« Live-blog post from Cleveland Debate: Make them play war games
News Media, Pundit And Weblog Reaction To Obama Clinton Ohio Primary Debate »
The Brain-Dead Republicans
It’s been nearly seven months since the bridge collapse here in Minnesota. Right or wrong, it has become a symbol of our crumbling transportation infastructure.
For several years, transportation has been a burning issue. We were slow to light rail transit, and our freeways, built when the Twin Cities was a much smaller metro area, are full. Governor Tim Pawlenty (a potential VP candidate for John McCain), has taken a strong “no new taxes” pledge to the delight of hard core conservatives. Of course, a government has to do things like maintain roads, so Mr. Pawlenty has decided to use bonding bills to pay for some improvements, which is basically putting things on a credit card to pay someday. The Democrats, with the help of a few Republicans, crafted a bill that would raise the gas tax by five cents (something that hasn’t been done in twenty years) , add to the sales tax in the metro area to pay for transit and raise license fees for new cars. The bill was vetoed by the Governor, but was overidden by the House.
The result for the dissident Republicans was that they were punished, losing leading leadership positions and quite possibily facing intra-party challenges.
I share this because it is part of the problem with the Republican party these days: it can’t tolerate independence. The party of the man that once said, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor,” seems more interested in making sure everyone toes the line to what they think is party orthodoxy.
Of course, it is important to have some sense of ideological cohesion. Ideology gives some framework to a political party. But ideology should be loose fitting lest it be a straight jacket.
And the analogy of a straight jacket makes some sense: those who seek purity tend to stop thinking. You don’t have to use your brain if all you do is adhere to party tenets all the time.
This is why John McCain is still not loved by the hard core conservatives: he’s willing to think for himself. He is definitely conservative, but in a democracy where one works with others who don’t share the same views, he works with Democrats to get legislation passed. Things get done, but he angers the hard core because he isn’t upholding the party line.
To me, such thinking is proof of a party in decline, a party turned in on itself. Punishing heretics might make one feel good, but after a while people start falling away. That’s what has been happening to the GOP for years. People get tired of being called “RINOs” and traitors and walk away. I know a fair number of people who have left the GOP because of such narrow thinking.
Frankly, it’s way past time for a Republican Reformation. There need to be new ideas to fit the times. But it might take losing this year and in 2010 and in 2012 for the GOP to see it needs to become the party of ideas again.
24 Responses to “The Brain-Dead Republicans”
“People get tired of being called “RINOs” and traitors and walk away.”
Nicely put. While both parties are guilty of becoming more extreme over the past 10-20 years, the Republican victories since 2000 seem to have forced the Democrats to backtrack a bit and try to broaden their tent, while the Republican party seems to have continued marching further to the right. Based mostly on reading some “conservative” blogs and columnists, the arguments on the right seem to focus on who IS NOT a Republican/conservative much more than who IS a Republican/conservative. Questioning the use of torture, arguing in favor of global warming, questioning party leadership, and hundreds of other positions all seem to be automatic disqualifications for membership in the Republican party. Until Republicans focus more in inclusion than exclusion, the party will find itself continuing to shrink and lose influence.
I think this is a bit narrow pointing to just one party. Leberman anyone?
Isn't this the real problem? Conservative Republicans don't just spend like drunken sailors, they spend like drunken sailors who've taken out a bunch of payday loans with extortionary interest rates that somebody else will have to pay.
On the day after the bridge collapsed, everyone went looking at the State of Minnesota budget. About 1% of the budget was dedicated to transportation whereas 50% of the budget was spend on schools. Before raising taxes, maybe someone should have suggested cutting something else from the budget such as minority set aside contracting to pay for transportation.
What some realize is that even after the bridge is repaired, the higher taxes will still be around. What some realize is that a large flat city does not lend itself to public transportation like light rail.
Yes, the Republicans are dead but the real quesiton is what will the U.S. be like as a one party state. Will ever special interested group be able to get a tax increase to fund pet projects? Will anyone be able to say no. If you look at placed that are already single party like DC or California, you should realize that the one party state leads very quickly to out of control spending.
Superdestroyer–
Republicans don't cut spending. Do they?
And since they don't cut spending, the bill will still have to be paid some day. Won't they?
By the way, the governor of California is a Republican. Isn't he?
GS,
Yes, one of the reasons that the Repulbican Party has quickly become irrelevant is that they have refused to cut taxing. If they are going to have a 33% approval rating, the least that they could have done is cut spending to earn to low approval rating.
The only thing Republican about Gov. Schwarzenegger is the (R) next to his name. He has given the Democratic legislature everything that they have wanted and has been rewarded his a massive budget deficit. I have not seen one policy success that Gov. Schwarzenegger has had where Gov. David would not have done the same thing.
