The American Spectator : Limited Government, Expanded Popularity

Text Size

Streetcar Line

Limited Government, Expanded Popularity

By Quin Hillyer on 12.18.08 @ 6:08AM

Yes, fiscal rectitude wins votes for Republicans, as the last 25 years have confirmed.

This is one of those "just for the record" columns. Forget eloquence; this is straightforward information to help defend the cause of real conservatives -- which by definition means "limited government conservatives," which is a redundancy made necessary by the bizarre proliferation of those who claim that "big government conservatism" isn't an obnoxious contradiction in terms.

The question is, what is the record for claiming that advocacy of limited government is a political winner?

The answer is: Abundant political history, specifically including the experience of the Gingrich years that so many falsely claim proves the opposite.

Ronald Reagan, obviously, campaigned strongly for limited government. Despite claims to the contrary, he delivered. His first round of budget cuts, in 1981, were substantial. Rescissions from already passed appropriations meant that domestic discretionary budget authority actually dropped by $6 billion in 1981, and in 1982 the same category dropped by another $21 billion, which was a whopping 15 percent of the total. Budget authority grew by just $7 billion the year after that, leaving it still $20 billion below its 1981 level. It would take another two years for domestic discretionary budget authority to catch up to where it started -- and even that level represented a serious cut in real (after-inflation) dollars.

Yet Reagan was elected with majorities in 49 states, and his vice president was elected to succeed him after a second term that was almost as stringent on such appropriations. Sure, entitlements kept growing throughout Reagan's two terms, but that was merely through formulas already baked into the cake before he took office. The fact remains that Reagan's austerity on annual spending items not only failed to dent his popularity, but quite arguably added to it.

As soon as Reagan left office, domestic discretionary budget outlays began rising at a rapid clip. From $180 billion in 1989, they rose to $260 billion just four years later. Result: The third-party candidacy of Ross Perot, based entirely on two issues, reform and spending control. Further result: The presidency of Bill Clinton.

Just two years later, the Gingrich brigades rode the same two Perot issues, ethics reform and balanced budgets, to a majority. Bill Clinton was chastened enough to declare that "the era of big government is over" -- a declaration he had to make because it was politically popular to do so. But even though he fought the spending cuts, hard, behind the scenes, Republicans delivered just as Reagan had done. Gingrich himself has written several times (in his books) about what happened next: My then-boss, Bob Livingston (who ranks with Bill Archer of Texas as the most underappreciated but consequential heroes of the Gingrich era), took controls of the Appropriations Committee and bravely doubled the ante on a rescissions package during that first winter and spring. Domestic discretionary budget authority dropped from $262 billion in 1994 to a post-rescission $249 billion in 1995, and $247 billion in 1996. They rose only to $257 billion in 1997 (still below the mark of three years earlier), while the growth of entitlement spending also was slowed and while welfare reform was passed, promising what seemed then to be even more austerity.

I SAW FIRSTHAND what happened during those first two years. I saw Republicans clearly win the budget public relations battle in the winter and spring of 1995, and hold their own during the summer. I saw the rough political equilibrium continue all the way into late November or early December, as long as the "budget shutdown" battle involved only discretionary programs. Then, at the urging of California's Bill Thomas, Gingrich tied a small Medicare issue in with the shutdown battle, whereas the two issues had been studiously kept segregated before. Clinton pounced. The political tide turned. And even then, the ultimate battle could have gone either way. But as moderate Republicans caved, so did Clinton, finally accepting a slightly modified plan that everybody agreed would lead to a balanced budget for the first time in decades.

And what happened to Republican congressional majorities in 1996? Next to nothing. A few seats lost, but the GOP still maintained control in both chambers. And then, right up into September of 1998, with domestic discretionary spending growth still having been kept within reasonable bounds, all the prognosticators were expecting GOP House gains of as many as 30 seats. But House Republicans overplayed their impeachment hand by insisting on rules for impeachment proceedings that were unnecessarily stringent; in return for holding the moderates in line on those rules, Gingrich allowed a huge jump in discretionary budget authority.

