Out of power, Republicans appear to be retreating to familiar old ground. They're becoming deficit hawks again. Republican lawmakers didn't seem to mind enjoying the fruits of government largesse for the past eight years while one of their own was in the White House. Now they're struggling to regain footing at a time of economic rout, a record $1.2 trillion budget deficit and an incoming Democratic president claiming a mandate for change. It might not be the best time for running against more government spending. But that hasn't stopped Republicans from casting themselves as protectors of the public purse, striving for relevancy as Congress tackles President-elect Barack Obama's stimulus legislation. “Congress cannot keep writing checks and simply pass IOUs to our children and grandchildren,” says Republican Sen. John Cornyn. House Minority Leader John Boehner asks: “How much debt are we going to pile on future generations?” Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gets more specific: “We would like, on the spending side, obviously, to avoid funding things like a mob museums or water slides.” Mob museums? Las Vegas' effort to include in the stimulus legislation federal money to set up a museum to showcase Nevada's colorful and storied past in organized crime has suddenly become the cited example of wasteful spending for some Republicans. Perhaps they hope the proposed project in the home state of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can divert attention from the “Bridge to Nowhere,” an Alaska project that was initially a Republican initiative and which became the target of Democratic scorn. Obama has pledged the economic aid legislation will be free of such pork-barrel and “earmark” spending. “It is somewhat disingenuous on the part of Republicans to be totally concerned about the debt and the deficit at this point because they were there when the debt went up,” said James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. When Republican President George W. Bush took office in 2001, the government had a projected $5.6 trillion, 10-year surplus. Two of Obama's economic advisors said they though the Obama stimulus plan would result in only modest or even uncertain benefits if they become law. At least that was their view, in previous roles, before they joined his team. Plus recent complaints from Democratic lawmakers, underscore the challenges Obama faces in selling the merits of his bailout package and also point to the spotty track record of using government tax-and-spend policies in hopes of preventing or ending recessions. For example, giving more federal aid to states, one of Obama's proposals, falls in the “medium” range of cost-effectiveness and carries much uncertainty about its impact on the economy, Peter R. Orszag told Congress a year ago. He headed the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office then, and now is Obama's pick to direct the Office of Budget and Management. Christina Romer, who will head Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, held a similar view in 1994, when she co-wrote an essay, “What Ends Recessions?” “Our estimates suggest that fiscal actions,” which are what Obama is proposing, “have contributed only moderately to recoveries,” she and her husband, David, wrote. “Economists seem strangely unsure about what to tell policy makers to do to end recessions.” Now, 15 years later, Romer is a principal shaper and defender of Obama's strategy. She says plenty of uncertainty remains, and some proposals are more promising than others. “Tax cuts, especially temporary ones, and fiscal relief to the states are likely to create fewer jobs than direct increases in government purchases,” says an analysis of the Obama plan co-written by Romer and released Saturday.
