DEAN AND DEFICITS

I take the point from many readers that Howard Dean has not proved himself in any way committed to true fiscal conservatism. His plan for universal socialized medicine terrifies me, as it should anyone committed to the beleaguered excellence of American healthcare. His reflexive support for tax hikes is also troubling. I don’t trust him on a bunch of other issues like, ahem, national security. But he did balance budgets in the mini-state of Vermont, and he does place emphasis on fiscal sobriety in his campaign platform. As he fleshes out his proposals, we’ll get a better idea. But where else do fiscal conservatives look? In three years, Bush has managed to wreak so much havoc with the nation’s finances it’s very hard to see who could do worse. In his first three years, you have an increase in domestic discretionary spending of 20.8 percent, compared to a decrease of 0.7 percent for Bill Clinton. If a Democrat had this record, do you think Republicans would let him off the hook? Here’s Tom DeLay in 1995: “By the year 2002, we can have a federal government with a balanced budget or we can continue down the present path towards total fiscal catastrophe.” If Clintonomics was a “fiscal catastrophe,” what would an intellectually honest DeLay say about Bush? (I know an intellectually honest Tom DeLay is a bit of magical realism, but bear with me.) We don’t just have big tax cuts; we have a big leap in discretionary spending, huge hikes in agricultural subsidies, no reform of corporate welfare, a huge new entitlement for prescription drugs, big jumps in the number of people employed indirectly by Uncle Sam, and on and on. Looking ahead, the future looks even worse – and that’s even before we try and tackle the entitlement crunch of the boomer retirement. The GOP has to be punished for this. They run the Congress; and they’re now officially worse than Democrats at keeping government solvent or small. Clinton was way, way better. Honest conservatives know this. Dishonest partisans look the other way.