The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : McCain and Spending

Text Size

McCain and Spending

By W. James Antle, III on 3.27.09 @ 1:12PM

John McCain has indeed voted against more bloated spending bills than most Republicans. I don't wish to deny him credit for this record, especially his opposition to the last Bush administration farm bill as an election loomed. But what separates McCain from the Pauls, Flakes, and Coburns with which Quin groups him is that his opposition to high spending is not grounded in any coherent philosophy of government or theory of economics.

How many of those spending bills would McCain have voted against if they'd been stripped clean of earmarks? If he did, what language would he have used to oppose them if he couldn't use bear DNA as a prop? If an expansion of government power can be sold as crucial to the country's national honor, chances are the senior senator from Arizona will support it. McCain isn't a small-government conservative like Paul, Flake or Coburn. He is a Republican William Proxmire -- admirable, but insufficient.

The problem with an earmark-centric criticism of federal spending practices is that it is too process-oriented, too inside the Beltway, and too narrow in its assessment of the problem. That's not to say that railing against pork doesn't have its place. It absolutely does. But not only is "waste, fraud, and abuse" frequently a cop-out to avoid real fiscal discipline. Barack Obama and his party are going to spend the next several years promising the American people health care, college tuitition, housing, green jobs, and any other number of other desirable-sounding things. Republicans are going to need a better reason to say "no" than a bear DNA study buried beneath the fine print.

View all comments (3) | Leave a comment

John Thacker| 3.27.09 @ 1:45PM

"Republicans are going to need a better reason to say "no" than a bear DNA study buried beneath the fine print. "

Sure. But McCain offered a better reason in the very Byron York column you started off by linking to. The Senator from Arizona is quite flawed indeed. His philosophical grounding is more inconsistent than his voting, and he's not always able to explain himself. He relies far too much on appeals to honor, and self-righteousness. Even when I agree with him I cringe the way he likes to moralize everything. (Even when I think that farm subsidies are immoral.)

On the point of tactics, you're obviously right. McCain says "Well, you set up a situation that puts spending at an unprecedented amount of GDP, and then you turn around and say, 'Of course we're going to have to raise taxes to pay for this,'" McCain told me. "I'm not saying it was their plan, but it certainly was inevitable."

That's an argument that he should've used then, and the GOP should use now. This spending inevitably means higher taxes, and it's SO MUCH spending that the "rich" won't be able to pay for it all.

Quin| 3.27.09 @ 4:13PM

I still beg to differ, Jim. Just because McCain's pitiful arguments are too earmark-centric doesn't mean that he hasn't opposed bigger spending almost across the board without regard to earmarks. Of course he doesn't have a coherent philosophy, but he has a gut-level aversion to big spending that is impressive and undeniable.

jr| 3.27.09 @ 4:59PM

Starting with the beginning of Bush, did McShame vote for the Kennedy education (?) legislation? At the end of Bush, did McShame voted for bailouts? That's all folks, the beginning and the end.