The Republican losses in 2006 and 2008 happened, in my view, because a small but significant portion of the base stayed home and allowed Democrats to win. That gives me some hope that when the GOP regains power they will be truly fiscally conservative because they now know what happens when they aren’t.

Of course, as we saw in the 90’s, that will last as long as the first Democratic commercial accusing them of trying to kill Grandma by destroying Social Security.

1. Hey, it’s a big country. Of course there are disagreements within the parties, and amongst like-minded thinkers as well. But the nationalized protests, the fake anguish on Fox News, etc… was all missing during the last eight years.

2. I say tax breaks for the rich, you say tax breaks for those who pay the most taxes. I think we are talking about the same people.

3. Taxing and spending during the Clinton years: Sure–spending always goes up in actual money, but I’m sure you would agree that the Republicans in congress restrained its growth during those years. As for taxes–I was painting with a big brush here: the Democrats raised income taxes in 1993 and lost control of congress the next year. This tax increase stayed in effect until Bush came into office.

Despite all my carrying on, I actually appreciate the protests. It’s nice to see someone at least mentioning the fact that all of this borrowing could cause some major problems down the road. I’m just skeptical that once power switches over again that this cry for fiscal sanity will carry the day. That’s the point I was trying to make: that people complain about huge deficits when they are out of power, and then ignore them when they get back into power.

You seem to have the view that all Republicans are alike and that whatever the political class of Republicans in DC does is met with wholehearted approval by the rank-and-file or by conservative activists and thinkers. That’s your first mistake. There were plenty of conservatives who denounced the big spending Bush years. There were even some Republicans in Congress who did so. So don’t try and say that rank-and-file Republicans are being hypocritical by protesting government spending. They’ve always opposed big-spending government and have a pretty consistent record of doing so. The GOP leadership in Congress — well, that’s another story.

And it’s wrong to say that the GOP favors tax breaks for the wealthy. They favor tax breaks for people who pay taxes. It just so happens that the wealthy pay far more in taxes than the poor. Those who pay taxes should get the breaks. That seems only fair to me.

Another error you make is that Clinton wasn’t able to increase spending when there was a GOP Congress. No, spending went up quite a lot during those years. It may not have gone up as much as Clinton wanted, but it went up. And Clinton also cut taxes, contrary to your implication. In fact, he cut the tax that is one of the favorite of the “soak the rich” liberal wing of the party — the capital gains tax.

I do agree with your point that the surplus came about as a political accident. The economy produced more tax revenue than Clinton and Congress could spend. But that soon ended (the economic growth, not the spending).

I have noticed that deficits are the Number Two concern of each party. When the Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, their Number One concern was tax breaks for their main constituents, often referred to as “the wealthy.” So they cut taxes while increasing spending, causing the government to go from a surplus to a giant deficit. No tea parties, and no aneurysm for Sean Hannity. Of course, the Democrats lamented the loss of the surplus.

Now the Democrats are in control, and it turns out that their Number One concern is money for their constituents, many of whom benefit from government programs. So they increase spending without increasing revenue (or at least, not raising enough revenue to cover the expenses). Now, all of a sudden, when the money is not coming their way, the Republicans rediscover fiscal responsibility. Oops—too late. If they really cared, they could have maintained the balanced budget they inherited, but they chose otherwise.

While one might think that a balance budget would be the rule, it turns out to be the exception. We really only had a surplus due to the political deadlock in the 1990s. The Republican congress could not repeal the Clinton tax increase (he would veto it) and Clinton could not increase spending because the congress would not pass it. In a sense, the surplus came about by political accident! Both parties were stuck with concern Number Two.

Why are the parties both this way? Perhaps it is because they are truly representative of the American People? After all, our entire economy is in the soup because we were, as a group, living well beyond our means.

So—we get the government that reflects us, and the only time the government is responsible is when it is deadlocked? Sounds depressing—but maybe not! The Founding Fathers created a limited government filled with checks and balances. They knew that the government would reflect us, and they sought to both empower us and limit the damage we could cause. So you folks keep up the tea parties, I’ll keep laughing at the tea bag jokes, and together we’ll stumble towards the next election.