The GOP Civil War: The Demise of a Party

[astralis]

JAD,

Sorry about that. The rate was 70% in participants and 135% in cost. The CBO estimate was in 2012.

from the CBO:



which indeed does show a decline in SNAP participation to approximately 34 million in 2022, which would be a return to approximately pre-recession levels after accounting for population growth. total cost goes to approximately 2008 levels after accounting for US GDP/federal budget growth.

ie, after the recession, participation returns to pre-recession levels and costs go down/stabilize at slightly higher than pre-recession levels. using big numbers like "700 billion over 10 years" isn't particularly meaningful when in the same time frame the US economy is predicted to generate over $150-$180 trillion in economic activity.

[astralis]

and now for something a bit lighter for the season... :) merry x-mas, all.

[JAD_333]

JAD,



from the CBO:

[ATTACH]34887[/ATTACH]

which indeed does show a decline in SNAP participation to approximately 34 million in 2022, which would be a return to approximately pre-recession levels after accounting for population growth. total cost goes to approximately 2008 levels after accounting for US GDP/federal budget growth.

ie, after the recession, participation returns to pre-recession levels and costs go down/stabilize at slightly higher than pre-recession levels. using big numbers like "700 billion over 10 years" isn't particularly meaningful when in the same time frame the US economy is predicted to generate over $150-$180 trillion in economic activity.

A few thoughts.

The CBO projection of a falloff is still an estimate. But I agree there will be a falloff as honest people who no longer need food assistance leave the program.

The CBO figures also show continued growth in the face of an improving economy. That is troubling.

There continues to be a problem in 'laundering'--unscrupulous food store owners paying cash to recipients at a discount, e.g. in one case the owner took a 30% commission for himself. In that case--in Alabama, I believe--the USDA caught him only after he had processed several million dollars worth of bogus charges. One company even went so far as to open a chain of stores that had no merchandise and catered exclusively to recipients who cashed out their entire allotment every week.

I will be the first to agree that fraud is not a sufficient reason to deny all recipients aid, and that most recipients are honest, and need assistance. There is, however, a culture of misuse of benefits across the board in all entitlement programs that we have somehow to change.

But abuse aside, the growth in entitlements, even if all the recipients are honest, is becoming such a burden on the government that important discretionary programs are gradually being starved of funds. The question is, how long can we tolerate entitlement growth? When does it reach a tipping point after which we cannot maintain our infrastructure or adequately invest in technological development, to name a couple of areas that are vulnerable to budget cuts?

I don't see that we are thinking this through intelligently. Human need always exists. It may sound awful to say this, but it is a fact that this country grew fastest when the government did not assume the function of providing for human need (other than in times of disaster or in temporary situations). Charities, churches, and local community action provided help to the needy. Even the New Deal was geared mainly toward creating jobs, not shouldering human needs. By 'need' I mean food, medical attention, handicapped assistance, housing, and so on. Jobs stand apart as a need which has a trade off--work for an end product.

I realize I am presenting this case rather clumsily. My point is that human need has the potential to drain our resources if we meet it in all its manifestations. If we define need by arbitrary measures such as income level--the poverty line--and continue to expand the definition of need, we are bound to reach a point where those who do not have unmet needs will decline and those who do will increase. Then at some later point, when the government lacks the means to meet people's needs, what will happen to our economic strength. Will it decline and expose us to outside threats. The rise and fall of the Roman Empire provides us with an example of a government that found itself forced to meet human needs to maintain order... Can we avoid repeating the same mistake?

[snapper]

Then at some later point, when the government lacks the means to meet people's needs, what will happen to our economic strength. Will it decline and expose us to outside threats. The rise and fall of the Roman Empire provides us with an example of a government that found itself forced to meet human needs to maintain order... Can we avoid repeating the same mistake?

The light dawns.:danc:

[astralis]

JAD,

a good place to call it a day and summarize, i think.

A few thoughts.

The CBO projection of a falloff is still an estimate. But I agree there will be a falloff as honest people who no longer need food assistance leave the program.

The CBO figures also show continued growth in the face of an improving economy. That is troubling.

not really. the projected increase is modest, at best, over the course of 2014. that to me is not surprising, particularly if you consider how the economy has been improving.

