Democrats may be spending themselves (and the country) into oblivion, but some Republicans are not doing much better. The fiscal irresponsibility is pervasive, appearing not only in the party’s national leadership, but also among state legislators. Oh, sure. Republicans have put up a good front recently, objecting strenuously to the flood of spending by Democratic lawmakers. Some of their horror is doubtless genuine. Spending during Obama/Pelosi/Reid’s (as yet short) reign has increased at unprecedented levels. The nation is facing record spending and deficits—and OPR have only just begun. But it is easy for Republicans to take a purely partisan stance against Democratic spending. If they want to regain the trust of voters, they must do more. They must demonstrate their ability (and willingness) to do better. They must not only reverse recent Democratic excesses, but they must also reverse their own recent excesses. Unfortunately, it does not seem that many in the current Republican leadership have the will to take such a stand. Consider the fact that Republican National Chairman Michael Steele has spent twice as much as his predecessors, as recently reported by Politico. It would be one thing if he were spending all that money on campaign ads and get-out-the-vote efforts. But he’s not. He’s paying for limousines, world-class caterers, private airplanes—even an annual RNC meeting in Hawaii. The exodus of Republican donors during his tenure emphasizes the recklessness of his spending—and the irresponsibility of anyone in Republican leadership who is not taking action against such lack of discipline. Why should voters trust leaders like Steele with federal tax dollars when these leaders are so thoughtless with private donations? But the problem does not stop with a few spendthrift national leaders. This fiscal irresponsibility extends even to conservative states like Texas. Naturally, the election year has prompted some Republican officials to make big, splashy, headline-grabbing displays of fiscal conservatism. Well, terrific, but these same officials also made many terrible, fiscally irresponsible decisions earlier, during non-election years. Voters are thus being asked to take a leap of faith: Trust that the conservative, election-year version of these officials remain. Hope that the big government, spendthrift version of these officials will not return after the election. In general, Texas has received much praise for being fiscally conservative, but let’s face it. Texas is being graded on a curve against states like California, New York, and New Jersey. Without the curve, Texas would not be earning an “A” from conservative economists. Maybe it would get a “C.” Texas legislators have changed the tax code in irresponsible ways . Moreover, state spending has exploded. As this chart shows, more than $320 billion in taxpayer funds could have (and should have) been saved if Texas had spent its dollars more responsibly in the years since 1990. As the chart also shows, the problem has been getting worse in recent years—despite the fact that allegedly conservative Republicans are in charge of state government. Many Republican lawmakers started out with good intentions. They meant to be small government. Maybe they were for a while. But too many have become jaded by too many years in Washington or Austin. They are not as effective as they once were. And they certainly have not proven that they can reverse the irresponsible spending spree, started by Republicans during the George W. Bush years and rashly escalated during Barack Obama’s administration. Some discontent voters and media commentators have noted the broken state of both political parties and have advocated a third party solution. An official Tea Party has some appeal, especially to fiscal conservatives, but its advocates should not forget the typical outcome of third party races, at least at the presidential level. Historically speaking, such attempts to circumvent the two-party system have been unsuccessful. The presidential election of 1912 demonstrates the difficulties that even a very popular third party candidate will face. The election that year was a three-way race among incumbent William H. Taft (Republican Party), Woodrow Wilson (Democrat Party), and former President Teddy Roosevelt (Bull Moose Party). The third-party candidate, Roosevelt, was immensely popular and soundly defeated Taft at the polls. But his entry into the campaign badly split the Republican vote. Neither man could overtake Wilson. Although Roosevelt and Taft earned a combined 7.6 million popular votes to Wilson’s 6.2 million popular votes, they won only a combined 96 electoral votes. Wilson won the White House in an electoral landslide (435 electoral votes). The strength of America’s two-party system can be frustrating, but for reasons this author has discussed elsewhere , it also provides the country with many advantages that should not be dismissed too quickly. For both philosophical and practical reasons, tea party activists should think twice before they attempt a “fix” that includes abandoning the two major political parties in favor of a new party. They would probably serve their cause best by working within the existing parties. The weaknesses of the Democratic Party have been the subject of much commentary lately, but the Republican Party is equally in need of revitalization. Both parties need young, fresh new leaders to take our nation forward. There are definite exceptions, but most incumbents have been in elected office for too long. They have lost perspective. They do not remember what it is like to live under the laws and taxes that they have enacted. With primaries quickly approaching, it is time to send them a reminder.