The capitulation on such spending was astonishing: from $270 billion to $307 billion in one year. And retribution was swift: Although nobody in print (but me) foresaw GOP losses even as late as election eve, House Republicans lost five seats in 1998 -- a stunning under-performance in expectations of between 20 and 35 seats. What had happened? Disgusted fiscal conservatives stayed home in droves; that's what.

One can make an excellent case that GOP House gains in 2000 and 2002 were driven by Clinton fatigue and then by post 9/11 rallying around the president. But the disgust with ever-spiraling spending out in the hinterlands grew and then metastasized throughout the middle years of this decade. Washington might not have recognized it, but those of us outside the elite cultural echo chamber (I was in Mobile, Alabama, at the time) heard it not just among politicos but out on the street, quite regularly and quite vociferously. By 2005, domestic discretionary budget authority had grown to $417 billion -- a more than 25 percent increase in just six years. Inflation alone would have hiked the number to just $359 billion.

And that isn't even to mention the massive growth in Medicare benefits foisted on the American people in a corrupt, three-hour, overnight vote that did lasting damage to the House's institutional integrity.

In 2006 and 2008, voters punished Republicans accordingly. And look where we are now….

GRANTED, HUNDREDS OF OTHER political factors played a role in all of these elections. Cold War, hot wars, impeachment, terrorism, hurricanes, ethics and other major factors influenced the electorate in myriad ways. But if spending restraint actually were a major impediment to electoral success, why have Republican fortunes actually tracked so closely their relative success at limiting government? When Republicans act like fiscal conservatives, they have won, again and again. When they have spent like inebriated mariners, they have lost -- again and again.

The obvious conclusion, from more than a quarter-century of modern American history, is that limiting government is either a strong net plus, politically, or at least not in any way a drag on electoral fortunes; profligacy, on the contrary, is either a strong net minus, politically, or at least not in any way an electoral benefit.

The evidence for the contrary conclusion -- that voters reward big government -- is utterly, completely nonexistent.

Of course, as I argued last week, conservatives ought to fight big government on principle even if the political winds blow in the other direction. The good news, though, is that on the basic issue of limiting the national government, principle and good politics go hand in hand.

About the Author

Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (21) | Leave a comment

Michael L. Hauschild| 12.18.08 @ 8:10AM

Sometimes it pays to expound the obvious. Mr. Hillyar at his most eloquent, and as noted previously in Mr. Tyrrell Jr's post-election comments, not a word on the bane of conservatives....(fill in your own self flagellating term so you can endlessly multiple post volumes of your own particular brand of "absolute" crap that never changes anyone's opinion and loses elections.)

Bob| 12.18.08 @ 10:13AM

While I agree with Quin regarding fiscal responsibility, the facts show a different story. If I link to two charts, one on the debt and the other on the size of government, Reagan failed on both accounts. I think his head was in the right place, but he wasn't competent enough to make it happen.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/06/comparing-presidents-size-of-government.html

There are two problems with the Republican/Conservative position. First, the emphasis is placed on spending rather than balancing the budget. Longer term, balancing the budget is far more important. Secondly, since all politics are local, Republicans need to learn how to say "no" to their local constituents about local programs/earmarks. That was the problem for the last 8 years -- Republicans were fine in calling for cuts in OTHER areas, but no their own.

JAZZ| 12.18.08 @ 11:57AM

Limited government, is three fold. the first and most important one. Why do some people want less government? this is the most important of all.

These people are normally from the elite, the reason is simple, they have more to hide. These are the one's engaged in money laundering, drug cartells, crime syndicates, Mafia organisations, and those who profit from these crime syndicates.

Government cover ups, Swiss Bank account and off sure Banking of illicit gains, tax evasions. People in the prorn industry, sex trafficking, illegal insider dealing on the STOCK EXCHANGE FRAUD.

People engaged in fraud, and big business, and fraudulent accounting. Simply known as the (BLACK MARKET).

Limited government to these people is how they evade dectecting from the FBI.

