Listening Again to Republicans
Whiplash Alert: A few weeks after suggesting I might start voting all-Democrat (then changing my mind) — and a mere two days after cringing (despite the source) at certain surveyed beliefs of the GOP base — I discover that I’m again listening to (and agreeing with) certain proposals made by both GOP leadership and Republican friends of mine.
My right-leaning readers are probably wondering “What took so long?” — while my left-leaning readers are asking “WTF?” Neither will be entirely pleased with the following, extended explanation.
As disappointed as I was (and still am) by the Massachusetts special election’s knock-out punch to federal health care reform, I’m also (like many others) increasingly concerned about the nation’s larger fiscal mess. To help fix that mess, I agree we have to crimp escalating health care costs, for government, businesses, and individuals. And the more I read (thank you, Jonathan Rauch, among others) the more I think the Senate bill would have helped do that.
But that’s only part of the equation. We must also, obviously and primarily, revive the nation’s job-creating machine. Granted, that machine can be (and sometimes must be) juiced by government in the form of imperfect stimulus measures and bail-outs. But this machine cannot be sustained by or reach its full potential due to government.
Despite my creeping liberalism on many issues, despite my stubborn overall support for President Obama, I agree with free-market Republicans and Democrats that the job machine can only reach its full potential when entrepreneurs are given running room to apply their savvy and nerve to new ideas, with the express intent of creating wealth for themselves and, by default, others. Net: While I’d like to see a little less greed in this nation, I remain convinced that a healthy dose of greed is still necessary for the deployment of opportunities to the broadest possible swath of people.
So, what constitutes “running room” for entrepreneurs? In a phrase: Lack of interference, including unnecessary rules or mandates.
The President and progressive/progressive-leaning Democrats would probably say they agree with virtually all these points. And they might sincerely think they agree with them. But when pressed on how to provide running room for entrepreneurs, their actions are not always consistent with their proclaimed beliefs.
Here’s an example that one of my Republican friends mentioned the other day: The White House proposal to “require employers who do not offer a retirement plan to enroll their employees in a direct-deposit individual retirement account unless the employee opts out.”
Now, I’m all for incentives to employers to offer retirement plans. I’m all for incentives to individuals to start and maintain retirement plans. But mandating that “employers who do not offer a retirement plan … enroll their employees” in one is not only saddling the employer with a responsibility that rightly belongs to the employee, it’s saddling the employer with a series of potentially expensive, time-consuming responsibilities that add rather than remove interference, that subtract rather than expand running room for the entrepreneur.
Some of you will scoff at this example, but your scoff suggests you’re not familiar with the level of record-keeping and reporting obligations — and fines for compliance failures — that are frequently attached to such proposals. It all sounds wonderful on the surface, and the authorizing legislation might be as clean and simple as the original concept, but by the time the regulatory rules are written to implement the legislation, that original wonderful idea could turn into an administrative nightmare.
The most unfortunate part of this equation is not what proposals like this one do to large and super-large companies; those companies already offer 401k or other retirement plans. The most unfortunate part is that proposals like this one have the potential to negatively and disproportionately impact the companies that are creating the most new jobs: small and medium-sized businesses.
So there you have it: One example of where I’m listening again to grassroots Republicans. Now, here’s an example of where I’m listening again to Congressional Republicans: A group of GOP Senators was expected to introduce this morning a constitutional amendment “requiring the federal government to keep a balanced budget.”
Sure, this type of amendment needs to be carefully worded and implemented. First, there needs to be an exceptions clause: for instance, deficit spending would be allowed when simple (or super?) majorities in both chambers agree that extraordinary circumstances require it. Second, there needs to be a phase-in period: Before the full-force of such an amendment took effect, we would need to see the economy growing again on a sustained basis, unemployment trending downward, and Congressional agreement on the interim measures required to produce a balanced budget. However, with such caveats incorporated, I have to believe this amendment (especially if it’s combined with a deficit-reducing commission that too many Republicans are still resisting) would apply the pressure necessary to force Congress to do what it has so far — under both parties’ control and with rare exception — failed to do.
After all of that, let me conclude with the items on which the Republicans are still losing me, a combination of beliefs and practices that make it difficult to give the GOP credit, even when it’s due.
At the top of the list are the aforementioned beliefs of some (too many) in the GOP base, plus the party leadership’s outright stoking of, or refusal to unequivocally denounce, such beliefs.
Next on the list are the screaming soundbites sans honesty.
For instance, the charge that mirandizing the undie bomber (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab) is a travesty, when the shoe bomber (Richard Reid) was also mirandized … repeatedly.
Another example: Boehner’s “more than $2 trillion in tax hikes” charge, in response to Obama’s latest budget.
