The GOP’s Spending Fight Is More About Fighting Than Spending

These new deficit hawks aren’t opposed to racking up debt, they just want to be the ones doing it.

By
59
Incoming House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (right) argues with members of the Freedom Caucus, including Rep. Bob Good, Rep. Matt Gaetz, and Rep. Matt Rosendale during votes for speaker of the House. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.)

For several years now, I’ve been told that the “old consensus” of fiscal conservatism and limited government was dead. So, you might think I’m delighted by the sudden rebirth of Tea Party-style budget-cutting zeal on display in the GOP’s brinksmanship over the debt ceiling. 

Not so much.

I’ll get to the debt ceiling fight, but first let’s take a moment to consider Mitch Daniels, the former Indiana governor rumored to be contemplating a Senate run in 2024. 

Daniels has been perhaps the most successful and adroit budget cutter of our lifetimes, both as governor and as president of Purdue University. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
59
By
Comments (59)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Chris Granner

    For SENATE?

    [The heck with] that.

    Mitch for President in 2024! Daniels/Kasich maybe?

    Collapse
  2. Cegoodman85

    Who was it that proposed "Mitch Daniels for Godking"?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Julie from Texas

    Being a citizen who actually cares about our debt and deficits, it's particularly frustrating to see politicians only care about fiscal responsibility when they're out of power to do anything about it. They also take the attitude of wanting to be responsible if and only if it causes no discomfort or inconvenience to their constituents: the equivalent of a nearly-bankrupt individual saying they need to spend less but couldn't possibly give up their daily drive-through latte. It's just all so unserious.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    MatthewRobin

    In the second half of the 20th century the New Left wingers believed they were a cultural minority, resulting in a rebellious style of politics. Ever since the mid 2010s New Right wingers believed they are a cultural minority, resulting in a rebellious style of politics

    Collapse
  5. Lanceimorgan

    Mitch Daniels is exactly the kind of Republican who would win independent and Democratic votes. That’s anathema to the idiot MAGA chorus that doesn’t want to govern, just to preen, posture and lose elections.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Jhc

      Hear, hear!

      And my, how the Club for Growth has changed since the days of Kudlow and Toomey.

      Collapse
  6. Russell J

    The switch from quiet mice to performative budget hawks was super predictable. It’s still good to be reminded every once in a while who the consistent people are.

    Collapse
  7. Nicco

    As a resident of Indiana, I will vote for Mitch Daniels every chance I get, for whatever office he’d like, any day of the week. That said, I’m not entirely sure he stands much of a chance in a modern Indiana Republican primary. He might do well as an Independent if it were to come to that.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    I like Mitch Daniels. Given that we call the senator from Kentucky “Cocaine Mitch” and Mitch Daniels worked for Eli Lilly, mebbe we should call him “Prozac Mitch”? “Cialis Mitch”?

    If I still lived in Indiana he’d get my vote

    Collapse
    1. Bgoodell22

      I've wanted him to run for governor for a while. Given the state of Republican primaries, maybe with a similarly boringly competent Democratic governor

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Ralph

    "Performative pugnaciousness" is just right. The self-dealers, whether in the Freedom Caucus in the House, or at the Club for Growth, offer little but rhetoric, knowing that they can howl about 'deficits' and 'debt' without actually ever having to propose a specific plan to address it. Do they have a plan? Where is it? Can we see it? Don't wait at your inbox. They also know that if they actually did offer a specific plan (they won't), the Senate would not approve it nor would JRB sign on--and that the beloved American people might not like it much either. So it's more of the usual posturing. What a sorry lot of pretenders. But hey, it's a good living!

    Collapse
  10. Roni

    I tell you, I sense that there's an opening here for Dems to steal (Classical) Conservatism from frothy mouthed Tea Partiers whose sole interest is in owning the libs, not in actual governance.. The Dems should come out as the party of Fiscal Responsibility (Balanced Budgets which might include tax hikes as well as some cuts), Hawkish Foreign Policy (Defenders of Democracy vis-a-vis Ukraine) and Leaders with Integrity (Definitely not The Donald).

    Collapse
    1. Val Xavier

      A party rooted in Progressivism will *never* embrace Classical Conservatism. That would imply self-awareness and knowledge of history that transcends the notion that a few modern experts know a lot better what we need than a 250 year old document, "quaint" notions about The Rule of Law, and 330,000,000 free minds. Western liberal democracy is the very antithesis of the Progressive mind.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      I mean....the Dems I talk to sound far more fiscally responsible than Republicans who just want to cut, cut, cut. They want higher taxes, especially corporate and wealthy, but they also want to cut defense budgets and might be willing to do something like raise the retirement age by a year or more, gradually. They want things that will end up saving us money in the long run (like public option in healthcare). But they also aren't lawmakers.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Cogitatio

        The Dems I talk with (and they are legion, as this is a "blue" city) are anything but fiscally responsible. Like many Americans, they are wholly ignorant of where the actual money is in the budget. They believe that we have a massive bloated defense budget that constitutes the vast majority of spending, which is why they want to cut it. They are also, to a man and woman, opposed to anything that will limit spending on entitlements like SSI, Medicaid/care, and welfare programs. And they want to spend a LOT more money on all their favorite issues.
        The Republicans (Pubs) do want spending and tax cuts. Once upon a time, that was a more realistic goal. At this point, we are so deeply in debt we need to relook taxes from a perspective of what brings in money without creating a drag on the budget, but not simply to cut taxes, as we need the revenue. We also need to focus on entitlement reform and increasing retirement age, dealing with the massive fraud that exists in SSI, Medicare, and Medicaid, and other social programs. That would create major savings right there. Pubs also have serious misconceptions on the budget, as they believe we spend enormous amounts on foreign aid.
        The other thing that the Right seems to be wrapped around the axe handle about is the culture war. The Left is -- as they have been for decades -- actively fighting it, but the average Dem seem less intense than the far left about it. A larger percentage of the Right appears to be engaged on it. Part of that is the massive changes that the Left is pushing, I suppose, but much of it is driven by right wing social media and infotainment.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Whit Waldo

          The biggest fraud I've seen with SSI is the idea that for all the money I've paid into it, that I'll see a penny of it down the road when I'm old enough to collect it.

          Show me the candidate from either party that's for giving me the opportunity to disown every penny I've paid in in exchange for an irrevocable opt-out and they'll have my vote. From what I've seen, I've got a much better chance at dropping the difference in the average money market account and retaining a balance there than getting some fraction of what I've paid in at an increasingly older redemption threshold.

          Collapse
        2. Wsampson

          Never found evidence that republicans want to cut spending. If you wanted to cut, then everything can be cut. The answer to better isn’t just spend. That goes for defense as well. Why do we have branches of the military vs one military? Makes it like the Illinois township problem. Look at PPP, is there a worse government handout in history to the few? Business owner delight where most just pocked cash. Republican branding wins the fiscal responsible tag, but no evidence in my voting lifetime starting in 1984. Then look at the over reaction to 911 the Iraq war. Or viet nam. Awful programs that had no positive impact on society. Trump tax cuts. Same. Republican branding is amazing, the results are awful.

          Collapse
Load More