The Tea Party Isn't Really About Spending — Or Is It?

Last updated on: October 25, 2010 at 4:55 pm by Timothy Dalrymple

The Tea Party Isn't Really About Spending — Or Is It? 2010-10-25T16:55:27-04:00 Timothy Dalrymple

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I must confess that I like Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. I almost never agree with him. But he’s clearly an intelligent, earnest, thoughtful commentator. About a week ago I came across this from Drum:

There’s little evidence that extreme conservatives are any more concerned about spending now than they’ve ever been, and over the past 30 years they’ve never been concerned about spending. They didn’t cut it under Reagan, they didn’t cut it under Bush Sr., and when they finally controlled the government completely under Bush Jr., they didn’t cut it then either. Hell, Social Security privatization never got anywhere even within the Republican caucus despite the fact that it was sold relentlessly and dishonestly as a free lunch. Actual cuts in spending were never on the radar.

The tea partiers are angry not over spending, but because a Democrat is in the White House. Rick Santelli’s rant, which kicked off the whole movement, occurred one month after Obama took office. That was before the auto bailout, before health care reform, before financial reform, before the Iraq drawdown, before cap-and-trade, and before extension of the Bush tax cuts was even on the horizon. The only thing that had happened at that point was the stimulus bill, but even as big as that was, everyone knew it was a one-time shot, not a permanent change in spending levels.

Really, there’s just no evidence at all to suggest that tea partiers are any more upset about the level of spending and deficits than they ever have been. Rather, they’re upset because the spending is currently being done by a Democrat. As soon as Republicans are doing it, they won’t really care anymore.

Several points here:

(1) One must always remember that Presidents cannot pass budgets by themselves. Congress controls the purse-strings. So when we talk about Presidents increasing or decreasing spending, it’s actually more complicated than that.

(2) Entitlement spending has been increasing steadily due to factors that are (absent legislative change) largely outside the control of Presidents. It’s best to pay attention to “discretionary” spending. Also, what is spent, or what has to be spent, in relation to national defense is not always under a President’s control either.

(3) Reagan was the most forceful proponent of small-government conservatism in recent memory, and he succeeded in some respects and failed in others. Reagan increased spending on defense from the Carter years — and that spending was arguably worth it, as it helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union — but he decreased non-defense discretionary spending by nearly 10% in his first term. In his second term, the same spending stayed flat.

(4) After Reagan, Bush the Elder and Bush the Younger departed progressively further and further from the small-government principles of Reaganite conservatism. They may have been right to do so, or they may have been wrong. But, as I am arguing in a piece to be published at Patheos today, it is demonstrably false to say that no conservatives objected to the big-spending ways of the second Bush administration. In the article I will point to some of the thousands of examples, but let me point to one more here. The Independent Institute in 2004 complained about the massive spending increases under Bush (with a nice graphic):

President George W. Bush is now on his way to becoming the first full-term president since John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) to not veto a single bill. The result is a congress that has been completely unconstrained in satiating its appetite for pork and corporate welfare. In response, Democratic challenger John Kerry has maligned alleged spending cuts and called for even higher taxes and spending. The consequence is that we now have two parties competing to see which can grow government faster.

From the massive increases in agricultural subsidies in the farm bill of 2002, to the new Medicare prescription drug entitlement of 2003; from the 47% increase in the defense budget, to the 80% increase in education spending, George W. Bush has demonstrated that “limited government” is not part of his political vocabulary.

Things would change to some extent. Bush II did not grow the government nearly as much in his second term, and he sought immediately after his reelection to move social security money (at least partly) out of government control and under private control. Bush was dramatically reducing the deficit year to year, and, if it were not for the economic collapse, probably would have handed over a government with roughly a balanced budget.

(5) Kevin Drum points to how quickly Santelli’s rant followed after Obama’s inauguration. But this only goes to show that the anger had already been building under Bush. It was a response to TARP and the stimulus bill and the mortgage bailouts, and many of the things Drum mentions that had not yet come to pass were nevertheless already under discussion, such as Obama’s new budget and the auto bailouts, as well as financial market regulation reform, cap and trade, and even the health insurance reform. It was already becoming clear that we were dealing with precisely what Obama had declared (at least in the general election) that he was not: a very, very big spender. It was hard to see how there would not be significant tax increases coming down the pipe, and, along with them, sluggish economic growth and high rates of unemployment.

Plus, it’s taken time to build a broader Tea Party movement, so the cause of the objection at the time of Santelli’s rant is not the only important thing. As time has gone on, and the government and deficit spending have grown and grown and grown, so too have the ranks of the Tea Party.

Drum wants to say, of course, that since the Tea Party could not have been motivated by strictly economic concerns, therefore it must be motivated by blind hatred of a Democrat or a black or whatever. But economic concerns are a sufficient cause and a sufficient explanation for the Tea Party movement, both in its beginnings and as it has evolved over time.

Tea Party

Previous Post

October 22, 2010

When Campaign Ads Go Too Far

Next Post

October 26, 2010 Publication Bias - And A Pact Between You and Me

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Abortion adoption Africa Aging AIDS America Worship American history Americolatry An Open Letter to a College Freshman animals Apologetics art Atheism Authors Barack Obama Bible Biblical Scholarship Billy Graham Blogging Bono Book Review Books That Change Lives Breakfast Links Bulletin Board Business Children Christian Approach to Politics Christian Media Christian Right Derangement Syndrome Christianity and Homosexuality Christians in Government Christmas Chuck Colson CLS v Martinez Comic Creation Creativity and the Arts Cross Examinations Cross Investigations Daily Fragment Daily Trinity Death debt Deep Thoughts on Fatherhood depression economy education Election 2012 entertainment Environment Epistemology Erik Campano Euthanasia Evangelicalism Evangelicals and Gays Everyday Transcendence evil evolution Facebook Jesus faith Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics Faith and Politics faith and reason family Feminism foreign affairs Franklin Graham Future of Evangelicalism Galen D. gay marriage George W. Bush Guest Posts Guns Gymnastics Harold Camping Heaven Hell Holidays Hollywood Homosexuality iam2.org Illegal Immigration immigration Immigration Reform Injustice Inspiration Interviews Islam Jeremy Lin Jesus jesus christ John Mark Reynolds Johnnie Moore Judgment Day Just War Theory Killing Osama Link of the Day Lists of the Week Mark Goldblatt Marriage Military Missions Mitt Romney Modern Western Thought Monastic wisdom Mormonism Morning Hash Morning Report Motherhood Movies Obamacare Old Testament Orphan Care Palin Parenting Pastoral Resources Patheos Peace Between Religions PEPFAR Persecution Peter Wehner Peter Wehner Philosophy Political Quotes of the Day politics Politics and Economics Pornography Prejudice Prisoner Rape Question of the Week Race Radical Faith Rapture Ravi Zacharias Rick Santorum Russia Salvation Sarah Palin Scandals Science Science and Faith Separation of Church and State Series sex sex slavery social justice Social Justice Ministry Spiritual Disciplines sports Steven Tyler Suffering Suicide Sunday Funnies T. Dalrymple Tea Party Technology terrorism The Christian Media Files The Daily Trinity The Electorate The Ethics of Rhetoric The Future of Seminary Education The Middle East The Obama Presidency theological Theological Renewal Theology Uncategorized Understanding Evangelicalism Vocation war War and Peace With Distinction Word to the Wise Writers

Select a Month October 2015 June 2015 May 2015 March 2015 December 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz