If election prognosticators are correct,
the Republican Party is likely to take control of the Senate.
So how is that likely to influence federal policy on spending,
debt, and cronyism?
One way to get an indication is to look at the Republican
senatorial challengers who if successful today would flip a
Democratic Senate seat to the GOP. I looked at the candidates’
campaign sites to see where they line up when it comes to reducing
the size, scope, and spending of the federal government.
If the following people win—and stay true to their campaign
promises—there is no reason to believe a GOP Senate will cut
spending or shrink the government.
Meet your potential new bosses, then. Same as the old ones.
Dan Sullivan,
Alaska: Sullivan’s campaign site makes
it clear that he would be a typical Alaskan politician in
Washington when it comes to seeking to tap federal taxpayers to
fund largesse back in the state. He touts his opposition
to Obamacare and makes the standard call to rein in
spending, reform the tax code, and cut red tape. However, he
doesn’t offer any details and his focus on delivering pork to
Alaska undermines his professed concern about Washington’s
spending-driven debt problem.
Tom Cotton,
Arkansas: The section of Cotton’s
campaign site that offers the clearest view of his policy stances
is the one that
attempts to rebut his opponent’s claims and
criticisms. Unfortunately, the section largely amounts to Cotton
pointing out the various instances in which he indeed supported
federal spending. From farm subsidies to entitlements, Cotton makes
it clear that he is—contra his opponent’s claims—a supporter of
government programs. Interestingly, his latest campaign video
concludes with a call for “less government and more freedom.” It’s
hard to reconcile that stated aim with the message conveyed by his
website.
Cory Gardner,
Colorado: Gardner’s
site touts his “4-corners” plan for Colorado, which
turns out to be a smorgasbord of contradictions. For instance,
Gardner says that he supports “flatter and fairer” federal tax
codes; however, his support for numerous tax breaks for various
special interests undermines that claim. On education, Gardner says
“keep Congress out of the classroom” while simultaneously stating
his support for various federal education programs. Gardner notes
his support for a balanced-budget amendment but he offers no
details on what he would cut to achieve balance. His claim that he
has “has fought to reduce [the $17 trillion plus national debt] by
examining waste, fraud, and abuse in all sectors of government” is
as vacuous as it is unfeasible. When it comes to the real driver of
the national debt—old-age entitlement programs—Gardner states that
he wishes to “strengthen Medicare and Social Security.”
Joni Ernst, Iowa: Ernst’s site makes it
clear that she would represent a near-complete change of pace from
retiring Sen. Tom Harkin, a progressive Democrat. Ernst says a lot
of the “right” things when it comes to free markets, taxes, and
regulations. On this issue of federal spending, however, the Ernst
campaign site is noticeably lacking in details. On federal
entitlements, Ernst promises to “protect Medicare and Social
Security”; she says she supports reforms that will “ensure the
long-term health of both programs for her daughters and
grandchildren and their generations.” That’s a politically
practical approach, but the reality is that her grandchildren are
going to take it on the chin unless Sen. Ernst and her colleagues
take the bolder approach of shrinking the entitlement welfare
state. In addition, her support for a balanced-budget amendment
while failing to explain what she would cut to achieve balance is
disappointing. Her support of the U.S. government’s costly global
military presence will also considerably complicate efforts to
eliminate deficit spending.
Bill Cassidy,
Louisiana: Cassidy’s campaign site calls for
“free-market health care solutions that give patients the power”
and says that “out-of-control spending” needs to be stopped. On
health care, Cassidy deserves credit for proposed reforms. However,
rather than a free-market for health care, Cassidy supports
adjustments to the federal government’s already oversized role. As
for how Cassidy would attack the spending that he says is out of
control, his website simply doesn’t say. He’s against earmarks, but
is he against federal grant and loan programs that are essentially
different means to the same end? Given his support for keeping
federal flood insurance premiums low in order to keep his
flood-prone constituents happy, the answer is probably
no.
Steve Daines,
Montana: Daines’ campaign site calls
for “More Jobs, Less Government.” However, the slogan is curious
given that Daines doesn’t lay out a vision for less
government other than to tout his support for a balanced-budget
amendment and a promise to “stop Washington’s wasteful spending.”
To the contrary, Daines touts his commitment to spending
more taxpayer dollars on seniors, veterans, women, and Indian
tribes.
Thom Tillis, North
Carolina: Tillis’s campaign
site says that he “will work to shrink the size of
our federal government to its core Constitutional role so the
private sector can thrive.” Sounds good. He sounds the right notes
on issues such as repealing Obamacare, reining in federal
regulations, and ending the bailout mentality in Washington. His
site also says that “he believes we must restore the original
intention of the Constitution and redirect the federal government
toward the purposes our founding fathers intended.” That’s fine,
but it’s not clear what Tillis believes those purposes to
be. Does he think that the federal government’s overgrown system of
entitlement programs is in line with intentions of the
Constitution’s authors? Or what about the vast military
empire that sprung up more than 150 years after the ink dried on
our founding document? We’ll have to wait and see.
Mike Rounds, South
Dakota: Rounds’ site touts an
“approach to limited government [that] is most in line with South
Dakota values.” On the bright side, Rounds calls for local control
of education and the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education.
He also calls for deference to local units of government when it
comes to regulation. However, Rounds’ support for a balanced-budget
amendment typically lacks details on what he would cut in order to
achieve balance (he says he’s against tax increases, so the
balancing would have to come from spending cuts). Compounding the
lack of specifics is a promise to protect Medicare spending and a
disavowal of Paul Ryan’s proposed entitlement reforms. Rounds cites
the federal government’s unsustainable fiscal trajectory, which is
being driven by entitlement spending, but his overall stance would
indicate that he’s unprepared to do anything about it.
Shelley Capito, West
Virginia: Other than pledging to protect
the coal industry, Capito’s campaign site is
devoid of any information on her policy stances.
The bottom line is that anyone who is hoping that a GOP
takeover will bring small government to town will be deeply
disappointed.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1EgnST7
via IFTTT