Did Freedom Win on Election Day?

Wednesday, 03 Nov 2010 10:09 AM

By John Stossel

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
What a surprise! Everyone predicted a Republican resurgence. Instead, voters shocked pundits by strengthening the Democratic majority in Congress. President Obama called the result "a resounding confirmation of my legislative achievements."

Democrats quickly introduced legislation to add a public option to Obamacare; a second, larger stimulus bill; a Paycheck Fairness Act; and new card-check and cap-and-trade bills.

OK, that didn't happen. But it's tough to come up with a Wednesday morning column. I wrote this on Election Day. Polls hadn't closed. It could have happened.

This was to be the year of the tea party triumph. As a libertarian, I so want to believe that the tea party marks the beginning of a comeback for small government.

But I'm probably deluding myself. I know that big government usually wins. Remember the last time the Republicans took power? They promised fiscal responsibility, and for six of George W. Bush's eight years, his party controlled Congress. What did we have to show for it?

Federal spending increased by 54 percent. That's more than any president in the last 50 years. Much more than the 12 percent increase under Bill Clinton, and it even beat the 36 percent increase under big spender Lyndon Johnson. The number of subsidy programs grew 30 percent, and the regulatory budget grew 70 percent. The private sector shrank, while the government sector grew by 1.6 million jobs.

Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress created a prescription drug entitlement, the biggest entitlement expansion since Medicare. At one point, he nearly tripled the Department of Education budget.

Republicans want another chance, but any sensible person would be skeptical. We saw what happened when Republicans got a taste of power, and it wasn't pretty. Why should we believe it wouldn't happen again? Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., likely the next chair of the House Education Committee, has already said that he's not going to abolish the Department of Education.

Republicans anticipated skepticism and tried to address it with the Pledge for America, an echo of the 1994 Contract With America. But the Pledge is modest. It promises no cuts in Medicare, Social Security, or the military. That's where most of the money is. Those programs account for 60 percent of the budget.

Their reluctance to call for entitlement cuts is politically understandable: Older people vote and don't like the prospect of Medicare cuts. But taking Medicare off the budget-cutting agenda forsakes one's credibility as a fiscal hawk.

Medicare faces $36 trillion in unfunded promises. Social Security adds $4.3 trillion. As Shikha Dalmia writes in Forbes, "By 2052, Uncle Sam's three entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — will consume all federal tax revenues, leaving nothing for government's core, constitutional functions."

OK, congressmen and would-be congressmen are just politicians. But the tea party is supposed to be different. It stands for fiscal responsibility, spending cuts, and deficit reduction.

A New York Times poll found that 92 percent of tea partyers said they would rather have a "smaller government providing fewer services" than a "bigger government providing more services."

That's encouraging. But when it comes to specifics, the results aren't as good. The poll found that 62 percent thought "the benefits from government programs such as Social Security and Medicare are worth the costs."

A Bloomberg poll found that most tea partyers "want more drug benefits for Medicare patients." And when was the last time you heard tea partyers complaining about the exploding military budget?

Strangely, in other questions, tea partyers did seem willing to accept cuts in domestic entitlement programs if it meant smaller government. The contradictory answers don't bode well for the time when lobbyists for well-organized special interests mount their passionate attacks against cuts.

You just cannot be committed to cutting government if you would leave two of the costliest programs intact.

Divided government historically spends less than governments under one-party control. But if the people who most loudly demand smaller government can't deliver a clear message on the biggest sources of government spending, the fiscal future of the country is in trouble.

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's the author of "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his site at www.johnstossel.com.

© Creators Syndicate Inc.

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Retype Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
You May Also Like

Military Zone in Ferguson Is Not the Answer

Wednesday, 20 Aug 2014 08:47 AM

Libertarians warned for years that government is force, that government always grows and that America's police have beco . . .

Don't Over-regulate the Use of Drones

Wednesday, 13 Aug 2014 11:08 AM

Drones, unmanned flying machines, will soon fill our skies. They conjure up fears, especially among some of my fellow li . . .

Border Patrol Harasses Inland Citizens

Wednesday, 06 Aug 2014 10:20 AM

If I drive across a U.S. border, I expect to stop at a Border Patrol checkpoint. But imagine driving to the grocery stor . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, NewsmaxWorld, NewsmaxHealth, are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved