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.