An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Guess Who’s Had a Change of Heart?
Remember the old saying that a conservative is a liberal who got mugged? Well,who’s a new believer? A conservative governor who twice vetoed tax increases to pay for infrastructure improvements, but had a change of heart after a catastrophic bridge collapse in his own back yard.
More here, as well as here for observations on Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s former bah-humbug attitude.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
39 Responses to “Guess Who’s Had a Change of Heart?”
That’s *Tim* Pawlenty, and yes it’s pretty interesting.
Of course, the gas tax is currently 20 cents a gallon and hasn’t been changed since 1988, so you’d need to raise it 15 cents just to make up for inflation. And Pawlenty seems to think that such an increase is completely out of bounds. So look for a small increase that doesn’t really do much to address the problem.
For anyone who cares, my somewhat more detailed thoughts on it are here.
What the governor should have done is claim that it is time to reprioritize the transporatation of the state and begin suggesting cuts to pure pork program and boondoggles in order to pay for bridge repair. I bet that one bridge carried more individual that all of the light rails systems in the region put together. Yet, Minnesota decided to spend on light rail instead of bridges because light rail is a sexy program but bridge repair is not.
SD:
Light rail is not a “sexy” program. It is a necessary and long overdue one that an increasing number of communities and states are going to despite high start-up costs and need for subsidies.
This is because light rail and similar iterations are the best alternative to sitting in bumber-to-bumber traffic as commutes grow longer, gasoline becomes more expensive and greenhouse gasses become more of a worry.
I can presume from your comment that you’ve never been to Europe or the Far East.
superdestroyer,
actually, I think part of the problem in this country is that we do not have a good enough mass transit system, especially when it comes to any form of rail transport. All other countries are way ahead of us on this, while we balk at any suggestion that we give up our individual transport in favor of letting someone else take us where we need to go. If there were a larger, more efficient, and cheaper rail system in this country, then our problem with deteriorating road networks also would not be so acute since more people would be taking the train rather than taking the car and getting stuck in perpetual traffic jams. So any rail project, including light rail, is a practical program and not just something for looks.
BTW, IMO New Jersey has the best mass transit system especially when it comes to rail. A few years ago I could take a round trip from Trenton to NYC on off peak hours and weekends for only $25 (that includes the parking charge). Much cheaper than taking the car, plus it eliminated the stress of driving through traffic and finding parking in the city.
It would have been great if our urban and suburban centers had been designed for mass transit, but the reality is that most of them weren’t and so light rail isn’t an appropriate solution in many locations. And even if it is appropriate for a particular area, we should take note of whether proposed projects drain funds from maintenance of existing infrastructure (similarly, is construction of new roads also siphoning those funds?) An astute observation in one of Shaun’s linked articles was an official who said that we shouldn’t build more than we are willing and able to maintain.
If a community decides that light rail is the way to go, then they should ask the citizens to honestly face up to the funding needs. You can’t abandon the existing infrastructure because “if you build it they will come” still applies; the roads and bridges will still carry loads of cars even if some commuters are diverted to other transport modalities.
Tax increases (particularly just to keep pace with inflation, as Sean Aqui points out would be the case with gas tax in MN) should be on the table but the spending priorities need to be honestly addressed first. If funds are there but being misdirected, then the citizens shouldn’t be asked to open their wallets again.
“What the governor should have done is claim that it is time to reprioritize the transporatation of the state and begin suggesting cuts to pure pork program and boondoggles in order to pay for bridge repair.”
This implies the ideologcal belief that there still is a considerable amount of pork in Minnesota that could be put to a better purpose. From what I gather from the news, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Instead, this seems to be another instance where voters easily fell for the wishful thinking that the state’s infrastructure and duties can be sustained by the current relatively low taxes. Just like during the housing buble, many feel like they can get amnities without someone paying for them. Ironically, this widespread feeling has even got worse under the supposedly ‘low government’ approach of the Repubs.
It’s about time the US wakes up and sees that this is just loonacy. Medicare, farm subsidies, the Iraq war – all those billions are paid for by the brits, the japanese and the chinese. Bush and his gang are acting just like that 14000$/year guy that bought a million dollar home. In both cases, the lenders won’t pay for that luxurious lifestyle much longer.
