It has become fashionable to say the Republicans are indistinguishable from Democrats when it comes to spending.  The Democrats were quite effective during this election cycle in painting Republicans as indiscriminate spenders who ran up enormous deficits.  When taken at face value, that is undeniable.  Unfortunately for the GOP, many in the party, including the Administration, did walk away from their limited government principles in order to introduce major new programs and authorize substantial increases in spending.  No doubt that was damaging in 2008, and will likely be for years to come. 

I realize that intellectual honesty among the political and media classes is dead, but let me attempt to inject just a smidgen of reality and context.  With the possible exception of Defense Department funding, find me any spending initiative that passed with GOP support, that was not criticized by Democrats as not going far enough.  No matter what the Republicans spent, the Democrats wanted more.  Remember the $400 billion expansion of Medicare to add a prescription drug benefit?  The Democrats wanted more.  Remember the $87 billion in expanded subsidies for farmers?  The Democrats wanted more.  Remember the $40 billion in increased veterans' benefits?  The Democrats wanted more.  Remember the billions of dollars for No Child Left Behind?  The Democrats wanted more.  Remember the $30 billion to fight AIDS in Africa?  The Democrats wanted more.  See the pattern?

So, what does this portend for an Obama administration that is backed by a Democrat-controlled House and Senate?  You guessed it; a heck of a lot more spending.  How will they pay for it?  Well, Democrats spent a lot of time espousing their "PAYGO" (short for Pay-As-You-Go) principle every time Republicans purposed a tax cut over the past eight years.  PAYGO theoretically ensures fiscal discipline by requiring that any tax cut or increase in entitlement spending be offset by an increase in other taxes or a reduction in other entitlement spending; thereby, preventing deficit spending.  That sounds terrific in principle, and is a great tactic by a minority party to stall/prevent the majority from getting what it wants, but will it be practiced by a majority party that historically has done nothing but, spend, spend, spend?  If it is practiced, we know that spending cuts of any substance are off the table—they are anathema to Democrats.  Of course, that only leaves tax increases.  And, massive tax increases they will have to be in order to fund the trillions of dollars worth of increases on the agenda for Obama and his colleagues in Congress.

We're going to see the clash of two very different philosophies.  Can we tax and spend our way to a balanced budget and economic prosperity as the Democrats seem to believe?  Or, should we unleash the private sector to invest its enormous sums of capital in order to stimulate the next great economic boom?  We shall see.  My guess is that the former will be tried first, but we will ultimately gravitate toward the later after the former falls flat.