Memo to GOP: If you mean it, get real

The central Republican message of the Obama era is that these are, at least potentially, the end times.   Polls show that a significant percentage of the GOP’s base believes fairly out-there stuff about the world we live in.

President Obama himself may well be a foreign-born Manchurian candidate, hell-bent on destroying the American capitalist way of life. Or so the far Right would have you believe.

But even mainstream conservatives espouse a remarkable range of ideas about the fiscal cliff that we are perched upon as the Federal deficit surges, with some claiming that we are close to a Greece-style meltdown.

The problem with this narrative is that it remains, so far, a kind of populist sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Republicans may well ride a wave of anxiety to political victory in 2012, but so far they have offered no ideas that would actually pull the nation back from the brink.

Consider as Exhibit A the budget plan put forth by Rep. Paul Ryan.

This is a spending plan that claims to solve one very real problem (Federal deficits) but in fact is aimed squarely at solving two problems (overtaxation of the wealthy and an outsized Federal government) that are pure fiction.

Perhaps fiction is too strong a word.  Call it, rather, ideological obsession.

Let’s talk first about the Federal deficit, and the overall national debt.  It’s huge.  S&P’s downgrading of the nation’s debt-credibility this week suggests that bond markets are skittish about our overspending.

Eliminating the overspending will mean huge, painful sacrifices by every American.  Yes, poor people will see fewer services.  Government employees and teachers will likely see significant cuts in their pay and job prospects.

But Ryan’s plan begins with the conceit that taxes for the wealthy should be lowered even further, despite the fact that taxation rates for the highest earners are already at the lowest levels since World War 2.

It’s true that a generation ago, when Ronald Reagan was elected, high tax rates were a significant concern.  Average Americans groaned under their tax burden.

And there were legitimate fears that overtaxation could be stifling economic activity.  But no objective economist believes that we’re anywhere close to that taxation level now.

It’s also simply untrue that government has continued to grow out of proportion to our population and our economy.  The amount of Federal spending as a percentage of GDP has been relatively stable for decades.

(In fact, the number of government employees in the US has been declining steadily for the last five years. )

So if Republicans are serious about more than winning elections — if they actually want to generate a plan for governing — they should do the following:

– Come up with a deficit reduction plan that is realistic and shares the sacrifices over the entire population.  That means significant cuts to all programs, including the military and entitlements.  It also means more taxes for the rich, and an end to the era when about half of wage-earners at lower income levels pay no taxes at all.  Republicans should help to educate Americans that there is an important role for a lean, effective government, and we have to pay enough taxes to fund it.

-Develop a realistic energy independence policy that is science-based.  Yes, that means more offshore drilling and maybe even drilling in ANWR and other sensitive areas.  It probably means more short-term reliance on coal and nuclear.  But it also means accepting that renewables are the future and accepting the very real, immediate threat of global warming.

-Develop a realistic plan for bringing down the cost of medical care.  This is the big budget buster in American society, not just for the Federal government, but for individuals and private sector businesses as well.  With our aging population, solving this will be tough.  Success will mean using some market-driven mechanisms, TORT reform, and interstate competition.  But it will also mean building on government programs that have been effective at cost containment, including the VA system and Medicare.

It won’t be easy for Republicans to bend their trajectory toward more common sense thinking and planning.

The ideological stuff is hugely popular with the party’s base and even the idea of governing sensibly is unpleasant for some conservatives, who believe that the best government is no government.

But the truth is that the GOP’s credibility on Fiscal matters is already razor-thin.

Their years of total power in Washington from 2000 through 2008 produced few solutions for any of the nation’s problems, from the Federal debt to healthcare to energy.

Ryan himself voted for spending proposals during the Bush era that we’re flat-out fiscally irresponsible, including two wars that weren’t paid for, tax cuts that weren’t paid for (with spending cuts), not to mention Mr. Bush’s prescription drug benefit program (a $50 billion annual expense) that wasn’t paid for.

In rebuilding Republican credibility, opposing  Obama isn’t enough.