And on the other side of the picture, the average net worth of the top 2% is steadily rising much stronger than the inflation rates, while the percentage of taxes they individually pay is lower than that of most 9 to 5ers. Now, think twice where to get the money for urgent repairs, and don’t even assume you can simply pass the bill to future genrations.
The Minnesota Department of Transporation has three minority contracting set aside programs. Any state that has money to pay above market rates for social engineering purposes, has enough money.
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/eeocm/index.html
Cut first and then ask for more money afterwards. Politicians are just lazy and ask for the taxpayers to make sacrifices without making any cuts themselves.
Up until 2007 Minnesota did not even spend 100% of its road taxes on roads. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/information/mvst/
If you look at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/information/funding2004/TranspFunding.pdf
You will see that the state spent 33% of its funds on non-road projects. Do 33% of the people get around without driving a car.
Maybe if safety was placed ahead of social engineering, the bridge would not have collapsed?
“Any state that has money to pay above market rates for social engineering purposes, has enough money.”
Again just a broad generalisation. Now, seriously, about how many dollars are you talking here???
:-/
“Up until 2007 Minnesota did not even spend 100% of its road taxes on roads.”
That’s because the governor and the lawmakers chose to take this ‘earmarked’ money and spent it to fill other holes. They would have done everything to not raise taxes. Now they got the bill for it.
“Do 33% of the people get around without driving a car.”
Maybe not, but it would be good for the environment and against oil dependency if they would. However, you should send your complaint to the governor’s office.
What a spin on state spending. The state decide that something else was more important that infrastructure and spent money on other things.
Saying that tax increases solves all problems means that politicians never have to prioritize and never have to make decisions.
Why should we elect anyone who cannot make decisions other than to externalize the costs onto others?
“The state decide that something else was more important that infrastructure and spent money on other things.”
Yup. And that state is governed by Tim Pawlenty (R), right?
“Saying that tax increases solves all problems means that politicians never have to prioritize and never have to make decisions.”
Who said that? Not me. Imho, when you realize that absolutely essential state duties are underfunded, and you can’t find unessential spending in the budget to be rededicated to make up for these costs, you have to think about raising the revenues.
“Why should we elect anyone who cannot make decisions other than to externalize the costs onto others?”
Well, no matter how you spin it, but when politicians can’t find a way to cover those costs anymore, it’s the right thing to do to look for an additional source of income for the state. Simply denying the problem exists and going even deeper into debt isn’t a responsible solution.
The Minnesota State Senate has 44 Democratic-Farmer Labor Party members and 23 Republican Party members. The Minnesota State House has 85 Democratic-Farmer-Labor members and 49 Republican Party.
So it is obvious that every spending decision has been made by the Democrats in the state and not the governor.
If you look at the state budget http://www.budget.state.mn.us/budget/summary/charts/070628_piecharts.pdf
you will see that about 1% of the state budget is used for transportation.
To claim that there is no more money in the budget to supply on of the few things that everyone can agree is a responsbility of a state government is laughable.
Gray, I think the point you are missing is that quite often the reason that the politicians can’t find a way to cover costs is because they are misappropriating the funds that they are given. Anyone in the US (any locale- whether it is led by Rs or Ds) who doesn’t see the corruption from City Hall, county commissioners on up, just isn’t paying attention. The building and repair projects that are funded on the basis of real priorities, they’re funded on the basis of what politician’s hand is being greased by which contractors and developers, or which land deal the politician stands to profit personally from.
It’s not the revenues, it’s the prioritization of use of those revenues; and unfortunately the politicians too often determine those priorities based on their personal priorities instead of the public welfare.
“So it is obvious that every spending decision has been made by the Democrats in the state and not the governor.”
Afaik the game rules are that the administration prepares the budget and then sends it to the lawmakers for ratification, ain’t that so? So, maybe Pawlenty has to add some compromises to cope with the Dem majorities, but it would be very misleading to say that Dems are responsible for it.