SD – Like Reagan, the Terminator has to govern with the opposition party running the Legislature. True leadership is shown when you don't have a consensus.
Ideas? I 've only noticed one.
I've got mine, f*ck you, any other idea they may claim to have are just ancillary to that one and have no other purpose than to make it look palatable.
The Independent – With current U.S. national debt at $9.2 trillion, it is time for each individual to be alarmed Each person owes $30,000
Cut taxes on the well off, run a deficit and then borrow money from them. They get lower taxes an guaranteed interest payments, and the rest of us get to hear hoe the Republicans are the party of Fiscal Responsibility.
Good topic.
I would prefer that the GOP adjust from posturing against ALL taxes to posturing for the efficient management of our taxes with competitive contracts and accountability. They could be the party of the biggest bang for our bucks.
I'd accept higher taxes if I was confident that it was well spent towards improving my wellbeing and that of my community.
don quijote, thanks for that link. Good summary. Since that article was published last month, the debt has increased to 9.3 trillion. Each of us owes $234 a month interest on the debt and all individual taxes paid west of the Mississippi goes exclusively to pay interest on the debt. Is this the Republicans' fault? Well, yes. Every president since WWII has reduced the national debt except three: Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. This is all about raiding the treasury and racking up huge debt while lining the pockets of the rich and powerful, all the while promoting this fiction that it's good for the economy. They're laughing all the way to the bank, while some here endlessly debate how to cut taxes and shrink government. They want it all, and they're getting it from the GOP. I hope SD and DLS are right that the GOP is finished for now. They've been an incredibly destructive force.
More detail? All data from the White House's own figures:
Greendreams,
You claim on the budget is not true. President Carter ran a budget defict every year he was in office. President Clinton ran up more debt in the first five years of office than he had as a surplus in his last three years. See http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://w…
It seems that the best thing to do about the budget deficit is too have Democrats in charge of the executive branch and Republicans in charge of Congress.
It would also be safe to say that the last time that a Democratic controlled house passed a balanced budget was in 1968.
SD, that's only half the story, the graph I linked to is debt as a % of GDP, a more relevant number than deficit. Ike and Kennedy/Johnson reduced it the most, -14%, Carter only -3%. Bush/Reagan doubled it, back to Eisenhower era 65%; an increase of +32%.
If you're unclear about the distinction, debt as a % of productivity is how businesses and banks assess fiscal health. (I'm not trying to be patronizing, just unsure if you know why absolute debt is a lesser measure than relative debt). Reagan claimed, as Bush does, that tax cuts will increase the plus side sufficiently to overcome the revenue loss. It didn't and doesn't.
In absolute terms, though, Reagan and the two Bushes are responsible for 90% of the debt. Here it is, adjusted for inflation, with a good explanation of why the debt/GDP chart is the most accurate.
Oh and your concept that the GOP in charge of the legislative branch is a good thing is trashed by the GOP's behavior in the last 7 years. During Clinton's term, the GOP fought his economic policies tooth and nail, claiming it would put us in a recession. They were wrong.
Well SD, your about to get a Dem congress and President, we'll see who is right. Altho I'm sure if the numbers don't line up you'll find another flimsy justification for maintaining your strict adherence to GOP mythology.
OH, and Carter inheritied a truckload of problems from the administration before him, just as Obama is going to. Frankly I'd give him a muligan for the first 2 years in office.
Adherence to strict orthodoxy is killing the GOP. While many conservatives think the present administration isn't conservative enough, the majority of the country disagrees. That is the discontent that Obama has so successfully tapped into, and it may very well propel him into the White House.
Forcing candidates to sign Grover Norquist's “NO NEW TAXES” pledge binds their hands unnecessarily, and gives us the prospect of more deficit spending, as spending cuts in the era of an aging population and a global war on terror are highly unlikely in the next 4 years.
Greendreams,
You picked a odd statistic. Carter ran budget deficits, Clinton ran deficits five out of eight years. Every budget deficit from the Reagan and Bush I administration was approved by a majority Democratic House. Tip O'Neill and Tom Foley could have balanced the budget any time they wanted. The approved massive budget deficits. Blaming Republicans for budget deficits during the Reagan and Bush I administration is incorrect.
The misery index was the highest in the post war era in the last year of the Carer Administration, 1980. Double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and the highest crime rate ever. Of course, the Democrats in Congress during the 1970's failed to exercise their oversight function as much as the Republicans during the 2000's.
Kritt11,
After spending like drunken sailors, the last thing the Republicans need to be supporting it more spending. The Republicans need to support budget cuts with no new tax cuts. The Republicans also need to start doing their homework and finding programs, budgets, and facilities that can be cut. Trying to be Democratic-lite will be a huge disaster. Just ask the Republicans in Mass. or Maryland how it works out. Republicans candidates should be signing “NO NEW SPENDING” pledge instead of no new taxes.