What Boehner and his staff failed to clarify, until they were pressed, is that (a) $2T is a ten-year not one-year figure and (b) the lion’s share of these apparently new taxes are actually a re-instatement of not-that-long-ago taxes, i.e., returning “marginal rates to 36 and 39.6 percent for taxpayers earning over $200K (single) and $250K (joint)”, i.e., partially reversing Republican tax cuts that contributed significantly to the deficit hole we’re in now.
Furthermore, after they were pressed, Boehner and his staff still did not acknowledge that (a) as the White House forecast of ongoing and significant annual deficits demonstrates, we might have to bite the bullet and accept “tax hikes” greater than $2T over 10 years to dig out of the hole Republicans helped put us in, even if Congress finds the backbone to make potentially severe adjustments to entitlements; and (b) it becomes very difficult to make enough severe adjustments to entitlements when certain prominent Republicans characterize proposed cuts to Medicare as an assault on grandparents.
Bottom line, to the GOP: If you care, you’ve regained this prodigal son’s attention. I admit, over the last several years, I have wandered too far away from certain core principles. However, if party leaders want to keep my attention, and earn the attention of others like me, you’ve got to do something about the (excuse the term) delusional masses who apparently represent a third or more of your electorate. You’ve also got to start being more honest in your arguments, about terrorism, about deficit control, and so on. And no, you’re not excused from that honesty just because your opponents commit the same sins.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
39 Responses to “Listening Again to Republicans”
A balanced budget amendment? Please. You have to be kidding.
I have been critical of the scope of Obama's deficit spending, and its targets, but in a recession deficit spending, of appropriate levels and to the appropriate places, is vital so spur a recovery.
Additionally, past experience has shown in other situations that the real result with be yet more and more items being moved 'off-budget' in a shadow game of bogus accounting,
Pete, have you gone to confession lately?
This amendment also included a 1-year moratorium on earmarks, but this little gimmick of seeing the fiscal conservative light has been attempted before:
Seems DOA. And about the balanced budget amendment itself:
That's worked out so well for California, hasn't it?
Schady,
The “Balanced Budget Amendment” is bogus political posturing and doesn't work at a practical level. Government budgets get balanced with smoke and mirrors, not with dollars and cents (or sense). You are correct and jchem got this one right too. Anyone in Washington who was serious about deficit reduction would be beating the drum for the independent commission.
Hey Pete, make up your mind…or maybe join the rest of us Independents and let the partisan inner conflict slip quietly into your history.
So when will America decide it is feeling fresh and healed to the point where it can deal with the climate, the infrastructure or deal with the conflict between American law and right-wing approaches to interrogation? Probably never, because I think the US is now committed to running into the future to escape its past.
Racial issues? Solvedsolvedsolvedmovealong! Mason-Dixon? FIXED! Ford? Nixon had to HEAL THE NATION. Nixon and The 70s? S:t Reagan fixed all that! Did we resolve the 80s? We stick to Reaganism for a little while longer – if you just say trees cause pollution jokingly and cockily enough, climate issues are *solved*!
Never mind the fact that you all suffered two crippling wars because you were too stressed out to deal with Nixon or Ford properly (a blowjob, of course, was a matter vulgar and simplistic enough to cause a tantrum over) and thus never learned a valuable lesson about keeping track of the CoC even in scary times. Never mind that Padilla had to suffer things you average people never dreamed about because you were just too stressed out after 9/11 (and are still just too stressed out to investigate whether war crimes happened – we have to HEAL the nation). Another layer of plastic surgery and all the past scars can be forgotten. Of course, sooner or later the *laziness* of you and your predecessors will come home to roost.
But mandating that “employers who do not offer a retirement plan … enroll their employees” in one is not only saddling the employer with a responsibility that rightly belongs to the employee, it’s saddling the employer with a series of potentially expensive, time-consuming responsibilities that add rather than remove interference, that subtract rather than expand running room for the entrepreneur.
Exactly. Think of this as an unfunded mandate for businesses.
Not a very flattering portrait there Axel. Not so far off the mark though. One party makes a huge mess and is in denial about the problems facing the country, and the other party is too afraid of offending the first party to get serious about breaking the pattern. It's pathetic really, and is far, far, far from the dynamic that got this country off the ground and well into the 20th century. The national IQ test results aren't looking very good.
“In all the Ryan budget plan dubbed the “Roadmap for America's Future” would take the deficit from 11 percent of gross domestic product in 2009 to 4.8 percent in 2030 and 2.6 percent in 2050. The Congressional Budget Office shows the GOP plan would end the deficit around 2060 and they would produce a surplus of 6 percent of gross domestic product by 2083.”
You might as well jam a cork into whatever ear is facing the republicans, Mr. Abel.
At *least* democrats will give you a reach-around. Republicans will at best yank your hair. This fact might be extremely ignoble to act upon, but unless you actually enjoy punishment without the pet's rewards, then the choice is clear.
I don't regret that analogy – it's sadly very accurate.