As for the budget pie chart, believe me, I googled this to, and in fact I had it in a browser window when you posted your rewsponse. What I see in it is that the single most expensive item is education, totalling nearly 50% of the overall expenses. So, transportation funds could be boosted by more than 50% by a simple 1% reduction of education costs. Now, sry, I don’t really know enough about the specific circumstances in Minnesota to decide if this would be a good idea. Are there any costs for school vouchers included in this budget devision, or any other unessential luxuries?
“Anyone in the US (any locale- whether it is led by Rs or Ds) who doesn’t see the corruption from City Hall, county commissioners on up, just isn’t paying attention.”
Anyone in the US who doesn’t see that the tax rates actually went down to a very low level, compared to past decades, isn’t paying attention, too.
http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
And maybe there are even people who don’t think that it’s a problem when taxes are actually lowered in a time when the US face the most costly war since Vietnam (top tax rates in the 60s/70s: 70%!). The feds spend incredible amounts of money on highways and infrastructure during Eisenhower, but nowadays the money simply isn’t there for that. And no shifting will help bringing together the sums needed. Better get accustomed to the idea of higher taxes.
Gray,
For most Americans, taxes were lower in the 1950′s. sales taxes were lower, gasoline taxes were lower, social security taxes were lower as a percentage of income, medicare taxes were lower, state taxes were lower and unemployment taxes were lower.
The rich has a multitude of ways of avoiding the top margianl income tax rate.
However, today, the middle class cannot avoid SS, sales, medicare, unemployment taxes that are all higher.
“For most Americans, taxes were lower in the 1950’s.”
Except for the top 10. I haven’t checked this data, but out of my guts I’d say that’s correct. Hell, an average family of four could live from a single income then and still save money or afford some luxuries.
“The rich has a multitude of ways of avoiding the top margianl income tax rate.”
Exactly! My point, too.
“However, today, the middle class cannot avoid SS, sales, medicare, unemployment taxes that are all higher.”
This seems to be a political problem. Maybe a new kind of policy that shifts the burdens is needed?
:-/
CStanly is right to point out the corruption aspect.
In international comparison reports,our corruption rating is rising even as our health care rating is falling. Alarming in the extreme!
As for the rest of the debate here, it seems to be the same recycled arguments no matter what the topic, as long as it involves the need for change.
Mention change, and out come the doubters and the nay-sayers.
I’m amazed that mass transit isn’t a priority in every state. If money needs to be spent, it should be spent as an investment in the future, not as a means of preserving a short-sighted status-quo. Paving over the countryside to accomodate ever expanding suburbs is about as short-sighted as one can get.
On every issue involving the need for change, out pops the “public/consumer demand’ argument. That’s like parenting by deferring to ‘children’s demand’. Leaders, like parentts, have to use their status to convey the consequences of bad demands, not pander to them.
The world is changing, and we should look at our problems in that light, instead of repeating the short-sighted methods of the past. If we spend money, we should spend it to invest in the future, not to gratify our demands of the day.
Neglect and short-sightedness have led us to a bad impasse. Now that we’re paying attention at last, let’s act as if there will be an actual tomorrow.
BTW, I’m not suggesting the elimination of highways. Maintaining a dependable system of roads and bridges is essential. However, I am suggesting that more highways should not be the knee-jerk solution to every transportation problem.
Roads and a mass transit should be the elemnents of an integrated system, maximizing fuel conservation and minimizing devastation of the environment.
Dealing with how to pay for the necessary investment, again, should not involve the ‘children’s demad’ argument. Politicians and the public all need to grow up and accept that getting things involves paying for them. Even credit card bills have to be paid eventually.
I like it when politicians can admit they made a mistake, it gives me hope. I don’t think Pawlenty should be derided for seeing the light.
domajot
Mass transit in the United States are called roads and Highways. If you want to talk about public transporations (those trains, buses, and subways operated by the government) then please used the correct term.
There are only a few places in the U.S. that are dense enough to justify public transportation. Look at DC where Metro is experiencing record levels of ridership and still losing 100′s of millions of dollars a year and traffic is still bad.