The second part is how, these people avoid dectecting. Much of the time you end up with cases like the 50 Billion fraud by a Wall Street operator who if he was not caught now would have bankrupted the whole of the financial markets that ordinary peoples money such as pensions, life insurance is invested for the wider good of the public.

Then there is the derivitives markets which is in 600 Trillion FRAUD that is yet to emerge on Wall Street that will Bankrupt the entire global economy. That will emerge in 2009, it is unavoidable. This is the result of lack of good governance, we all suffer.

Much of the bailout money is coming through the front door, and going through the back door, to cover the biggest crime in financial history.

I doubt this will be published, because the crime and those involved is every where.

When this is disclosed to the public, it will be the biggest bomshell, in history.
This because information that flows out via the media is monitored for obvious reason, it is based on covering up facts, and replaced with who Britney is going out with, which is of no importance to anyone in their right mind.

The pending Martial Law will have to be inforced, because it will have to come out sooner or later that the pension you thought you had, don't exist.

Limited government is only good for those of whom it serves to swindle the poor and illinformed.

The people who is behind these crimes against the people, are those you least suspect. People like Dobs are not a part of the solution these people are a part of reducing the rate of the flow of information, to allow time to cover up crimes against the people of the United States and the rest of Europe.

People who don't have anything to hide don't mind government, it is those who have things to hide. They don't want regulations for obvious reason, the last thing they want is transparancies.

Stan Redmond| 12.18.08 @ 12:14PM

Jazz: Why do some people want small government. BECAUSE THEY'VE JUST ABOUT SCREWED UP EVERYTHING THEY TOUCH!!! They steal my money through high taxes and give it to failed businesses. They steal my taxes and give it to stupid organizations that over-see other stupid organizations. They enforce rules on my tiny business that make it rediculous for me to hire more then 1 or 2 employees. Have you ever filed a business tax form? How about limits on my constitutional rights to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms? How about failed programs that are so massive and debt ridden they can bring down the entire economy in less then a week? Your logic is so immersed in liberal college education you can't see the forest for the trees of big government and big government's trampling of your rights.

Dai Alanye| 12.18.08 @ 12:23PM

It's always worth mentioning with regard to Reagan's accomplishments that while attempting to cut government he was also involved in winning a war and rebuilding a Carterized economy.

I personally hope to cut government so as to hide the fact I haven't renewed my dog's license. Too many transparencies is harmful to the pup's interests, not to mention his off sure Bank account. ;~)

JAZZ| 12.18.08 @ 12:45PM

Stan.

You had small government, under George W Bush. What you need to analyse, is the levels of fraud that has emerged. This is due to de-regulations.

The problematic situation that has arrisen from this, is the biggest slump in the economy in 75 years. It has also left exposed, the level of poor governance.

One of the most important factors, is how entertwined our economies are. Example if your customers have no money because they have lost their jobs it put you out of business.

It is very important that the investments of the wider community is protected at all cost.

Bob| 12.18.08 @ 12:45PM

The size of government is a balancing act. Jazz is right about regulation. In order to have orderly and free markets, there must be regulation to insure the "free" part is not taken away by corrupt people. On the other hand, government MANAGED programs have tended to work poorly. But some programs just cannot be done by the private sector including the military, police, interstate commerce, and welfare programs. If you argue about less government intervention, then you should also argue against intervention into abortion and gay marriage. If you argue for limited government in a part of government and intervention in another, then you are being inconsistent and allowing the argument that everyone wants government intervention in their own self interest. What about subsidies or tax breaks to small businesses? That's government intervention. What about child labor laws?

What then, should we argue against? Personally, I'd like government out of my personal and religious life and out of education. They do have a public role in healthcare and welfare, but this must be attached to personal responsibility. If someone decides to smoke, that's their decision and they should pay higher healthcare costs both for insurance and at the hospital. However, they should also be prevented from suing because of it.

The need for larger government comes directly from the specialization of our society. When we lived on farms and in small towns, everyone could be involved in all community decisions. If someone cheated, it was found out quickly and contained. The community took care of health issues. Now, everyone is a specialist and no one can be involved in every decision. This cannot be managed without government.

