It's Early and I'm Having a Hard Time Coming Up With a Thread Title that Doesn't Insult Both of These Men

David Thielen interviews Ken Buck and comes to the following conclusions,

What do we get with Ken Buck? Number one is he will be focused on pushing many jobs the federal government does back to the states and local government. And that is something an individual Senator can have some impact on bill by bill. Number two is he will be focused on reducing our deficit. He's not volunteering to raise any taxes to do so - but no elected official campaigns with a promise to raise taxes, that's our political environment today (which speaks poorly of us voters more than of the candidates).

I also want to speak of what Ken Buck is not. He is not a drown the government in a bathtub proponent - he wants to move programs to the states, not end them (although I'm sure he can name some he would end). While he is personally socially conservative, he does not want to impose his social mores on the country. 

To start, for the sake of argument, let's just take Ken Buck at face value, as David apparently does. First, if you're not for raising any taxes, ever, for any reason, then you are not serious about the deficit. Second, if you are not going to end programs then you are not serious about the deficit. And no, "moving programs to the states" does nothing to increase your deficit hawk bona fides. For one reason, the whole idea (and I use that word very loosely) smacks of an extreme politician trying to say anything not to look crazy. For another reason, shifting administration does not neccesarily equate to shifting costs and even if those costs are shifted the program must still be paid for - only now by state and local taxes. So again, it's an idea that, very transparently, does nothing to achieve Ken Buck's stated goal of shrinking the size of government and American's tax burden.