The wrong time for compromise Both parties spend without moderation

The wrong time for compromise
Both parties spend without moderation

BY CHRIS CHOCOLA / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2012


PAT SULLIVAN/AP

Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas.

Immediately following Ted Cruz’s victory in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate in Texas last week, a television ad by my organization’s Super PAC, Club for Growth Action, was deemed the “single most important” ad in the race. That ad repeated a single charge over and over again — namely, that Cruz’s opponent, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, was a “moderate.”

We’re glad that people noticed, because Congress needs fewer “moderates” and more people willing to adhere to principle and work to fix our fiscal mess.

No serious observer unclouded by politics can dispute that if Congress does not pass pro-growth tax reform, curb entitlement spending and quickly pay down our crushing debt burden, we will end up like Greece.

A common myth is that if only the right and left could work together, if more moderates (of the kind our organization has vehemently and successfully opposed over the years) were in Congress, America would be saved.

What we need is compromise .

This is, quite patently, false. Compromise is what got us into this mess.

First, the premise that Congress is too polarized to get anything done is ridiculous. For years, Republicans and Democrats have collaborated to pass legislation that expands the reach of government with huge bipartisan margins.

Just a few examples that come to mind are the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan, Cash for Clunkers and the No Child Left Behind Act.

And every year, Congress passes legislation authorizing billions upon billions of additional spending on dozens of federal agencies — and they’ve moved us closer to fiscal collapse with Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House, despite all the talk about how bipartisanship doesn’t exist.

Indeed, Congress often comes together to pass policies that increase the size and scope of government. Think of the Wall Street bailout, which was supported by a bipartisan majority. The auto bailout drew support from Republicans and Democrats alike when it passed the House.

Republicans and Democrats have constantly joined together in an orgy of spending, earmarks, debt and Bridges to Nowhere. It is both parties that are responsible for a national debt that has reached over $16 trillion.

Worse, neither party seems interested in fiscal responsibility.

Take this year’s farm bill in the U.S. Senate: Legislators on both sides of the aisle will tout savings they’ve made in it, but they’re missing the fundamental flaw of a nearly $1 trillion, five-year piece of legislation.

For years, compromise and bi-partisanship have driven the massive spending increases in this law, with no end in sight. The bill’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (i.e., “food stamps”) and agriculture subsidies are combined to get legislators from a diversity of districts to vote for this massive bill.

Why? Because members of Congress — both Republicans and Democrats — are more interested in keeping their jobs by effectively bribing their constituents with our tax dollars than in curbing spending.

Richard Mourdock, the Indiana Republican who defeated the “moderate” and “bipartisan” Richard Lugar in the May Senate primary with our support, has received criticism for his opposition to compromise.

To be clear, pro-growth conservatives are interested in compromise. We’re interested in any compromise that shrinks the size and scope of government. The problem is that compromise in Washington over the past 20 years usually means more borrowing from our grandchildren and increasing the likelihood that America will end up like just another bankrupt European nation.

Ted Cruz is not a moderate. He holds deep convictions, and we hope he has the opportunity to engage in many compromises that will reduce the size of government — instead of compromising the future of our nation.