We waste a lot of money on defense procurement. Who will watch that if not for government (and they don't do a very good job)?

If you want to make government smaller, then you need to figure out where the money is being spent and then how to control it. The defense budget can be reduced by changing from an intervention policy to a non-intervention policy. Medicare and social security, which accounts for 53% of the budget, was devised at a time when lifespan was calculated at 65 years. When lifespan increases, that entry point should be changed. Reducing welfare is directly related to job creation. Asking for one without addressing the other is idiocy.

Quin was arguing a political point here, rather than a public policy argument. There has been far too much revisionist history when it came to Reagan -- although I believe he was a good President and I voted for him.

Bob| 12.18.08 @ 12:57PM

Dai, while I agree that Reagan had some important accomplishments, one of them was NOT limited government except in one area -- decreased regulation. This has turned out to be a disaster over the longer term as we have seen bubble after bubble -- all heightened by deregulation. His strength in creating jobs and increasing the military came at the expense of a HUGE debt increase for which our children will pay.

Furthermore, economic cycles are not totally related to the President in office. While deregulation did not hurt Reagan, it certainly hurt some of the presidents that followed. The economy would surely have turned around under any President that followed Carter.

Don't get me wrong, Reagan was a much better President than Carter -- but he made some huge mistakes as well perhaps because he lived for the moment rather than had the intellectual capacity to plan for the future. He was certainly a leader in the "me first" society.

JAZZ| 12.18.08 @ 1:40PM

This is just my personal opinion, I have read many write ups about Reagan. I was never moved by the man, because I have a much higher expectation of people in government, than the acheivements of the Reagan administration.

I could raise many issues relating to his administration many would not paint the picture of grandure that would become confrontational to many of his illinformed fans.

I expect high standards of our leaders, and as far back as I can go in recent times, Bill Clinton was better than most, and that's including his Monica affair. Clinton had more leadership skills than any of the others in my opinion.

Bob| 12.18.08 @ 2:07PM

Jazz, Clinton did not have strong leadership skills -- his strength was his ability to compromise (both publicly and personally) and his intellect. His lack of leadership led to no transformational programs and it also led to the Republicans taking Congress in 1994. He gained by the dot-com boom which had nothing to do with him.

Reagan was a good leader but lacked the intellect to understand his programs. He was transformational because he followed Carter just as Obama will be transformational because he is following Bush.

I am hoping that Obama shows BOTH leadership AND intellect. So far, he's doing a good job of leading rather than pandering. I give him high marks for his cabinet choices -- much higher than either Reagan or Clinton. While I think that Bush 43 was a disaster because he lacked both leadership and intellect, I did like Bush 41 because, as a technocrat, he made informed decisions. He certainly lacked any traces of inspiration, however.

Todd| 12.18.08 @ 2:28PM

You crack me up Jazz, you have such high standards of our leaders yet you approve of serial liar/adulterer Bill Clinton? He had such great leadership skills that he lost control of both houses of Congress under him and that is the only reason we had welfare reform because he was forced into it.

As for your statement that we have had small government under George Bush, that speaks volumes for your ignorance. Sure, the government would probably be bigger if Gore or Kerry had been elected but to refer to us having a small government under Bush is laughable. You always point the finger at the Republicans for the economic crisis due to deregulation but how about Democrats like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd refusing to allow Fannie Mae to be regulated and stop taking such crazy risks because they want to "help poor people buy houses". Fannie Mae is ground zero for the mess we are in and its clear the Democrats are to blame for it but those are just inconvenient facts for you because liberals should never be held to account for anything according to you.

How exactly is the government involved in your religious life Bob? What you mean is that you want the government to remove all religion from public life. Does it offend you to see In God We Trust on our currency?

