Getting the Brand Back

Two recent postings – one on Bluejersey the other on PoltickerNJ – prompt this piece, as both relate to the same subject: fiscal responsibility.

In the first, a scribe on BJ holds forth on "Which Party is the Big Spender", reciting certain statistics on state and local taxes to conclude that little difference exists between the parties when it comes to spending and taxing. He’s partially correct, but only because he misframes the question, to which more in a minute.

First, a few quibbles. While I understand the rationale for choosing 1980 – the year of Reagan’s election – as the starting point, that choice gives Byrne a huge bye. Byrne took office in 1974, with the state budget about $2 billion. By the time he left office in 1981, it was approximately $5 billion. He increased the sales tax and imposed the income tax, both of which facilitated the fiscal disaster we witnessed over the next 30 years.

Second, combining local and state taxes produces a useless result. State officials posses limited power to affect local budgets. Too, local governments labor under spending caps; giving the incumbent governor credit for their comparative restraint makes no sense.

Third, the analysis omits the effects of politics. The author notes, with a hint of puzzlement, "it may also surprise some to find that the single lowest positive growth year was in 1993 - the third year of the Florio Administration." Noone should be the least bit surprised, because Florio’s policies produced massive Republican legislative majorities (before all those folks with "Florio Free in ‘93" bumper stickers moved to PA). His big spending Democratic allies got thumped, and (relatively) conservative Republicans flooded in, with veto proof majorities.

This study credits Florio credit for fiscal restraint, despite the fact that the Republican Legislature imposed it on him over his strenuous objections. Florio only looks conservative by comparison because the GOP Legislature cut taxes and spending, over his veto.

Taking simple budget numbers provides a more useful yardstick of fiscal responsibility. Byrne more than doubled the size of state government, and Kean followed that with a further doubling, both abetted by consistent Democratic legislative majorities. Florio added about another 1/3, even with the second half discipline the GOP imposed upon him. Whitman held the line somewhat her first term, but faltered in her second. McGreevey, Codey, Corzine and the Democratic legislative majorities boosted spending by another 60% on top of an already bloated baseline.

With the exception of Whitman, whose term was mediocre, every other Governor since Cahill has been an unmitigated fiscal disaster.

At what conclusion about Party spending, then, can we arrive? Consider: Kean is every Democrat’s favorite Republican, "the kind of Republican who can win in New Jersey". Or, put another way, a liberal. Reading the columns he and Byrne write in the Ledger, wherein they often purport to lament out-of-control spending, is enough to produce out-of-control laughter. Or crying. The two principal architects of the State’s financial disaster lamenting the Frankenstein monster they birthed, with very limited admissions of their patent guilt in the crime.

The moral of the story is simple: electing liberals – from either party – to office produces disastrous consequences.

But for sheer cheek, Bob Torricelli takes the cake. First, he reiterates the liberal canards that Bush sent men into combat without flack vests or armored Humvees. Hmm, lessee. What party controlled the presidency and would have had to order the vests and armored Humvees for them to be available for a Bush presidency? But as Clinton "loathed" the military, he could not be expected to actually equip it, could he?

Annoyingly, Torricelli credits Clinton with balancing the budget. Riiiight. Just like Florio cut taxes and spending in the second half of his term. Clinton’s foolish policy produced Republican Congressional majorities, which imposed fiscal discipline upon him. During his first two years, economic performance was anemic to pathetic; in the next six, fantastic. Perhaps Senator Torricelli would provide a candid audience with a single Clintonian policy – just one – which actually, demonstrably helped the economy? Just one little initiative?

Giving Bill Clinton credit for the work of the Republican Congress (does anyone in their wildest imagination believe we would have seen so much as a single balanced budget had Hillarycare actually passed?) is infuriating. HE DID NOTHING to produce economic growth. NOTHING!! The Republican Congress, for strictly partisan reasons, felt compelled to act like real Republicans while he sat in the White House. And the Country prospered mightily, precisely because Clinton was essentially irrelevant.

Alas, the Republicans completely squandered that legacy when a fiscally liberal Republican, George Bush, took office. No longer politically obliged to oppose foolish presidential proposals – and without a President politically motivated to check congressional excesses – the Republicans became a caricature of their complaints about the Democrats.

This produces a huge political difficulty. With the record made by liberals like Kean in NJ, the late, unlamented liberal Republican Congress (and, alas, the liberal George Bush), it’s hard for a conservative to argue that Republicans present anything more than an incremental improvement on the Democrats.

How can one argue against deficits when so many Republicans joined the Dems in supporting the farm bill? When a Republican president passed the largest single entitlement increase since 1965? When some Republicans vehemently support pork? When they get together and pass a budget-busting "stimulus" bill, which indebts our kids even further to permit us to spend beyond our means?

The problem with Republicans is that they often break their promises ("read my lips; no new taxes); the problem with the Democrats is that they often keep theirs.

This election offers the Republicans a chance at redemption. The Democrats did us a huge favor by nominating a truly radical and fabulously underqualified man for President. He measures the cost of his proposals in the trillions of dollars, all of which must be sucked out of the productive economy. Given the record of the last Republican Congress, and the economic performance of this fiscally irresponsible president, this should be a Democratic year. But the people seem to understand that trading one big spender for an even worse example constitutes no improvement.

McCain and the GOP must persuade the electorate that they actually mean to reform their ways, to keep their promises, to cut taxes, curb spending, stop borrowing, and reduce the size of government. If they win, and keep those promise, the GOP may get its "brand" back. If they break those promises – again – the GOP may be in the political wilderness for years, not because the people like the Dems or support their policies, but because millions of voters will stay home, persuaded that no party actually represents their interests.