IE, corporation profits and wall street has gone way up, but wages have remained flat while employment growth is still rather weak. IE, the main benefactors of a food stamp program have not seen the level of improvement that the wealthy (to include, to a lesser extent, the upper middle-class) have. moreover once the costs fall, it falls back into a stable historical norm. nothing that requires dramatic change.

The question is, how long can we tolerate entitlement growth? When does it reach a tipping point after which we cannot maintain our infrastructure or adequately invest in technological development, to name a couple of areas that are vulnerable to budget cuts?

the flip side is, we also have one of the least-burdensome tax loads in the history of US taxation. moreover, as i've demonstrated quite a few times earlier, a nation can take significantly higher levels of debt load than we do today without a major dampening effect on the economy...and with far less human suffering. and in this case, even a higher debt load in the short-term would actually be economically beneficial.

I don't see that we are thinking this through intelligently. Human need always exists. It may sound awful to say this, but it is a fact that this country grew fastest when the government did not assume the function of providing for human need (other than in times of disaster or in temporary situations). Charities, churches, and local community action provided help to the needy. Even the New Deal was geared mainly toward creating jobs, not shouldering human needs. By 'need' I mean food, medical attention, handicapped assistance, housing, and so on. Jobs stand apart as a need which has a trade off--work for an end product.

of course i recognize that there are some areas that require reform; medicare/health care costs being far and away the most important, especially given our demographics. in fact, that area alone is so costly that dealing with the other parts of government is a sideshow at best. it speaks more to an ideological desire to cut back government whether it makes sense to do so or not as opposed to a pragmatic desire to balance the books and provide money to the other deserving areas you mentioned.

Will it decline and expose us to outside threats. The rise and fall of the Roman Empire provides us with an example of a government that found itself forced to meet human needs to maintain order... Can we avoid repeating the same mistake?

finally, as an amateur historian i find the roman empire metaphor shaky at best. it was not "bread and circuses" that brought down the empire; it was the endless bouts of civil war, because the system which Augustus created was ultimately a haphazard monarchical system with a pasted-on republican face. even the much vaunted Roman Republic was never really a republic in our sense of the term, but an increasingly oligarchical system, again with that pasted-on republican face.

in fact, one would think the Roman Empire's spending habits would be a dream to any red-blooded conservative: past the bread (and that, mainly for Rome), no welfare for the poor; what services were provided, were provided by the local gang with its patrician backers; the vast majority of the spending, done on the legions. all held together by a skeleton bureaucracy. hell, past rome itself there wasn't even an official police force.

in fact, serfdom arose primarily because of the decay of the central government, not its growth; as noblemen began to squeeze their formerly free-born peasants into debt-peonage and conscript them into private armies, while Rome was turning a blind eye in its own civil wars.

[Albany Rifles]

in fact, one would think the Roman Empire's spending habits would be a dream to any red-blooded conservative: past the bread (and that, mainly for Rome), no welfare for the poor; what services were provided, were provided by the local gang with its patrician backers; the vast majority of the spending, done on the legions. all held together by a skeleton bureaucracy. hell, past rome itself there wasn't even an official police force.

Eric,

Heck that sounds like any US city in the mid-19th Century!

[JAD_333]

JAD,

a good place to call it a day and summarize, i think.

I agree, but I see the urge to plow ahead hasn't entirely waned. :)

the flip side is, we also have one of the least-burdensome tax loads in the history of US taxation. moreover, as i've demonstrated quite a few times earlier, a nation can take significantly higher levels of debt load than we do today without a major dampening effect on the economy...and with far less human suffering. and in this case, even a higher debt load in the short-term would actually be economically beneficial.

It seems to me the load is greater, but just spread out among more jurisdictions that nibble at us in many small bites. Also, if we stretch the concept of taxes to include fees and costs people and businesses pay to comply with Federal and state regulations, we're paying more than ever. Sad to say, I can offer no authoritative proof of that other than my own experience. We can crank Obamacare in the mix, at least for some people.

finally, as an amateur historian i find the roman empire metaphor shaky at best. it was not "bread and circuses" that brought down the empire; it was the endless bouts of civil war, because the system which Augustus created was ultimately a haphazard monarchical system with a pasted-on republican face. even the much vaunted Roman Republic was never really a republic in our sense of the term, but an increasingly oligarchical system, again with that pasted-on republican face.