Todd| 12.18.08 @ 2:40PM

It seems to me Bob that many of Obama's cabinet picks are mostly recycled Clinton people along with the old witch herself. How about his selection of Browner? She is an environmarxist if I have ever seen one and aims to destroy our market economy with her planned onerous environmental restrictions in limiting carbon emissions. Global warming (or now climate change since it is not actually getting warmer anymore) is a scam of epic proportions for the leftists to seize control of the economy. Like the Czech President Vaclav Klaus has stated, green is the new red.

JAZZ| 12.18.08 @ 2:41PM

Bob.

I have read what you have said, and I agree with you. Because I can see your point of view, when I think of it. I can see where you're coming from, all points taken.

Bob| 12.18.08 @ 4:15PM

Todd -- While many Obama's picks worked in the Clinton administration, half of them did not. However, I'd rather have experienced people there than all new picks. Certainly Gates, LaHood, Salazar, Napolitano, Chu, Jones and Shinseki are not. You're not going to get a smarter economic team with centrist views. Chu is rightfully against ethanol and is a true scientist, not an ideologue, and will keep Browner in check. By and large, this is a pretty centrist group -- enough centrist that the left is not very happy with them. I worry a bit about the new SEC chairwoman a bit because of her strong connections to Wall Street.

Certainly, Hillary would not be my first pick, but she was the witch who voted to go into Iraq and potentially Iran. I am not a neocon and don't believe in interventionism, so Hillary is a bit to hawkish for me in the wrong places.

This is a much better cabinet than I expected. They are almost all very intelligent and pragmatic. The downside of an "intellectual" cabinet is potential lack of action. We'll see what happens. Bush was a disaster and had a really poor cabinet. Remember Rumsfield, Brownie, Gonzales, Paulson, Rice, etc.?

DaveS| 12.18.08 @ 7:42PM

I only wish I could be bribed by my own money. Fact is, other people are bribed with my money; therefore, "what's yours is mine" is prevailing. (Sigh) The balancing of budgets is NOT the answer: it's half the problem.

Jason| 12.19.08 @ 12:02AM

Yet those who run as conservatives, regularly disappoint us. Why? Because power corrupts, and there's enough power in Washington to corrupt just about anybody.
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/

Dai Alanye| 12.19.08 @ 5:12PM

A few points for those who are selective in the "facts" they utilize.
Reagan won a war, and the costs to rebuild our military and support anti-communist clients was part of what brought success. You might recall it also required a considerable deficit buildup to defeat Germany and Japan somewhat earlier.

De-regulation started under Carter. Among the few worthwhile policies he promulgated were de-regulation of trucking and (I believe) air travel.

The on-going mortgage meltdown was NOT caused by de-regulation but by insufficient supervision of the securities market, and by *regulations* that required mortgages be offered to those unable to afford them. Research Barney Frank/Chris Dodd/Maxine Waters/etc if you are unclear about this.

Bob| 12.20.08 @ 7:22AM

Dai, yes, Reagan won a war by spending money he didn't have. But the article was about limited government, and his was not a limited government. It is revisionist history to say so. I voted for Reagan and thought he did a good job -- not great, but good. But you can't use him as an example of limited government. As to deregulation, industries are not comparable. The airlines and transportation industries were actually run by the federal government, and they were doing a lousy job. This actually started under Nixon/Ford, and not Carter. But financial deregulation, the thing that caused the problem today, did start under Reagan. The problem today was indeed caused by deregulation that had gone too far. The original legislation that offered mortgages to lower income individuals said nothing about those people being qualified or unqualified -- only that they be offered. It was the securitization of mortgages where the institutions that did the lending did not have "skin in the game" that caused the problem. If proper regulation would have been there, this never would have become an issue because lending institutions to low income people like Household and Beneficial would never have been able to survive. I know, I worked for these companies in the 90's.

Jay| 12.22.08 @ 8:40AM

Bob,

"If you want to make government smaller, then you need to figure out where the money is being spent and then how to control it"...
The bulk of gov't spending is of schemes designed to loot one segment of society of their earnings and give it to different segment that rewards the behavior by maintaining the looters in power.
Social Security. Farm Subsidies. Medicare/Medicaid. Pharmacy Programs. AFDC. et al.
Is it these programs you wish to control?