Donald Trumps Spending Push Rankles Fiscal Conservatives

[question everything]

Republican lawmakers may stomach larger deficits from a Republican president, but signs of tension are emerging as President-elect Donald Trump looks poised to stand by promises to slash taxes while spending more on big-ticket items, such as infrastructure and the military.

Budget deficits fell from 2010 until last year but are on track to climb in the next decade, even before factoring in new spending proposals or revenue-reducing tax cuts.

“You can’t just like spending that your party wants and dislike spending that the other party wants,” says Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R., S.C.), who rode to office in 2010 on the tea party wave.

Still, Mr. Mulvaney and other congressional Republicans say tax-cut-induced deficits aren’t the same as ones brought on by increased spending, in part because they believe the former can generate growth in ways that recoup lost revenues over time.

This suggests the GOP will be willing to tolerate higher deficits in the short-run under Mr. Trump because the party is largely united on overhauling corporate and individual income taxes. Democrats say there is no proof tax cuts pay for themselves. And reduced revenues, they worry, could be used to justify big cuts to safety-net programs like food stamps and Medicaid.

For Republicans, the bigger fight will be over Mr. Trump’s proposed infrastructure plan. The president-elect has been passionate about rebuilding roads and ports but sketchy on the details of how to pay for it, stirring concerns among Republicans who are uneasy over approving a costly stimulus program.

(snip)

The last two times Republicans reclaimed the White House from Democrats—in 1981 and 2001—they also successfully pushed for large tax cuts. Deficits nonetheless rose during their administrations.

More..

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-spending-plan-rankles-fiscal-conservatives-1480289613#renderComments

=====

I sometimes wonder whether these "representatives" have family members who depend on Social Security and Medicare.

[gratuitous]

1. Bwahahahaha! "Rankled," yeah, let's go with that

These Tea Baggers will fall in line approximately one second after they find out that the increased spending is happening in their district, and their public principles* can go to blazes.

*Their private principle - Me first and fuck you - will remain securely in place.

[LonePirate]

2. There will not be any Repub opposition votes to his budget bills regardless of the enormous deficits

Each and every one of them is a craven hypocrite and liar, not to mention their complete ignorance related to the fantasy of trickle down economics.

[louis-t]

3. They are slaves to their ideology.

They are like the bug in "A Bug's Life" that is drawn to the bug zapper. When his buddy is screaming "get away!" the reply is a zombie-like "I can't help it" as he flies in and gets zapped.

[ProfessorGAC]

4. The Fourth Paragraph Speaks Volumes

"Still, Mr. Mulvaney and other congressional Republicans say tax-cut-induced deficits aren’t the same as ones brought on by increased spending, in part because they believe the former can generate growth in ways that recoup lost revenues over time."

Yeah, except they've been saying that since 1976 and it never actually happened. Not once. They Reagan recovery was based upon spending money we didn't have. The tax cuts just made the deficits bigger, but the spending is what helped end the recession.

Once the impact of those new debts took hold, we had another recession that 41 inherited. So, there was no "long run" growth that reduce deficits. The deficits went down between 1990 and 2000 because 41 and Clinton RAISED taxes.

Delusional belief in a philosophy demonstrated to be flawed doesn't make it a good idea, Mulvaney!