If thoughtful conservatives really believe the nation has drifted into dangerous territory, then it is their duty to come up with real plans and real political compromises that put the country back on track.

Tags: ,

65 Comments on “Memo to GOP: If you mean it, get real”

Leave a Comment
  1. Bret4207 says:

    Come on HT, the “surplus”, the deficit being wiped out was all a lie. One of the problems we have is that our Federal Gov’t keeps 3 or 4 sets of books and no one calls them on it. Yes, revenue exceed expenditures for a very brief period under Clinton IF you ignore that 600 pound gorilla in the room called the National Debt and IF you want to claim projected revenue. I don’t know how things work in Quebec, but here at my house debt is debt and moving one type of debt into another book that I don’t consider and adding what I think is going to come to me later as income today just doens’t work. It’s a fib, a lie.

    Look, we owe a tremendous amount of money and no amount of Quantitative Easing or stimulus plans is going to change that. We haven’t had a true zero deficit…..well, I don’t know the last time the National Debt was zeroed out. It’s just not sustainable and I don’t care if it’s a Repub or Dem in power, it’s a killer to us. Can’t we get beyond the politics and at least accept that? Are we all so greedy that we can’t accept that this house we’ve allowed to be built is going to tumble if we don’t change?

  2. Bret4207 says:

    TTMike- Obama has traveled the world insulting other nations (mostly our allies) and driving the world economy down. He’s getting really good at it. Our troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. The balls in his court now. I don;t see anything changing. We have to realize that neither party is taking the lead in bringing us out of this mess. Hope and change isn’t going to fix this, an there’s no strawman in that position.

  3. hermit thrush says:

    bret, i think all there is to this “big fib” business is that you don’t know what the words “deficit” and “surplus” mean. these words have fairly precise, universally agreed upon meanings. wikipedia puts it as:

    The total deficit (which is often just called the ‘deficit’) is spending, plus interest payments on the debt, minus tax revenues.

    accordingly, the surplus is just revenues – (spending + interest payments). and that’s it. that’s how i’ve always understood the deficit/surplus. that’s how everyone (except you) understands them. revenues exceed spending and interest, that means by definition you have a surplus. when you read in the paper that the deficit was over a trillion dollars last year, that means that outlays were over a trillion dollars more than revenues — that and nothing more. if you want to talk about the debt, then fine, but you need to use other words. you don’t get to make up your own private bret-ified versions of the definitions of surplus and deficit.

    and that said, of course we had surpluses under clinton. look at the link in my 12:12 comment from yesterday. receipts exceeded outlays in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001. that’s exactly what it means to have had a surplus in those years. it’s a total miscarriage of language to say that we haven’t had a surplus since the national debt was zeroed out.

    ps quebec? huh?

  4. hermit thrush says:

    i also had a comment replying to mcculley which has been held up in the moderation queue since last night. here’s a modified version of it.

    * * * * *

    well of course i’m denigrating what you’re writing, mcculley, since that’s exactly what it deserves. i don’t mean anything personally but what you’ve been saying is riddled with errors and it needs to be struck down forcefully.

    you wrote that democrats had control of congress for all but 10 of the last 80 years. that’s just flat out wrong. here’s why. i don’t know what “control of congress” means to you, but i’m pretty sure that since congress has two houses, having control of congress means exactly having simultaneously control of both of those houses. when jeffords flipped the democrats only had control of the senate, and therefore neither party had control of congress.

    thanks for the summary about medicare part d spending. it would have been better if you had included a link, but it was easy enough to google. here it is for those who are interested:

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200602060004

    unfortunately this article is from all the way back in february 2006! and the program only started paying out benefits in 2006! so it’s kind of useless for evaluating whether medicare part d is coming in cheaper than expected. however, i found a nice article from last august bearing the headline “Bush drug plan beats cost mark”; i’ll put the link in a followup comment. the key quote:

    Four years into full operation, President George W. Bush’s Medicare prescription drug program is coming in well below its projected cost…. The numbers are stark and conclusive: In 2009, the government spent $60.8 billion on the drug benefit, or far less than the annual $111.2 billion cost projected just five years ago, after the program was enacted.

