Assume that one of the major GOP candidates wins the nomination and then the general election. Assume further that the GOP victory followed a campaign based entirely on the need to balance the budget immediately using only spending cuts. Assume more "Tea Party" Congressmen who strongly believe in the need to cut spending as the solution to our economic problems were elected. Finally, assume the GOP gains control of all three branches of government in Jan 2013.

Previous GOP presidential candidates have all talked about cutting government spending (often called reducing the size of government) yet once elected they have never done this. President Reagan and Bush I's failure to do this could plausibly be blamed in part on Democratic control of at least one house of the legislature during their entire terms of office. This did not apply to Bush II, who had a GOP Congress and yet substantially increased government spending including the creation of a new welfare entitlement.

My question concerns whether a new GOP administration will return to the policy of the past and ignore the deficit, or whether rise of the Tea Party will make things different.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Assume that one of the major GOP candidates wins the nomination and then the general election. Assume further that the GOP victory followed a campaign based entirely on the need to balance the budget immediately using only spending cuts. Assume more "Tea Party" Congressmen who strongly believe in the need to cut spending as the solution to our economic problems were elected. Finally, assume the GOP gains control of all three branches of government in Jan 2013.

Previous GOP presidential candidates have all talked about cutting government spending (often called reducing the size of government) yet once elected they have never done this. President Reagan and Bush I's failure to do this could plausibly be blamed in part on Democratic control of at least one house of the legislature during their entire terms of office. This did not apply to Bush II, who had a GOP Congress and yet substantially increased government spending including the creation of a new welfare entitlement.

My question concerns whether a new GOP administration will return to the policy of the past and ignore the deficit, or whether rise of the Tea Party will make things different.

No matter who is elected, they will need to ignore deficit management and will be forced to spend, spend, spend.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Assume that one of the major GOP candidates wins the nomination and then the general election. Assume further that the GOP victory followed a campaign based entirely on the need to balance the budget immediately using only spending cuts. Assume more "Tea Party" Congressmen who strongly believe in the need to cut spending as the solution to our economic problems were elected. Finally, assume the GOP gains control of all three branches of government in Jan 2013.

Previous GOP presidential candidates have all talked about cutting government spending (often called reducing the size of government) yet once elected they have never done this. President Reagan and Bush I's failure to do this could plausibly be blamed in part on Democratic control of at least one house of the legislature during their entire terms of office. This did not apply to Bush II, who had a GOP Congress and yet substantially increased government spending including the creation of a new welfare entitlement.

My question concerns whether a new GOP administration will return to the policy of the past and ignore the deficit, or whether rise of the Tea Party will make things different.

Without a filibuster proof Senate, nothing changes. It will be "spend" as usual.

James50

When deep into a 4T I don't think business as usual is a choice for any political party.

Originally Posted by James50

Without a filibuster proof Senate, nothing changes. It will be "spend" as usual.

James50

Since there exist a fair number of "blue dog" Democrats willing to vote with the GOP on deficit-reduction issues, I don't see how a fillibuster-proof majority would be necessary.

But OK, assume the GOP had 60 Senate seats. Would that change your poll response? If so from what to what?

In my opinion they would not be "forced" to slash spending, they would do so triumphantly and with gusto. They would also slash taxes. These guys are serious. They mean every word they are saying. And the budget doesn't need a supermajority.

No Republican wants to touch the biggest sources of spending. If anything, military spending will increase - but they won't want to piss off their oldest and most socially conservative supporters with any meddling in SS or Medicare.

There might be some other cuts around the edges, but none of that will end up looking significant compared to the biggest budget items.

Of course, the hypothetical situation here is very hypothetical. While a "generic Republican" polls well against Obama, none of the actual candidates come close.

This could be a very interesting election in a Chinese curse sort of way.

The Republicans have a massive demographic problem that they are trying to mitigate by eroding the right to vote in the states where they took complete control of the government in the so called purple states after the 2010. In terms of the national election states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida are likely to go GOP because of the de facto elinination of Democratic leaning voter groups from the rolls.

If this ruse works, and we do end up with a GOP trifecta I expect to see Bush II era and fiscal policies on steroids.
First, as soon as the deficit hawks are sure that they have a Republican president for the next 4 years they will put away their calculators and magically quit swawking about the budget like they do everytime the GOP holds the White House.
Taxes on higher income groups will be cut, military contractors will live in a wet dream and it will all come crashing down sometime before 2016 because somewhere along the way, most likely about the time that gas prioces hit 6 dollars a gallon at the pump America will go into a true depression and lose global currrency reserve status.


Have fun...as the ship of fools sails on and on...

Originally Posted by James50

Without a filibuster proof Senate, nothing changes. It will be "spend" as usual.

James50

Do you see it as necessary to have a filibuster proof Senate to say "no"? All spending is a postive not a negative action.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

In my opinion they would not be "forced" to slash spending, they would do so triumphantly and with gusto. They would also slash taxes. These guys are serious. They mean every word they are saying. And the budget doesn't need a supermajority.

I could see them slashing spending in the social domain, but tax cutting and security spending would rise, as would GOP-niche spending, like the Farm program. Rising deficits and decreasing GDP (a likely product of thsi economic philosophy) will make for a mess. On the whole, spending will shift focus, get less efficient but remain high. Taxation wil decline for the rich and corporations. It may rise for the res of us.

Assume that Ohio and Wisconsin are the go-to models.

Not that she will even win the Republican nomination, let alone the general election, Michele Bachmann has sounded off about taxes, regurgitating the far right wing of her party's sickening main talking point on the subject:

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.co...-income-taxes/