. Raise taxes like Bush Sr. did to pay for Reagan's spending, and it's even more of a slap in the face. On the plus side, if anyone complains about tax increases from the Dems in '08, they can just blame everything on Bush like he tried to do with Clinton. :D

[Desertrat]

Approximate quote: "Democracy works until the populace discovers it can vote itself largesse from the public coffers." The earliest attribution I've run across for that is 1797.

We've been voting for that largesse since before I was born, and it's accelerated since the 1930s.

It'll be interesting to see the side effects of any significant tax increases on income. We know as fact that if taxes on capital gains are raised, sales decline and less tax is collected--people just won't sell. Given how people now, even in higher brackets, live from pay check to pay check, it'll be interesting to see what an additional burden on those billfolds will be. Might be a bunch of repo houses on the market--which is rough on homebuilders' workers.

But since some 30% of the workforce for homebuilders are illegals, that might one way to reduce the numbers.

And so it goes...

'Rat

[Ugg]

It'll be interesting to see the side effects of any significant tax increases on income. We know as fact that if taxes on capital gains are raised, sales decline and less tax is collected--people just won't sell. Given how people now, even in higher brackets, live from pay check to pay check, it'll be interesting to see what an additional burden on those billfolds will be. Might be a bunch of repo houses on the market--which is rough on homebuilders' workers.

But since some 30% of the workforce for homebuilders are illegals, that might one way to reduce the numbers.

And so it goes...

'Rat

For one thing, it would mean less speculation in the stock market, and that would definitely be a good thing. The dot com bust was pretty clear proof that speculation is bad for the economy.

It could also lead to less transiency as people might be less likely to be constantly on the move. One of the biggest problems with community stability is the lack of permanence of a large portion of society.

There's a lot of speculative home building going on and it's way more than is justified in terms of population increases. Once again, it might be a way to help smooth out swings in the market. That's a moot point anyway at this point in time due to interest rate increases. The housing market in CA looks set for a correction as home sales have plummeted over the last few months. A lot of speculators are going to lose their shorts.