Showing once again that its opinion pieces serve a dual purpose as a news source, a Monday Wall Street Journal editorial noted that Democrats have quietly dropped a central plank of their successful 2006 effort to gain a congressional majority (HT Hot Air):
Late last week the leader of the House Blue Dog Coalition, Tennessee Democrat Jim Cooper, announced that with Barack Obama about to enter the White House, "I'm not sure the old rules are relevant anymore." Why not? Because, Mr. Cooper said, "It would be unfair to the new President to put him in a budget straitjacket."
Democrats ran on "paygo" in 2006, promising to offset any new spending increases or tax cuts with comparable tax increases or spending cuts. Once in charge on Capitol Hill they quickly made exceptions, waiving paygo no fewer than 12 times to accommodate some $398 billion in new deficit spending -- not that the press corps bothered to notice.
The Journal then goes on to explain what Paygo was really all about:
Paygo was always a big con designed not to reduce spending but to stop tax cuts. It was invented to stop the GOP Congress and then a Republican President, but it is inconvenient when Democrats run the show. With the recession available as an excuse for just about anything, get ready for the first $1 trillion federal budget deficit. And don't expect any howling from the Blue Dogs.
Reinforcing the Journal's point about paygo media coverage, a Google News search on the terms returns no results from a major traditional media source. A New York Times search on the term also shows no recent coverage. But when sorted from newest to oldest, the Times's first result goes to the transcript of a March 27 speech by then-candidate, now president-elect Barack Obama. In that speech, on "Renewing the American Economy," Obama made a statement diametrically opposed to Congress's official, but often violated, stance:
I know that making these changes won't be easy. I will not pretend that this will come without costs, although I have presented ways we can achieve these changes in a fiscally responsible way. I believe in PAYGO. If I start a new program I will pay for it.
The all caps in "PAYGO" is, I would suppose, some kind of indicator of how strongly Mr. Obama believes in the idea.
If Obama wants to defy his party's apparently imminent switch and stick with paygo, it will take quite a bit in new taxes to pay for his spending plans. The Republican National Committee's Obama Spend-o-meter shows almost $1.3 trillion in new spending programs proposed by Obama during the campaign.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Anybody got a link to analysis of...
November 11, 2008 - 11:47 ET by Smoking HotHow did the Democrats in the 110th Congress do with regard to paygo compared to the Republicans of the 109th? I'd like to see that broken down.
The GOP ....
November 11, 2008 - 12:56 ET by Tom BlumerThe GOP didn't have paygo. The tax cuts paid for themselves, as receipts went up 44% from 2003-2007.
Comparison is irrelevant.
The question has a whiff of trollishness. Pelosi/Reid's first budget year ended Sept. 30, 2008 had a 9% increase in spending. The last budget passed by the 109th, whose fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2007, had a 2.8% increase.
Let's keep ourselves honest, that's all
November 11, 2008 - 13:23 ET by Smoking HotI was looking for a simple statement of income versus expenditures for the 109th and 110th Congress. The degree to which those to items balance should be a good measure of how well Congress has adhered to the concept of paygo. I know Federal budgets are remarkably complex, far more than they should be, so I was hoping to find someone who knew where to look in order to save myself some time.
The bottom line here is if Republicans want to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, they need to be able to back that claim up. If we don't removes the planks from our own eyes before talking about other people's flaws, I don't see why the Democrats or independents would grant us any credibility. In my ignorance spending restraint is not a quality I would assign to our contemporary Republican leadership. Consider the outrageously expensive prescription drug plan or the Bridge to Nowhere for example.
well, that's it gang
November 11, 2008 - 13:40 ET by wizardjrThey're not even going to try to show any fiscal responsibility as they fund socialist program after program. This just removes one more fake constraint on their spending.
Too late to grab for your wallet. The only thing left is to grab your ankles (if you're "gainfully employed").
This is EXACTLY why I didn't
November 11, 2008 - 18:41 ET by TN MomThis is EXACTLY why I didn't vote for any Dem...BlueDog or otherwise!