# Tax and Spend Liberals: An unfair label? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 16, 2008, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tax-and-spend-liberals-an-unfair-label/463900 "2008-09-16T21:31:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tax-and-spend-liberals-an-unfair-label/463900/41 "2008-09-20T04:31:13Z")
Typically Congress fiddles with the President’s discretionary spending priorities, but stays close to the Executive branch’s deficit target. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tax-and-spend-liberals-an-unfair-label/463900/42 "2008-09-20T05:14:32Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > If you can’t see it directly contradicts your contention, I give up. Let me rephrase that for you. Yes I know the President submits his/her version of the budget. Nothing has changed from what I’ve said. Congress makes the budget. The only time it mattered was in 96/97 when the line-item veto was available. The Supreme Court ended that. You can argue that it does or does not give too much power to the President but it clearly upped the influence level. Congress controls the budget. They also make the laws. And since they’ve decided not to work on relevant financial oversight matters this year there’s a certain justice in the beat-down some of them took in the market over the last couple of weeks. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tax-and-spend-liberals-an-unfair-label/463900/43 "2008-09-20T05:40:17Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Let me rephrase that for you. Yes I know the President submits his/her version of the budget. Nothing has changed from what I’ve said. Congress makes the budget. The only time it mattered was in 96/97 when the line-item veto was available. The Supreme Court ended that. You can argue that it does or does not give too much power to the President but it clearly upped the influence level. > > Congress controls the budget. They also make the laws. And since they’ve decided not to work on relevant financial oversight matters this year there’s a certain justice in the beat-down some of them took in the market over the last couple of weeks. As I said, all spending bills originate in the house. But approval of and editing a budget are not the same thing as constructing it. And remember we are talking of major influence, not control. I’d call making a budget writing the original version - clearly done by the executive branch. Do you have an example of where the budget was substantially different from that proposed by the president? By substantially different I mean more different than one or two proposed programs rejected or cut. I’d say a 50% difference, at least. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tax-and-spend-liberals-an-unfair-label/463900/44 "2008-09-20T06:28:34Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Presidents don’t make budgets, they can only reject them. Congress is charged with making budgets and currently both houses are run by Democrats. What is written in the constitution is not what happens. Perhaps a civics course of what modern history has actually transpired would be useful to the members of the right. A budget is proposed by the Executive, and then introduced in Congress in the House as a budget bill. Competing budget bills may be introduced, but the one that gets committee time and sent around is the Executive’s proposal as modified by the various committees. It then goes to the Senate, is changed further, a conference committee with members from both chambers compromises again and then both chambers usually approve it and it gets sent to the Executive for signature. The Executive originates the bill and has input at every stage. The suggestion that some budget committee somewhere in Congress comes up with an initial proposal is pure fantasy. It couldn’t be done. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tax-and-spend-liberals-an-unfair-label/463900/45 "2008-09-20T08:20:24Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > What is written in the constitution is not what happens. Perhaps a civics course of what modern history has actually transpired would be useful to the members of the right. A budget is proposed by the Executive, and then introduced in Congress in the House as a budget bill. Competing budget bills may be introduced, but the one that gets committee time and sent around is the Executive’s proposal as modified by the various committees. It then goes to the Senate, is changed further, a conference committee with members from both chambers compromises again and then both chambers usually approve it and it gets sent to the Executive for signature. The Executive originates the bill and has input at every stage. > > The suggestion that some budget committee somewhere in Congress comes up with an initial proposal is pure fantasy. It couldn’t be done. Yes, we’re all aware of the process thank you. It doesn’t change the fact that Congress is responsible for the budget. They have the leverage. If you want to argue what influence the President has you’re free to do so but without line-item-veto the President is at the mercy of Congress. If the house parties match the President then the influence is great. If they don’t then the next driving force would be veto majority in both houses, which no party has at this point. that leaves ear-marking as a way to push something through. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tax-and-spend-liberals-an-unfair-label/463900/46 "2008-09-20T08:56:22Z")
Huh. And I had thought the OMB was responsible for preparing the President’s budget for presentation to Congress. I wonder what they do with their time. There’s a pattern of higher budget deficits during Republican presidencies. Congress consistently returns a budget with similar deficits as proposed by the President. But modern conservatives have refrained from drawing any causal conclusions from this for perhaps 30 years. _They need to get a grip_. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tax-and-spend-liberals-an-unfair-label/463900/47 "2008-09-20T10:19:06Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > _“Most economists will tell you that Federal Reserve policy and oil prices, to name just two influences, are far more powerful than fiscal policy. Furthermore, as those mutual fund prospectuses constantly warn us, past results are no guarantee of future performance. But statistical regularities, like facts, are stubborn things. You bet against them at your peril.”