We're Cutting to Make Government Better

John Boehner has promised to slash spending if the GOP retakes the House. Just as important though is explaining to voters how spending cuts will benefit them.

This week, the likely next Speaker of the House, John Boehner, promised to introduce new bills every week to cut spending should Republicans retake the House.  But while federal spending cuts are necessary from a fiscal perspective and proper from a constitutional one, Boehner’s plan could actually hurt Republicans with voters.

Boehner should remember that the first sign of the current Republican resurgence came in November of last year with the victories of Governor McDonnell in Virginia and Governor Christie in New Jersey.  Looking at McDonnell’s victory, Ed Gillespie drew some important lessons for a GOP recovering from consecutive drubbings at the hands of the Democrats.  Chief among his recommendations was that Republicans learn to ‘finish the sentence.‘  He explained that too often Republicans do not ‘finish the sentence,’ and explain how conservative policies will result in concrete benefits for citizens.

The GOP is set for a historic night in a few weeks.  But while Gillespie’s work will have made a significant financial contribution to those victories, it is not clear that the GOP has internalized the lesson he learned from Governor McDonnell’s victory.

This should come as no surprise.  Among the benefits to Virginia voters that Gillespie identified with conservative policies were less traffic and better schools.  Yet, for the Tea Party inspired candidates who believe that the federal government has radically usurped its constitutional bounds, and find little justifiable role for the federal government in alleviating traffic or improving schools in Northern Virginia, ‘finishing the sentence’ is a difficult lift.

If likely Speaker Boehner takes Gillespie’s recommendation seriously, how are Republicans prepared to explain the benefit of spending cuts to voters?

A promise of greater economic growth, while perhaps accurate, remains both speculative and intangible.  As Republicans tackle the size of government, Republicans should remind voters of the more immediate impact of reckless government spending -- the inability to spend responsibly.

Earlier this week, Bob Herbert wrote in the New York Times that something has gone “haywire” when a long-planned and needed rail tunnel underneath the Hudson had to be canceled due to the inability of New Jersey to meet its share of the costs.  Indeed it has.

And what went wrong is government.

Because of the nonsensical obligations that the state and federal governments have taken on, there is no money available to tackle the issues that actually make a difference to ordinary Americans.

When Republicans take their red pens to the President’s budget this spring, they should keep Gillespie’s recommendation in mind.  They need to ‘complete the sentence.‘  They need to explain that the principal problem with our bloated federal government is not its size or its compatibility with the original Constitution.  The problem with overspending is that it renders governments at all levels without the flexibility and financial ability to tackle issues that matter to the independent voters to whom representatives owe their seats.