  5. Mervel says:

    I think the GOP should be pushing oil production in the lower 48 using new technologies; it is a winner.

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/25/110425fa_fact_konigsberg

  6. PNElba says:

    Of course factcheck and snopes have a “liberal” bias, as has been pointed out by at least one regular poster on this blog. That is why I was careful to use the Wall Street Journal as a link. I wish Gary would provide us at least one source of “nonbiased” information.

  7. Mervel says:

    Supply side has gotten a bad rap in my opinion. In the general sense it simply means you look at the productive capacity of your economy, the “supply” side. So you do things both fiscally and monetarily that would help your core productivity. Rather than focusing on simply generating increased consumption, either from the government side or the individual side you look toward increased investment, increased savings, increased infrastructure, human capital (education) etc. So lowering the capital gains tax to spur investment would be part of that BUT so would spending more on infrastructure and education.

    The concept of “trickle down” is not all wrong; when the wealthy spend more and invest more it does help the economy. I think it is off base in the promises made about it, it won’t save the economy and it won’t necessarily help our productivity or debt.

    The GOP has some openings this round, right now I don’t think they are taking them though. Tax decreases won’t fly in this environment and won’t work right now anyway.

  8. Bret4207 says:

    HT, first I was under the impression you stated you were currently living in Quebec, maybe Ontario. My apologies if I’ve confused you with someone else.

    Secondly, I thought we’d been through this discussion on the gov’ts out and out lies concerning it’s book keeping methods before. If a small businessman tried to run his books like the Federal, and probably some State, gov’t he’d be sitting in a prison someplace. You cannot seperate out debt you don’t wish to count, you can’t simply ignore debt and spending that you have to account for and plan for. And you most certainly cannot claim you have a $5.2 trillion dollar surplus based on projections! Since I know my communicative skills are lacking I’ll provide a couple of my favorite links to a guy who is better at explaining things than I am and has all the links to back it up. It simply comes down to smoke and mirrors, and truth be told, it’s not just Ol’ Slick Willie that’s used this method. It’s wrong, it’s been wrong for a long time and no one seems to care.

    http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

    http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/30

  9. Bret4207 says:

    Mervel, it seems a lot of Dems aren’t crazy about taxing the “rich” more too. The cry of “tax the rich” is the Dems version of “Birther” claims I suppose. It’s gone beyond an idea based on solid concern and crossed into the bizarre category. Supply side and trickle down HAVE gotten a bad rap, no doubt. Common sense says a guy making minimum wage isn’t going to be hiring 40 new employees for the business he doesn’t own. The “rich” entrepreneur… yeah, far better chance he will hire those people. Same for investments, etc. I really don’t understand why people get so bent over the fact some people simply have more, more than all of us together in some cases. Big deal. So because they have “more” we have to punish them? That never made sense.

    IMO what we need to do is get beyond the politics, and that’s just as hard for me as anyone else, and look at the big picture. I don’t see how intelligent people can possibly think this current system can keep going. How can anyone possibly think that by printing money to buy back our own debt, thereby devaluing our currency, that inflation won’t creep into our lives? How can you get beyond the fact our currency has nothing backing it? This is just a house of cards and even if by some miracle it doesn’t topple it’s simply immoral and unwise to allow it to continue as is.

  10. oa says:

    Bret, your attempts at a counter-threadjack are inspiring, but alas, they fail.
    McCulley rules!

  11. hermit thrush says:

    thanks for the links, bret. i’ll have a look but it may not happen right away.

    and i’m currently living in toronto.

  12. Bret4207 says:

    Well, at least I got the country right.

  13. hermit thrush says:

    i should say further, bret, this is a pretty sizable reading assignment you’ve given me, the link to this thread is probably going to move off the front page before i have a chance to respond. but i’m sure we’ll come back to it at some point…

  14. hermit thrush says:

    insert “and” before “the link”

Leave a Reply