Mitch Daniels’ fiscal conservative credentials

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is talking tough on spending, as is nearly every potential GOP candidate for president. Nearly two weeks ago at CPAC, Daniels dubbed the deficit the new “red scare” in a speech that raised eyebrows of many Republicans.

But as Alex Knapp notes, Daniels credibility is lacking:

Looking at the Republican field for 2012, I’m more than a little disheartened that the most prudent and fiscally conservative contender for the Republican nomination is Mitch Daniels.

The same Mitch Daniels who, as director of OMB, oversaw a federal budget that went from a $236 billion suprlus to a $400 billion deficit.

The same Mitch Daniels who stated that the cost of the Iraq War would be “only about $50-60 billion.” (Actual cost to date — over $800 billion and climbing.)


Now, I’ll be fair. I’m only now starting to look at Mitch Daniels. I haven’t had a chance to review his record as Governor. Maybe it’s an improvement.

But in the past few weeks I’ve heard him bandied about as the “fiscally conservative” candidate, and I have to say the first time I heard that, I laughed.

Nationalize wireless internet?

President Obama wants to nationalize wireless internet according to a report in New American in what appears to be another measure argued to be stimulus, but in reality is nothing more than just taking over a sector of American industry.  New American doesn’t seem to be much of a fan of the proposal either:

In what amounts to the next initiative undertaken by the Obama Administration towards its ever-expanding program of government expansion and nationalization of various aspects of the lives of the American people (such as the government takeover of health care, intervention in banks, and the nationalization of various automobile companies, such as General Motors), the federal government is now embarking upon a program of government-directed wireless internet (Wi-Fi) delivery.

President Obama outlined his plan for government wireless access and broadband expansion at a press conference on February 10th at Northern Michigan University in Marquette, Michigan. The press conference revealed yet another well-known truth about the proposal, characteristic of any other initiatives which believe that government is capable of expanding access to any commodities: it is rooted in his Quixotic, insolvent, debunked, and expansionist view of government, and in his failure to realize the proper relation of government to the myriad possibilities made possible by the free market, in a more efficient and capable manner. The Wi-Fi expansion proposal not only reflects an unconstitutional view of government spending and scope, but is also a continuation of Franklin Delano Roosevelt-style economics, which failed the country in the height of the Great Depression and continue to contribute towards the national deficit and economic woes.

Entitlements Will Be the Death of Our Economy

President Obama recently released his proposed budget, a $3.73 trillion monstrosity that is a monument to his own arrogance and complete inability or refusal to understand the concerns of the American people. After a historic tail-whipping of his party in November, Obama decided to engage in a little rhetorical compromise, and then turned around and doubled down on the disastrous policies that have kept this country in a long recession followed by a jobless recovery.

Simply put, even if we tax the “millionaires and billionaires” at 100% of earnings, it still won’t put much more than a dent in our $14+ trillion national debt. Within a decade we’ll be spending more than $800 billion (conservatively) for interest payments on the debt, and even more if interest rates rise, which they surely will. The fact is that our road to economic recovery lies down the path to drastically reduced spending.

The problem we have as a nation is that Democrats embrace fiscal irresponsibility; a policy of tax, borrow and spend (as if we can keep borrowing to pay for lavish welfare and entitlement programs and the bill will never come due) and Republicans claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, but engage in a policy of borrow and spend. Yes, cutting tax rates stimulates the economy, but even with increased gross revenues, spending more than you raise still leads to deficits. Republicans are half right, refusing to raise taxes, but drop the ball by not making the case for spending cuts. Republicans, fearing Democrats will demagogue them as heartless to the plight of the poor, back off of spending cuts at the first sign of trouble.

Liberty Links: Morning Reads for Monday, February 21st

Below is a collection of several links that we didn’t get around to writing about, but still wanted to post for readers to examine. The stories typically range from news about prominent figures in the liberty movement, national politics, the nanny state, foreign policy and free markets.