No matter how it operates (with a few exceptions) public transporation is much less comfortable, takes longer, and is less reliable than driving. Also, public transporation does not allow for suburb to suburb commutes. In DC one of the biggest problems are people who live in Maryland and work in Virgina (or vice versa). No public transportation system can be designed to effectively move people on such commutes.
Sam:
I quite agree that Governor P should be given credit.
After all, it would be better than washing dishes at an IHOP, which is what he’d be doing after the next election if he didn’t change his mind.
“No matter how it operates (with a few exceptions) public transporation is much less comfortable, takes longer, and is less reliable than driving. Also, public transporation does not allow for suburb to suburb commutes”
That’s not necessarily true. NYC is the one example in the US where public transport actually is faster, cheaper, and most convenient for many citzien. That this doesn’t work in other cities is because they weren’t designed with public transport in mind (was it you who said that above?) and that the political will to spend the necessary startup investment isn’t there. Well, and the way many systems are run in the US is actually a bad joke.
I still remember standing at a bus stop in New Orleans years ago. No time table, no informations about the route, no nothing. And this wasn’t in a suburb, it was on Tulane, not far from the courthouse, maybe a twenty minute walk from the center. I was about to start hiking when out of the blue an old, scarcovered and battered battle horse of a bus pulled up. Not surprisingly, the passengers were mostly minorities, and nobody looked like he was making enough to afford a car.
Well, of course you won’t get more people to use that joke of a transport system without spending a heavy dose of money for it first! However, I’m still wondering what may be the reason behind refusing to at least trying to run transports on schedule. This would be quite cheap, just a matter of introducing new rules and a plan, but it might do wonders for the acceptance of public transport if interested ‘customers’ would have some confidence that their bus will really arrive at a certain time. Public transport 101, really.
|-(
“NYC is the one example in the US where public transport actually is faster, cheaper, and most convenient for many citzien.”
Needless to say, there are numerous examples in Europe. I don’t know of any mayor city that doesn’t have at least an acceptable public transport system. Many are connecting suburbs with the center, too. If it’s faster depends on where you want to go, of course, but most of the time it’s cheaper than using the car.
SD=
Your arguments are
1) circular –
We defer to ‘children’s demad’ and then point to the fact that children still demand the same thing.. If the public wants all the comforts you describe, then they should pay via higher gas taxes, higher road tolls, hicher car registration fees, etc. Instead we make travel by car cheap and then wonder why people like it.
2 proof of the truth of my statement
You exclude all innovation. There is no reason why
suburb to suburb commutes, should not be possible by public transportation modes: buses, minibuses, trams, etc.. Also, suburb to suburb commutes should not necessitate a huge mnay-lane highway system.
Why is the demand for ease and comfort sacrosant, anyway?
When re-cycling was first introduced, it was very unpopular: extra work, not efficien, not cost effective. Look around now. People are more likey to complain if a local community lacks suffiediently stringent recycling regulations. The cost effectiness picture is improving every day, too, with innovative approaches and applications.
In this whole picture, you also omit telecommunications. Why is it necessary to travel every day just to shake your bosses hand , when much of your communications could be done by videoconferencing, e-mail, fac and telephone?
We can either stick to the past like a burrs,only to get mired deeper in the expansion of today’s problems, or we can look for new ways to deal with a new world situation.
As I noted, there are a few exceptions and I was thinking of NYC.
I would say that what limits public transportation in the U.S. is that people will not limit their job hunting to short commute areas. In a large area like DC, if you are changing jobs you can quickly go from a short commute to a long commute. But people just cannot sell their homes and move to the other side of the city.
A classic example in DC is what is called the U-commuters. The live in Rockville or Reston but work in the other town. Public transportation would take over two hours and require several connections. However, there is only one overused bridge that connect the areas. thus, people sit in their cars for 90 minutes instead of stand in the metro for 90 minutes.
While it is probably true that some funds are mismanaged that could have been spent upgrading our infrastructure, it is likewise true that an ideology that embraces ‘no new taxes’ over every other consideration is not going to make this a high priority. There will probably always be some corruption and waste in government (as there is in wartime contracting!)