“require employers who do not offer a retirement plan to enroll their employees in a direct-deposit individual retirement account unless the employee opts out”
Presumed consent is inappropriate here. It's also paternalistic, as well as a mandate (unfunded) on employers. (It's also a coarse cost-shifting attempt, given what they want everybody to have for retirement, a cost shift that reduces concerns in the future that Social Security benefits will be viewed as inadequate or so low as to be undignifying.)
Why force such a mandate on employers? They're too scared to do this themselves, probably, too scared to seek increases in Social Security benefits, or to create an all-new portable retirement fund program. (And note it's an IRA — which means that these high and mighty Dems may have taken superficial notes from the Bush plan of the previous decade.) (It's also similar to what they've chosen to attempt with “climate” leftist-politics-based energy policy — they want a complicated cap and trade scam rather than take the more honest political risk of the more effective energy or “carbon” tax.)
Pete, keep vaccilating, undulating and cogitating. Too easy to become an Indie and throw up your hands. Maybe the GOP will hear the drum beats and improve. Dems could also use more thinking people, and in a perfect world something like a bi-partisan commission could actually fly and ear marks could disappear.
Hah! Duck,
Don't go disrespecting us Indies. We determine the outcome of almost every election in America. And, we get to think for ourselves instead of having party officials do our thinking for us. Indies don't throw up their hands, they throw off their shackles.
tidbits
Oh my god. Not another thing we agree on!
Oh my god. Not another thing we agree on!
Oh my god. Not another thing we agree on!
Um, I'm glad that Schadenfreude and I agree on more than I thought at first. But not THAT happy. I'm sorry for the two extra bursts of exuberance.
Kathy, I'm getting a little concerned. I agreed with Shaden earlier today, and now I find myself in agreement with DLS's last comment as well. Time to take stock.
Yup, that happens right after they've finished jumping back and forth from one side of the fence to the other a half dozen times.
That's a pretty damned direct question to ask of a country suffering a serious cognitive disorder and having the collective attention span of a cocker spaniel. Got any easier questions???
their shackles. :-”
I still like that Pete is a declared vacillator.
Where have you found those wondrous creatures?
JS,
Using principles and core values to determine your position on issues is not jumping back and forth across the fence. As an example, my core values/principles are freedom, fairness and fiscal responsibilty. You can take any position I have advocated here and that position can be explained in accordance with one or more of those principles. I would say that partisans jump back and forth across the fence of principles because they determine their stance based on what gives them political advantage, or opposing whatever the “other side” supports.
Here are some examples of positions openly on TMV, and why.
- support for gay and (and polygamist) marriage…freedom and fairness
- opposition to corporate welfare and subsidies…fiscal responsibility
- support of the Ledbetter Act…fairness
- opposition to the continuing resolution, with 2000 earmarks…fiscal responsibility
- opposition to hate crime legislation…freedom
- support for repeal of DADT…fairness
- pro gun…freedom
- opposition to Citizens United decision…freedom and fairness (for individuals)
- opposition to HRC…freedom(individual government mandates) and fiscal responsibility (broad economic impact)
- torture prosecution…fairness, equal justice
- immigration reform…fairness (btw, including equal access to healthcare for “illegals” if HRC passes)
Now, if you look at that list, you'll see some positions that you might call “conservative” and some you might call “liberal”. They are neither. They are positions consistent with principles and core values.
The myth that Independents are wishy washy know-nothings is BS promulgated by partisans. The truth is that Independents have the courage to evaluate issues based on fundamental principles and to make decisions that are logically, morally and ethically consistent, rather than compliant with partisanship designed to oppose another group. It also allows us to evaluate positions without getting personal. I don't have to hate or love someone because that person is R or D, lib or con.
Finally, Independents have the wonderful opportunity to appreciate nuances rather than being forced to gloss over nuances in pursuit of a hardline partisan stand. We have the unique privilege of being able to appreciate that both sides have something to say and that, perhaps, neither is completely right. We can, thereby, respect opposing views without hating those who disagree or getting sucked into false praise of partisan idols.
No, JS, the reason partisans fear and try to diminish Independents, is because principled Independents have the courage to think instead of follow. Nothing personal, just defending myself from a couple of attacks on Indies in this thread.
Q: What are average retirement savings?
The Typical 401k Plan Participant
Americans are Unprepared for Retirement
And once more Cheap Labor Conservatism bites, you can expect to see a lot of eighty year olds working as greeters at Walmart and having cat food for dinner…
Lots of Baby Boomers better hope that they are on very good terms with their children…
Of course the Republicans also said that they believed in not only leaving the Bush tax cuts in place, but expand on them. They also think that cutting the corporate income tax rate to 25% while not closing any of the existing loopholes in the system is fiscal responsibility.