I won't challenge your amateur status. There are somewhere around 200 theories about what caused the Roman empire to fall. Immigration, dilution of Roman identity, a series of idiot emperors, over taxation, high cost of maintaining infrastructure, high cost of defense, laziness, failure to adapt to new methods when slavery ended, and the weird Gibbonian theory that Christianity was too blame. What we do know is that homosexuality and wanton sexual practices were not to blame. In any case, my point--not well shaped--is that the empire was burdened by an ever-increasing cost of maintaining itself which periodically led to debasing the currency and high inflation. All throughout its declining years, the productive segment of society grew less productive and less able to support the cost of running the empire. That's the point I wanted to make.

in fact, one would think the Roman Empire's spending habits would be a dream to any red-blooded conservative: past the bread (and that, mainly for Rome), no welfare for the poor; what services were provided, were provided by the local gang with its patrician backers; the vast majority of the spending, done on the legions. all held together by a skeleton bureaucracy. hell, past rome itself there wasn't even an official police force.

Your bias is showing. We conservatives are not that base.

in fact, serfdom arose primarily because of the decay of the central government, not its growth; as noblemen began to squeeze their formerly free-born peasants into debt-peonage and conscript them into private armies, while Rome was turning a blind eye in its own civil wars.

You don't expect to get away with that stretch.:)

[Bigfella]

I don't heave enough context to know how significant this is. Unsure if it is part of a pattern of 'Empire strikes back' events, or just a pattern of 'Empire strikes back' stories that don't really reflect much of a change in behaviour. Perhaps groups putting money into 'establishment' sections of the GOP are simply speaking up more about it in terms of limiting TP influence. if so that is significant in itself, though not sure how much.

Still interesting.

The Chamber of Commerce is planning to spend at least $50 million on a campaign to boost establishment Republicans in primaries against Tea Party challengers, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The group's broader aim is to help the GOP win Senate control and block Tea Party Republican candidates who might lose otherwise winnable seats to Democrats.

"Our No. 1 focus is to make sure, when it comes to the Senate, that we have no loser candidates," Chamber political strategist Scott Reed tells the Journal. "That will be our mantra: No fools on our ticket."

The organization has been gearing up for a more confrontational approach toward Tea Party Republicans since the government shutdown. It has already been involved in some special elections for House primaries, and is supporting Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) against his Tea Party primary foe.

Hard-right, mistake-prone Senate candidates are widely perceived to have cost the GOP five Senate seats in recent years, in states including Missouri, Indiana and Delaware.

Potential states that could be ripe for Chamber involvement include Georgia, Iowa and North Carolina, where Tea Party candidates could complicate their party's chances of winning Senate seats.

The Chamber's push is part of a larger effort by establishment and business Republicans to seize back control of their party, according to the report.

Report: Chamber to hit Tea Party with $50M | TheHill

[JAD_333]

In Defeat for Tea Party, House Passes $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill

By JONATHAN WEISMANJAN. 15, 2014

WASHINGTON — The House voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday, 359 to 67, to approve a $1.1 trillion spending bill for the current fiscal year, shrugging off the angry threats of Tea Party activists and conservative groups whose power has ebbed as Congress has moved toward fiscal cooperation.

The legislation, 1,582 pages in length and unveiled only two nights ago, embodies precisely what many House Republicans have railed against since the Tea Party movement began, a huge bill dropped in the cover of darkness and voted on before lawmakers could possibly have read it.

The conservative political action committee Club for Growth denounced it and said a vote for it would hurt any lawmaker’s conservative scorecard. Heritage Action, the political arm of the Heritage Foundation, castigated it as a profligate budget buster that is returning Washington to its free-spending ways.
Related Coverage

“Has Congress learned nothing from the Obamacare disaster?” said Jenny Beth Martin, national coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots. “We need members in the House and the Senate who are willing to keep their campaign promises, stand up for the people and protect Americans from Washington’s tax, borrow, spend and spend and spend mentality.”

The response in the Republican-led House was a collective shrug, with 166 Republicans voting for it and 64 opposing it. The Senate, controlled by Democrats, is expected to pass it easily this week.