SD- No one's saying that the GOP should continue the they were on for the last 7 years. But it just shows that its easier to talk about cutting spending than to actually do it, as most programs have strong interest groups that get up in arms when cuts are made to their particular sacred cow. But hypocrisy hurt the GOP even more than spending did. With an aging population, crumbling infrastructure and massive entitlement and defense budgets, pledging no new taxes is unfeasable.
BTW, Republican governors have succesfully led Democratic states. Bob Ehrlich left office in '06 with a 60% approval rating, and Romney was a successful governor in Massachussets. Arnold is doing well in California— they love him.
SD, believe me, I'm not unaware of how bad the Carter years got. I remember “stag-flation” quite well. Nonetheless, the national debt was flat at about 1 trillion from the end of WWII to the end of Carter's presidency. You're ignoring inflation and population growth–again. As a % of GDP since the end of WWII, ONLY Reagan, Bush I and II have contributed to the $9.3 trillion debt.
And you can't blame Congress. We know who signs the budget and develops the fiscal policy, and when the prez doesn't like a budget, he vetoes it. This always cracks me up. Reagan admirers especially always credit him with this big expansion and blame the Dems for the debt, at the same time! Now I'm hearing the same thing about Bush.
Oh yeah, remember that newborn? Born $30,000 in debt and from day one (sorry Hillary), the baby owes over $200 a month (and rising). Time to cut loose all those corporate freeloaders and cronies.
kritt,
Ehrlich was a complete failure as the governor of Maryland. He did not get to implement any of his agenda and the day after he left office, it was like he was never governor. Ehrlich spent four years having his vetos overridden by the Democrats in the state house. Ehrlich lost in a rout to a big city mayor who has raised taxes in Maryland and was corrupt as the mayor of Balimore.
Romney also spent his time as governor having his vetos overridden and the day after Romney left office Mass. was more Democratic than when Romney started.
Schwarzenegger is popular because he is a media star. He operates no differently than if Gray Davis was still the governor. Of course, Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Democrats in the California legislature have run up a $15 billion dollar budget deficit, so they cannot be that competent.
If infrastructure and entitlements are important, than other parts of the budget should be cut to make up the different. Arguing that the only way to fund infrastructure is new taxes means that everything the government is currently doing is more important than infrastructure repairs. I do not believe that is the case and expect political leaders to make hard choices of deciding what is really important than the easy way out of raising taxes.
And two last points: People only support tax increases when they believe that others will pay for them. That is the entire, focus group tested idea behind saying that the “rich” will pay more taxes. Very few people believe that are really rich and thus believe someone else will pay the taxes. Second, do you really believe that a massive tax increase is the best idea in the middle of a recession. Didn't the U.S. try that during the Depression with very negative outcomes?
SD- Yes Ehrlich was overrode by the legislature, but he still had some achievements. For a Republican in a largely Democratic state he did ok. But he pulled some nasty campaign tricks on O'Malley, who is, after all a real Irish rock star. When a Democrat or Republican has to work with a legislature overrun by the other party they have to compromise. That's what Schwarzennegger did and what Romney did. Ehrlich lost some support because most of the time he refused to work with the legislature- in that respect he reminds me a little of Bush.
SD, rolling back temporary tax CUTS for those making >$250,000 a year is not a “massive tax increase”. We enact tax changes to incentivize certain behaviors that we think are good for the country. I didn't ask for a break, and anyone who thinks I'll stop trying to make money because the tax rate is returned to what it was before is simply an idiot. The progressive tax rate that topped out at over 70% before Reagan did not keep current millionaires from reaching higher.
Greendreams,
70% marginal tax rates during a recession or economic down turn have a huge negative effect. Just look at th e1970's. You should also remember that the Democratic Congress in the 1960's and 70's were too stupid to index tax rates to inflation. People kept paying higher taxes when their real wages were not going up. Tax cheating was a massive problems in the 1970's. Remember when everyone claimed to have a home office? Remember when the government final said that a home business actually had to try to make money?
People have forgotten when the lottery winners took the 25year payout because of the huge negative tax implications of a lump sum.
With our economy going into a slump, why is it that political figures are destroying valid financial options? Payday loans are an essential part of the U.S. financial system, providing loans to those who have bad or no credit that need the money fast. Yet, for one reason or another, legislators are targeting this financial system. Some states, such as Georgia and North Carolina, have even banned the industry all together! The politics behind it is simple; banks are lobbying the legislators to try and destroy their oncoming competition, and the legislators are falling for it. Even taking out the fact that banks are trying to take away your financial choices and freedoms so they can have a monopoly on loans, the corruption of our politics is simply wrong. Our opinions must be heard, and our freedom of choice, financial or not, should not be dampened on the soul fact on one person's financial gain.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans….
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/