As far as budgets go its a shared responsibility- so both share the blame.
CS- Who will you blame if a similar occurence happens in Virginia, where the (R) legislature refused to pass the governor’s (D) mass transit bill because it involved a tax increase?
Good for Pawlenty!
“thus, people sit in their cars for 90 minutes instead of stand in the metro for 90 minutes.”
Hmm, about how big a distance are we talking here? Here in Germany, I can cover about 20 miles in 60 minutes, even though I have to switch from subway to light rail in the center…
Kim,
I agree with you that there is shared responsibility.
As to responsibility in VA- I have no idea, since I don’t know any of the specifics. If the project was a boondoggle, then good on the GOP legislature for voting it down. If it was a well planned mass transit project which should have been funded, then the legislature should have either found funds in their current budget or proposed reasonable taxes to cover the expenditure.
I know that you don’t like the groups which push for “no new taxes”, Kim, but sometimes they are doing so because they refuse to allow legislatures and governors to keep going back to the taxpayers to fund more and more projects and programs which are wasteful and rife with fraud. These people aren’t trying to send a message that they don’t want to pay for needed infrastructure, they’re saying that the govt’s already have enough to do so if they would allocate the funds properly. Saying that there will always be some fraud is a given but how much of that are we willing to tolerate?
CS said -
“push for “no new taxesâ€, Kim, but sometimes they
are doing so because they refuse to allow legislatures and governors to keep going back to the taxpayers to fund more and more projects and programs which are wasteful and rife with fraud.”
—————-
The key work here is SOMETIMES.
Someitmes it’s due to an absolutist adherence to ideology.
Sometimes it’s due to politics, pandering to conservative voters.
Someimes it’s a lot of things.
In the meantime, a lot of important issues are put off indefinitely, because the perfect solution, pleasing in every way, shape and form is simply not available.
If it’s corruption, then there should be the obvious investigations and prosecutions, BTW. That’s something all parties should support.
I agree with you about qualifying my statements with “sometimes”, Doma. In fact after I posted that last comment I wanted to add to it (but had to wait till the kids were done with homework).
What bothers me is that just because some people have a kneejerk opposition to taxes, others seem to have a kneejerk opposition to those people.
It is foolish for anyone to say that taxes should never be raised (and as Bush 41 and a host of other politicians have found out, certainly foolish for them to take such a pledge).
I’d have a lot more sympathy for those who feel that the GOP is too set on cutting taxes if I’d hear a Democrat EVER talk about cutting spending. Most people can appreciate from their household budget that you can’t just get a pay raise every time a new need comes up, you have to reprioritize your spending.
When we let the two parties deal with budgets in these black and white terms (as in, we either vote in Republicans who will cut taxes, and at least in the past would trim spending though that hasn’t been true lately- or elect Democrats who will talk Paygo but that means that we will pay and they will go) then we will never get anywhere toward reducing deficit spending OR getting our priorities right. Instead we get the worst of both worlds.
It’s time for us as voters to see through the rhetoric. The trouble with partisanship isn’t just in our elected officials who put party ahead of public good, it’s also with the voting public who fall for the divide and conquer tactics that they use to get elected. Conservative voters aren’t out to destroy the country by drying up all sources of tax revenue, but we are interested in having the politicians demonstrate actual need for new funds before they force us to open our wallets. That’s also one reason that I favor projects being devolved to the local level as much as possible: voters can at least try to keep an eye on how money is being spent and new taxes usually require ballot initiatives so that we know what we are agreeing to.
“I’d have a lot more sympathy for those who feel that the GOP is too set on cutting taxes if I’d hear a Democrat EVER talk about cutting spending.”
How about Richardson and his ‘balanced budget’ talking point? And, btw, Reagan didn’t cut spending, but raised taxes, too (and still made lots of debts). And Clinton raised the revenue and manged to pay back the debts, without ruining the economy at all.
So, I don’t think this shouldn’t be about which means to use to finance the nation, but about which way is reasonable and responsible.
Oh, and: “Conservative voters aren’t out to destroy the country by drying up all sources of tax revenue”
Never heard of ‘starving the beast’? Never read about a Dem proposing this, but lots of Repubs.