“If I started voting how they want me to, versus what I think is right, then they’ve already won,” said Representative Mike Simpson, Republican of Idaho, who is dealing with one of the best-financed Tea Party challenges of this campaign year. “Eh, it is what it is.”

The budget process that is culminating in the passage of the spending bill has ushered in a remarkable marginalization of the Republican far right. After a politically disastrous 16-day government shutdown last fall, the House voted 285 to 144 to reopen the government on Oct. 16. Only 87 Republicans voted yes; 144 voted no.

The legislation that reopened the government set the parameters for a broad budget deal that was again denounced by conservatives. But in December, that deal passed the House 332 to 94, with 169 Republicans backing it. That budget blueprint yielded more than 1,500 pages of fine print.

For the most ardent conservatives, the spending bill passed by the House on Wednesday represented a tangible backslide from fiscal discipline, a $45 billion increase in spending compared with where the budget would have been had House Republicans let another round of automatic spending cuts take effect.

Yet it passed the House with an even greater margin — and even more Republican votes.

“Our people learned a lot of tough lessons in the last year, and I think you’re seeing the tough lessons applied,” said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma.

In the process, Speaker John A. Boehner has reasserted control over his fractious Republican conference, leaving his far-right flank angry and isolated. The speaker’s public and private denunciations of the outside conservative groups have created conditions in which members must choose sides, and they have.

“The Tea Party groups and conservative movement in America gave the speaker his speakership, and I think it’s time for us to be grateful for what these outside groups have done,” said Representative Raúl R. Labrador, Republican of Idaho, who has remained in the Tea Party camp.

But most have aligned with the speaker in what Republican leaders say is a growing realization that incremental moves toward governance are better than the purist, ideological stands demanded by the right.

“We can push large ideas out of the House and say, ‘This is what we feel is the right thing to do,’ but if we’re going to actually move things, they’re going to have to be smaller things,” said Representative James Lankford of Oklahoma, a member of the Republican leadership.

The Heritage Foundation drafted a lengthy to-do list for the huge spending bill, which included prohibiting funds to build a prison in the United States to house detainees from Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; eliminating all money for Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s cherished high-speed rail projects; cutting the operating budget of the Fish and Wildlife Service; providing money for private school vouchers for the District of Columbia; and significantly reducing the Internal Revenue Service’s budget, with language requiring more oversight of the potential targeting of political groups.

All of those requests — about half the to-do list, in all — were carried out, and yet Heritage Action demanded a “no” vote.

That ideological purity has lost its power.

“They’re going to have their various metrics,” said Representative Greg Walden of Oregon, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “What we need to be able to do is go home and explain what’s inside the bills and why they matter.”

Chris Chocola, president of the Club for Growth, said Wednesday that his group’s influence had not waned, but that the budget process had highlighted that “we’ve got work to do.”

“We’d love to put ourselves out of business,” he said, “but until you get a majority of economic conservatives, you’ve got to keep fighting.”

That will not sit well with Republicans now more willing to speak out against such groups.

“I hope they spend some time trying to win the United States Senate and working with us when we have a nominee to win the presidency,” Mr. Cole said. “But I don’t think condemning Republicans who are making amazing progress in a challenging environment is the appropriate thing to do.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/us...l.html?hp&_r=0

Moderate conservatives showed some balls, and Paul Ryan, a Tea Party favorite gets a major chunk of the credit. Does this mean the Tea Party is losing traction? Hard to tell at this point. It will be a force in Congress for the foreseeable future, but how great we won't know until after the coming mid-term elections.

[zraver]

Moderate conservatives showed some balls, and Paul Ryan, a Tea Party favorite gets a major chunk of the credit. Does this mean the Tea Party is losing traction? Hard to tell at this point. It will be a force in Congress for the foreseeable future, but how great we won't know until after the coming mid-term elections.

TP candidate won in Arkansas in a special election. The Christie treatment is likely to breathe life back into some "moderate" RINO's when they see that moderation wont get them anything so they might as well go with principle.

[JAD_333]

TP candidate won in Arkansas in a special election. The Christie treatment is likely to breathe life back into some "moderate" RINO's when they see that moderation wont get them anything so they might as well go with principle.

Interesting take. Not sure what you mean by the Christie treatment. Moderation won him an election last year, although in NJ that's pretty much the only way GOP candidates can win. I can't see red state candidates ever looking at him as a model.