_ Then your own cite is telling you that the president’s influence on the economy is far less powerful than many other factors, a notion I strongly agree with. Presidents get far too much blame and credit for the economy, an enormous sea of activity that they like to pretend they can control, particularly during election years. But anyway, pointing to GNP growth charts holds very little weight for me, about as much as if you showed that there were more sunny days during Democratic presidencies. I’d shrug my shoulders and tell you that may well have been, but it had very little to do with fiscal policy. What I expect from government is the smallest one possible, with the lowest taxes possible, something I get from neither party. A balanced budget, for example, does not mean that all the money was well-spent, only that they at least didn’t go into debt while wasting money. At least it’s better than a deficit. Why do I want this? Because I believe a runaway government spends money on things they shouldn’t, and it’s my money, period. Not because I think the economic cycle won’t chug along doing largely whatever it would have done anyway regardless of who is in office. It will, and so will the tides come in. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tax-and-spend-liberals-an-unfair-label/463900/48 "2008-09-20T12:38:04Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > Is “Country Club Conservatives” a fair label? In fiscal terms, absolutely! Did you read the part about income inequality? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tax-and-spend-liberals-an-unfair-label/463900/49 "2008-09-20T12:41:16Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > If “Tax and Spend” is an appropriate moniker for Democrats, then “Dine ‘N’ Dash” is spot on for Republicans. Dine and Dash is far too genteel for what Republicans are up to. I think “Loot & Scoot” is a more appropriate term. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tax-and-spend-liberals-an-unfair-label/463900/50 "2008-09-20T12:43:05Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > “Tax and spend” is shorthand for “wants big government, thinks the government is the best way to solve all problems” No it’s not. It has no implication along those lines. It means conservatives think liberals will tax all your income and spend it on things you don’t approve of. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tax-and-spend-liberals-an-unfair-label/463900/51 "2008-09-20T13:51:44Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > No it’s not. > > It has no implication along those lines. It means conservatives think liberals will tax all your income and spend it on things you don’t approve of. I don’t see any meaningful distinction. I agree with both posts. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 23, 2008, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tax-and-spend-liberals-an-unfair-label/463900/52 "2008-09-23T03:51:26Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > “Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.” As I related earlier, this is actually a puzzle. Christopher Carroll, Professor of Economics at the Johns Hopkins University, offers his thoughts at [Roubini’s RGE Monitor](http://www.rgemonitor.com/globalmacro-monitor/253661). Emphasis added: > [@Christopher Carroll](#): > > Why does the economy perform so badly under Republican Presidents? > > The facts are hard to dispute; indeed, the historical record is now so stark that diehard Republicans are probably starting to wonder if there is a curse. As Slate’s Michael Kinsley has pointed out, for the interval over which modern statistics are readily available, **Democrats have outperformed Republicans by almost any measure of economic achievement (GDP growth per capita, unemployment, inflation, budget deficits)**. Democrats have even managed to beat the Republicans on their own turf: Thanks to the profligacy of the current administration (and the prudence of the previous one), **average Federal spending as a fraction of GDP under Republican Presidents now exceeds that under Democrats over the measured period** (see Kinsley for details). … > > The pattern holds up when the span of historical analysis is extended back in time, by using **stock returns** to measure economic performance: On average, since the inception of the Standard and Poors composite stock index data in 1926, the reward to putting your money in the market has been about 16 percentage points lower per Presidential term under Republicans than under Democrats. Republican underperformance remains a stubborn fact even when we exclude from the data what we can fondly hope were the unique experiences of the Great Depression and World War II. (Data are available on my web page.) > > As the presidency of George Herbert Hoover Walker Bush lurches to a close, this history begs for some explanation. Indeed it does. > [@Christopher Carroll](#): > > Perhaps the best explanation has to do with attitudes, not doctrines: **Maybe capitalism works better when its excesses are restrained by skeptics than when true-believers are writing, interpreting, judging, and executing the rules of the game.** (The Democrats are surely the more skeptical of our two parties). > > …As the twentieth century recedes in the rear view mirror, it increasingly seems that for better or worse, **the defining manifesto of the recent era has been Milton Friedman’s Capitalism And Freedom**. But that book’s power derived partly from its fierce independence from the orthodoxies of its time. Friedman’s voice was a skeptical breath of fresh air when the reigning viewpoint was a kind of smug pseudo-socialism that did not recognize the astounding power of markets to accomplish desirable aims. But now, the reigning Republican orthodoxy is a kind of smug pseudo-Friedmanism which believes that markets left to themselves can do no wrong; perhaps it is time for another breath of fresh air. > > The book for the new epoch has not been written yet, but I have a proposed title: Capitalism and Skepticism. **Skepticism might not be as bracing as freedom, but it’s something we could have used a bit more of in the past few years.** ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2008, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tax-and-spend-liberals-an-unfair-label/463900/53 "2008-09-24T03:21:19Z")
For those who want to see a comparison between Democratic and Republican administrations in graphic form, see [Democrats Are Better Republicans than Republicans Are](http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/09/notes-to-self-f.html). I still find this puzzling. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tax-and-spend-liberals-an-unfair-label/463900.md?page=2)