About the 2-year budget compromise

image credit: foxbusiness.com

About the 2-year budget compromise now signed by President Trump

From Guy Benson’s “Analysis: Let's Face It, Neither of These Awful Parties is Actually Serious About Fiscal Responsibility” at Townhall:

The biggest problem with the compromise is that abandons all pretense of fiscal restraint, and virtually guarantees more harmful and irresponsible can-kicking.  The GOP-led Congress has agreed to a two-year plan that will add $1.5 trillion to deficits over a decade, establishing a higher baseline from which "cuts" will be opposed, and on which additional spending will be built.  And Republicans have done so while surrendering a powerful mechanism (reconciliation) that allows them to pass budget policies without requiring the help of tax-and-spend Democrats (as they did on tax reform). 

Benson’s full article is here. Charles Hurt at Breitbart didn’t think much of it either:

Any time you hear Washington talk about bipartisan agreement, America, grab your wallet and run!

Once again, lawmakers in Washington have finally cut through all the thorny brambles of partisanship and discovered (yet again! yippie!) something they can all agree upon: spending scads and scads more of other people’s money that we don’t even have!

Support for military expenditures was a key talking point for Congress critters like Sean Duffy, who voted "yes." 

It’s still out-of-control spending. And back to Benson:

Here's what bothers me: Republicans didn't even really try.  They could have attempted a full-court press explaining the need for increased military funding, while arguing that in an era of $4 trillion in annual federal spending (up from less than $1.8 trillion in fiscal year 2000, just for some perspective), breaking caps on domestic spending is unnecessary.  Or they could have demanded that in exchange for some heightened domestic spending for discrete priorities, Democrats would have to agree to some modest and mathematically-essential entitlement reforms. 

Instead, we got this [via The Washington Examiner]:

In 2017, for the first time in the post-Tea Party era, Republicans finally gained unified control of government. They spent months blundering on healthcare, and ultimately reneged on their eight-year promise to repeal Obamacare. They have now agreed on a deal with Democrats that would blow up the spending caps that were a legacy of the Tea Party movement — to the tune of $300 billion over the next two years...The agreement would boost military spending by $165 billion above the 2011 caps and nonmilitary spending by $131 billion; it boosts emergency disaster relief spending by $90 billion (remember when the Tea Party Republicans believed emergency spending needed to be offset?); provides $6 billion in more money to fight opioid addiction; has $20 billion in infrastructure funding; it provides more funding for community health centers; and it repeals the Independent Payment Advisory Board, one of Obamacare’s cost-containment initiatives, without any significant alternative ideas to curb Medicare spending. Now, let’s get one thing clear. It's possible to rein in long-term debt while keeping taxes relatively low and military spending relatively high, but only if those policies are met with a dramatic strategy to restrain entitlements and other non-defense spending. But that’s not what Republicans are doing.

I had hoped for better. Reminder to self: the GOPe are members in good standing of the Uniparty.

# # #

Jeb! reneges

photo credit: observer.com

Back in December, and shortly before Jeb! dropped out of the race, Guy Benson at Townhall reported on the GOP candidates' loyalty oath to support whoever became the eventual nominee for President. The headline then was “Jeb: I'm Considering Breaking My GOP Loyalty Pledge if Trump's the Nominee":

By declining to raise their hands when prompted by Fox New anchor Bret Baier, every other candidate on stage that night made a promise to voters: No matter who is nominated, they'd throw their backing behind his or her campaign, and would rule out an independent run.  

Ironically, that question was crafted specifically for Trump, but now it applies at least as much to moderates like Bush and Kasich as it does to the capricious frontrunner.  If you're seeking the Republican nomination, and if you've vowed to endorse and support the Republican nominee, you shouldn't go back on your word -- neither out of genuine frustration and disgust, nor as a campaign tactic. 

Not only would this be a breach of trust, it would reek of spite. Trump's been smacking Jeb around as a low energy loser for weeks; if the former governor were to follow through on this quasi-threat, Trump could tweak his taunt and cast Bush as a low energy sore loser.  

Jeb and friends have spent tens of millions of dollars so far, yet the campaign has failed to gain traction with voters (to put it kindly).  Reneging on the pledge now would be akin to pouting in the corner -- yet another indignity.  

Sure, guys like Bush and Kasich could use Trump's odious conduct and controversial proposals as a fig leaf to justify their potential reversals, but that would require them to feign shock that Donald Trump is comporting himself like...Donald Trump has always comported himself.  

Plus, it would infuriate a large segment of the Republican base, who would accuse the establishment of demanding party unity in support of "safe" nominees, then refusing to abide by the same standard when they don't get their way. 

Today, The Hill reports that Jeb! has reneged on his pledge.

“In November, I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I will support principled conservatives at the state and federal levels, just as I have done my entire life,” Bush wrote in a Facebook post.

Jeb! does not seem to have a clue about “conservative” principles, nor why Trump would appeal to conservatives who are sick and tired of “conservative” GOPe legislators who promise conservative values on the campaign trail and embrace the liberal agenda once in office.

# # #