:-/
Gray:
I wasn’t very familiar with Richardson’s balanced budget proposal so I googled it. Surprise, surprise, most of the matches were for liberal sides denouncing him for it. I don’t agree with a balanced budget amendment (we need fiscal responsibility, but we need flexibility too) but kudos to him for at least being the exception to my rule.
And please note that my last statement that you took exception to referred to the average conservative voters, not the activists. Of course I was making a generalization and obviously there are GOP voters who want to “starve the beast” but that is mainly a strawman because the average GOP voter isn’t a strict small govt libertarian, or a member of Clubs for Growth. Most have never heard of Grover Norquist.
There are a lot of us who felt that Reagan had it right on downsizing the federal govt (the concept of it if not his implementation) but that doesn’t mean that we don’t want to fund the important functions of the feds as well as funding state and local needs. I think a lot of the problems that liberals criticize him for occurred because the states neglected to pick up the slack in funding- they didn’t want to raise local taxes or reappropriate their own funds, so it was easier to blame their shortfalls on Reagan’s evil cuts. And yeah, Reagan was criticized by many on the RIGHT (like myself) for allowing the spending to increase so much. The military buildup was necessary IMO but was done wastefully as usual, and other programs should have been cut more (of course I can understand the political pressure not to do so when one is demonized even if one cuts the rate of increase in spending on a program instead of cutting the actual amount of funding.)
I think the concept of federal vs. state funding gets lost on Europeans. Think of it this way: would you prefer changing to a system where Germans pay most of their taxes to EU, and have a central govt administer your roads, social spending and other needs or should that money be handled by your country? The US is a big country and oversight becomes much harder when the money goes to DC and then back to the states instead of staying in our state capitals for the needs of the state’s citizens. The DC politicians of both parties tend to welcome growth of the federal government and to sell to the public the idea that they can solve various problems which really could be better handled closer to home.
The governing philosophy of fiscally conservative Republicans is “starve the beast”.
The Economist has an article about some new research about the efficacy of “starve the beast”.
ALL “fiscally conservative Republicans”?
Any one around here?
Or is this just yet another cartoonish stereotype hurled against people here who never themselves endorsed it?
Let me revise my statement to say that it is the philosophy of the Republicans in charge. The ones who are voted in by the other Republicans who say that isn’t what they believe just because they are Republicans. Certainly it is the desire of conservative/Republican think tanks like CEI, AEI and Cato and they most definitely have influence or they wouldn’t still exist.
If we’re going to talk about needing to curb government (programs) to fit a budget, we should also talk about priorities in how to spend available resources.
Part of being fiscally responsible from my perspective is to invest in the future, and this is where the approach is entirely different among conservatives. Vast amounts of money are wasted in dead end measures that only lead to higher eependitures in the future.
Funding an expensive war could be seen as investing in the future in terms of national security.
Why is war the only thing in which we’re silling to invest with a view to the future?
Crime is fought by building more prisons, instead of investing in crime prevention, so that the budget for prisons could be decreased.
Health care costs are addressed by cutting funding to health care instead of investing in health care progaams to avoid the need for more expensive care in the future.
Bridges crumble because investing in maintenance now to prevent this from happening in the furure is not seen as fiscally conservative.
And so on down the line. Much of what is passed off as fiscally conservative today can lead fiscal bankrupcy in the future.
Frankly, I don’t have much patience with short sighted fiscal conservatism. It’s not anything like what people practice in their fiscally conservative private lives. Parents borrow to send children to college, because they understand investing in the future. People borrow to buy homes, because they
understand investing in the furure.
There is nothing new, nove or radical about the idea of being fiscally conservative by investing in a furure that would prevent even higher costs. Yet, it’s pretty much a taboo subject in many fiscally donsciencous circles.
CS-
“What bothers me is that just because some people have a kneejerk opposition to taxes, others seem to have a kneejerk opposition to those people.”
——-
I can only speak for myself.,
My reason is that putting the tax issue first, from my perspective, is putting the horse before the cart.