Obama fails to “win the future” with budget proposal

Over at Downsizing Government, Chris Edwards shows how President Barack Obama’s budget proposal does little to change the course the nation is on. In fact, his deficits are higher than pre-recession level run up by George W. Bush, who was certainly no penny pincher.

Edwards notes:

While the numbers drop from their stimulus- and recession-induced highs, it is not because the president has suddenly decided that he desires a less active government. Rather, optimistic economic assumptions largely account for the slight retrenchment.

Tax increases and optimistic economic assumptions explain the projected rise in revenue as a share of the economy. While the president would like the country to believe he’s found religion on spending cuts, he’s actually relying on a rosy economic forecast and sucking more money out of the private sector to reduce annual deficits.

The Wall Street Journal is calling Obama’s budget the “Cee Lo Green Budget” because it is a “F**k You” to voters. And believe it or not, we will have a cabinet level agency that will have a budget of over a trillion dollars…and it’s not the Department of Defense.

Obama spends too much, taxes too much. His budget doesn’t “win the future,” it keeps us stuck in the past.

Ron Paul chats with Morning Joe

Yesterday, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) joined Morning Joe to discuss spending and economics, foreign policy, Donald Trump and his straw poll victory at CPAC:

CPAC 2011: Podcast with Dan Mitchell

Dan Mitchell, an economist at the Cato Institute, stopped by Bloggers Row in between panels to talk spending, ObamaCare and the purpose of our nation’s military (our intervention and nation-building in other countries).

You can download the podcast here (4.6MB/5min).

Rand Paul’s maiden speech on the Senate floor

“As long as I sit at Henry Clay’s desk, I will remember his lifelong desire to forge agreement, but I will also keep close to my heart the principled stand of his cousin, Cassius Clay, who refused to forsake the life of any human simply to find agreement.” - Rand Paul

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) gave his maiden speech yesterday on the Senate floor where he explained that he wouldn’t be a “great compromiser” on issues, such as taxes and spending. He explained that compromise in the past, pointing to slavery, has often lead to more problems for the country.

Here’s the video (transcript here):

Senate Appropriations chairman to deny earmarks for two years

Because of the earmark ban put in place by House Republicans and President Barack Obama’s pledge to veto bills containing them (though the White House did step back from that after the State of the Union address), Senate Appropriations Chairman Dan Inouye (D-HI) has gotten the message:

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii Tuesday said he would not accept requests for earmarks for the next two years – a move that comes after President Obama said in his State of the Union address that he would not sign any bills with earmarks.

“The President has stated unequivocally that he will veto any legislation containing earmarks, and the House will not pass any bills that contain them,” Inouye said in a statement. “Given the reality before us, it makes no sense to accept earmark requests that have no chance of being enacted into law.”
“The Appropriations Committee will thoroughly review its earmark policy to ensure that every member has a precise definition of what constitutes an earmark,” Inouye added. “To that end, we will send each member a letter with the interpretation of Rule XLIV (44) that will be used by the Committee. If any member submits a request that is an earmark as defined by that rule, we will respectfully return the request.”

Inouye expects leader to revisit the issue next year.

Balancing the budget without tax hikes

On last week’s report from the Congressional Budget Office that shows budget deficits of nearly $7 trillion over the next 10 years and also very bad news for Social Security, economist Dan Mitchell explains how Congress can balance the budget without tax hikes:

The chart below shows that revenues are expected to grow (because of factors such as inflation, more population, and economic expansion) by more than 7 percent each year. Balancing the budget is simple so long as politicians increase spending at a slower rate. If they freeze the budget, we almost balance the budget by 2017. If federal spending is capped so it grows 1 percent each year, the budget is balanced in 2019. And if the crowd in Washington can limit spending growth to about 2 percent each year, red ink almost disappears in just 10 years.

These numbers, incidentally, assume that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made permanent (they are now scheduled to expire in two years). They also assume that the AMT is adjusted for inflation, so the chart shows that we can balance the budget without any increase in the tax burden.

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.