Yikes! I didn't expect to be taken so seriously, did you miss the little winky guy at the end of my comment? I was (mostly) teasing. I don't in fact view you as someone who switches positions. However, since your reaction is a serious one I guess I need to respond in kind:
First of all, I don't assume anyone is a spokesperson for “independents” even to the extent of being able to define what they are. (I did however vote for John Anderson back when he ran as an actual “Independent” – but that may have been before your time) I think your own definition of an independent is a great one though – as an ideal, a goal to shoot for (perhaps more than the reality) and of course I accept that the definition applies to yourself and probably a great many other independents as well. And by the way, thank-you for describing your positions. I think most of the people who care enough to post here are people who are consistent in their views, although I do believe there is a fair portion of the electorate that is fairly clueless and suggestible.
As for your assumption that I am a partisan (and you've made it clear you think I am one) I have to reject the label. As I've said before, I am issue oriented and consider myself a realist. To the extent that my views line up with the democrats then it's because I see certain of their views as more realistic, or at least more directed toward a positive longrange outcome than what I see from other quarters – for now. But in my lifetime of excercising my rights as a citizen I've voted republican, democrat, independent, green, and even for write in candidates. It's no secret that I lean toward a more “liberal” ideology, but again, I care about issues; whoever is representing them best gets my vote. Party loyalty has nothing to do with it.
Despite a comment or two I've made in the past about the fickle nature of some so-called independents (not anyone on TMV) I have no vendatta or desire to “diminish” them… maybe just tease them a little when it seems they may be acting a little too ahh… suggestible. My own positions have been pretty consistent for decades now. If the republicans, or the libertarians, or the independents, or some new party I've never heard of starts advocating for the issues I care about (starting with matters related to the environment and the uncontrolled way humans have negatively impacted the planet and are continuing to do so – with human rights and how they relate to society a close second) then they will get my vote, regardless of what they want to call themselves.
Again, thanks for describing your views. I won't make the mistake of directing any silly comments toward you in the future. Well, maybe only one or two.
Baby boomers between the ages of 41 and 54 have typically a retirement savings of $30,000.
I think we can agree on the problem.
My favored solution: start teaching people they need to flippin' save for retirement.
Don Q, those are interesting numbers, but I'm betting they've undergone a change by now. I know many folks who have burned through their savings and are tapping into their retirement already, and it remains to be seen how long such a trend might continue. The social security safety net may become more important for some folks who previously had considered it to only be an extra kick. Of course it all will all depend on jobs, jobs, and of course jobs.
The average yearly wage in the US is 39,652.61, the Median is $26,514.38.
Assuming that the average earner saved 10% of his gross income for forty years, it would not be enough to maintain their 75% of their current standard of living…. That also assumes that they have the good sense of kicking the bucket before eighty. If they live on past eighty, they better acquire a taste for cat food…
If a system fails 70% or more of the people, the system has failed, not the people…
You're absolutely right that you can't save 10% and spend 75% for very long. That's not the “system” failing, that's “arithmetic” working.
Probably won't be eating the food I feed my cats, that stuff is 35 bux a case.
JS,
I knew you were teasing (as was dduck), but saw it as an opportunity to make a point. The teasing you engaged in represents serious belief or bias on the part of some. Feel free to direct any non-serious remarks you wish my way in the future. Many Independents have a sense of humor.
I'll take you at your word that you are not a partisan and respect that in the future.
Btw, I also voted for John Anderson…hardly before my time.
Be careful. Next you will find yourself visiting and enjoying Libertarian websites!
(as was dduck”
Half serious. I still think one should choose the party that has the core issues you agree with and then vacillate on the smaller ones (including voting for the other party individuals once in a while). Also, I had a problem when I was a registered Ind., in that I couldn't vote in Rep. primaries.
OK, now I'm really impressed!
I didn't know Yes ran a candidate for President!
Funny you should mention that, I was trying to figure out part of Starship Trooper on the guitar yesterday.
Start by growing freakishly long fingers.
My brother is a guitarist, I play bass, and we *try* to play Yes, but man, that is some really difficult stuff to master. Good luck!
Yeah, it's great stuff and beyond my abilities, I have fun making some approximate noises in that direction, but that's about it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC_62O0dUEc
dduck,
In reply to your remark, “I still think one should choose the party that has the core issues you agree with and then vacillate on the smaller ones.” That would be the None-Of-The-Above Party.
Or, to paraphrase Groucho Marx: any party that would have me as a member, I wouldn't join.
“you can expect to see a lot of eighty year olds working as greeters at Walmart”
Don't count on that if what it did with Sam's Club is the example for the future.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-25/wal…
That would be the None-Of-The-Above Party.”
That would be the Groucho party. My problem is, that when I was a reg. Indie., I almost always voted Rep.
So, I was a Rep. in sheep's clothing. Fortunately, we are all free to be Indies. when we get in the voting booth.