The first order of business, IMO, should be to identify the problems that need solving and to prioritizw them, in a nation just like in a family.
If a child breaks a leg, getting him to a doctor might mean delaying paying the utility bill one month, or borrowing, or selling the TV – whatever it takes. A parent would look for the mostt sensible way to finance a child’s need, with all options on the table.
Taking taxes off the table of options, might mean neglecting an urgent problem, if no better avenue of resources is available. That’s what actually happens, in many cases.
Democrats, I blieve, are more oriented to solving problems. Conservatives are more willing to leave problems unsolved rather than use a taboo option like taxes.
Again, I’m speaking for myself. I have no ideas what the Democrars or the Progressives as a whole think.
“I wasn’t very familiar with Richardson’s balanced budget proposal so I googled it. Surprise, surprise, most of the matches were for liberal sides denouncing him for it.”
Right. I didn’t say I like it, C, I just pointed out that there’s at least one Dem on the record for cutting spending, so you can start showing “a lot more sympathy for those who feel that the GOP is too set on cutting taxes”
“And please note that my last statement that you took exception to referred to the average conservative voters, not the activists.” Uh huh. Well, next time you make such a broad general statement in order to make republicans look good, pls bother to give us all the caveats, explaining to what limited group of people you’re referring, ok?
“Most have never heard of Grover Norquist.”
Hmm? If that’s true, this is an example of one of the big problems of democracy. Average voters don’t pay enough attention to the political discussion and ain’t got no clue who the main players are…
:-/
Ok, seriously, snark aside, you made some good points. Just one more correction: “I think the concept of federal vs. state funding gets lost on Europeans.”
Pls be careful with the usage of “Europeans”. In this case, it shouldn’t be forgotten that we still consist of several nations with surprisingly different political systems. Here in Germany, we have a federal republic (influenced by US advisers after WWII), and we know the problem of finding a satisfying compromise between national and state interests very well. We have both taxes going to the feds and to the state government. Also, there is a correction mechanism, so that the difference between rich and poor regions doesn’t become to large.
Actually, the main fights are not about taxes, but spending. Governors complain about federal laws that result in new financial obligations for the states. Ok, you see, at least in Germany we know those kind of conflicts.
Gray: On the Europe issue, I was only using the comparison in terms of size/scale. The US size is more comparable to EU as a whole than to any one individual country, so I was trying to illustrate to you what my concern is about the unmanageable size of federal govt here.
On your point about the distinction between activists and the average voter: this distinction is true in any political party. The activists drive the most extreme sides of the agenda while the voters are generally much more moderate in their views but have enough common ground that they identify with the extremists in one party more than they do with those of the opposing party. But yes, your point about people needing to be better informed is well taken.
Doma: I think you are drawing conclusions about which party neglects things without a solid basis in fact. Theoretically I get your point about long range goals and more creative, proactive solutions coming from the progressive side (which in fact is why I’m not a staunch libertarian type of conservative, and which is why I recognize the value of the full spectrum of political opinion). But one big caveat is that governments are NOT in fact motivated by the same forces as parents are for the welfare of their kids. Parents do indeed often make correct decisions about long term investments, because they have the correct motivations to help their kids’ futures. In the case of government though, a conflicting interest usually factors in: the self interest of the politician and political party to gain power. THAT is why conservatives tend to look for private sector solutions over government ones. Frankly it’s sometimes hard for me to understand how people can see the dangers of an authoritarian right wing government but have blinders on when it comes to left wing politicians who proclaim that they have the answers to our problems and ask us to give them the power and the money to institute their solutions.
Jim: I’m at a loss as to how you can claim that the Republicans who are currently “in charge” are those who want to “starve the beast” when the recent GOP Congress drove up deficit spending. I don’t want to elect conservatives who blindly try to cut spending to starve government, but the ones elected recently have done just the opposite. The ones I want to elect would lie somewhere in between those two extremes; they’d have a willingness to seriously cut waste and fraud but also a willingness to spend and invest in needed programs and infrastructure even if it meant giving up some tax cuts or restructuring to increase the tax burden if necessary (particularly in wartime).