Republicans need to be bold
Oct 29th, 2009 by David Anderson
I believe the reason Republicans lost the House and Senate in 2006 is because they refused to take chances. They promised tax reform if they had a Republican in 2001. 2003, 2004, 2005 passed and they made the code more contorted and complicated. They promised a more open budget process. They gave us more closed door earmarks. Republicans were stuck with the war. They were going to lose seats. Up to 4 senate seats were close to being beyond salvage and at least a dozen house seats.
The rest could have been salvaged by a reform agenda starting with the tax reform President Bush promised at the beginning of the year. His plan was underwhelming and would not have created growth, but it was a start. Tax policy is the province of the Congress. Bold tax reform would have galvinized the base and saved the seats (15 house seats were lost by fewer than 3000 votes and half of the senate seats by fewer than 20,000 votes including control lost by 3 seats all 6000 votes or fewer). Imagine if some market based health reform was started. Imagine if the drilling ban was lifted. Imagine if earmarks required a vote. Imagine if the reform of Freddie and Fannie actually was put on the front burner.
The party lost because it refuse to try to score when it had the ball. The other team would score and we would hand them the ball back and play defense. We would win some and then hand them the ball back and lose some. It was a receipe for defeat, and we dined on it.
If we are to take back seats and maybe the Congress, we need to adopt the Ryan approach and start offering amendments that may even pull a couple of moderate Democrats. Coburn/Ryan should be offered as a substitute on the floor of the Senate. It should be part of a recommit motion in the house. We need to show the public we are more than the party of not Obama and Clinton.
Tom Blankley wrote a thoughtful article on “GOP Must Not Vote ‘Present’ on Our Future”.
A growing percentage of those Americans who oppose President Barack Obama believe the president is testing the envelope of acceptable domestic, constitutional and foreign policies. Staggering deficits measured in the trillions, unemployment measured almost in double digits and a weakening dollar measured in ever fewer ounces of gold are creating an economic crisis that is testing America’s historic optimism and faith in a brighter future.
and
But the political mood is beginning to feel to me like the late 1970s, when I was working on Ronald Reagan’s campaign, which used bold language, starkly conservative policies and genuine passion. Then, too, many Republicans judged we would scare off the independent and undecided voters.
But in times of fear, anger and passion, the opposition party must stand with that passion — not aside. There still will be calmer, moderate votes needed, as well, to win. And that is where the shrewdness and style of the party’s leader or leaders may make the difference. But I strongly suspect that the GOP cannot (and, for me personally, should not) vote “present” when “the times they are a-changin’.” As the Bob Dylan lyric goes, “Get out of the new (road) if you can’t lend your hand.”
It’s a shame it’s not us at the forefront of a new national simple streamlined single payer health insurance system. The GOP could be the vanguard Party.
The original Republican Party did all kinds of big bold good things. Created the national parks system, created national anti-trust regulations, built the national highway system, created national worker safety regulations with OSHA, national environmental laws EPA, signed the Americans With Disabilities Act into law. Here’s what President Nixon said about health insurance (having lost two brothers to TB) -
“Turning now to the rest of the agenda for 1974, the time is at hand this year to bring comprehensive, high quality health care within the reach of every American. I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses.” (Richard Nixon, January 30, 1974)
Not sure how the GOP got so anti-progressive. I hope we return to our traditional values soon.
Silly Bill Holt, don’t you know Republicans like Teddy Roosevelt (thinking of the National Parks reference) are the crazy commie-libs of today? At least it’s good company I’m in!
-R’commie-lib’Smitty
Back when Republicans were progressive and Dems were racist…
Progressives gave us policies which have us $56,400,000,000,000 in the hole long-term. Nice people. Unsustainable ideology.
‘Course, pure conservatism is unsustainable as well.
Progressives gave us policies which have us $56,400,000,000,000 in the hole
Progressives like Reagan, GHWB, GWB…..
None of those Presidents gave us Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security. Everything they did pales in comparison. You might be able to nail Bush with Part D, but that’s only 10% of it.
We were sustaining all those programs pretty darn good up until the last 8 years. In 2000 we had plans to pay down debt and repay the SS trust fund with the surpluses. Back then we were using serious math adult fiscal policy, not some funky theory.
What moved the number in the last 8 years was the impending retirements of millions of baby boomers, not fiscal policy.
Remember that Bush tried to address the long-term imbalances in Social Security, but got shut down by the Pelosi Democrats, who sat on their hands and said NO instead of offering solutions. (I wonder if billholt criticized them for that as he no doubt criticizes the GOP for doing now.)
Bush gets an F, but the overall budget hasn’t been balanced in decades, and Medicare is bankrupting the nation every day. $33 trillion of our $56.4 trillion long-term deficit is from Medicare. $100 billion annually from Medicare waste & fraud doesn’t help matters, either.
What moved the number in the last 8 years was the impending retirements of millions of baby boomers, not fiscal policy.
BS… Tax policy is fiscal policy. The Bush tax cuts caused the Bush deficit. Then the Bush deficit caused the crash. Nice work, supply-siders.
Remember that Bush tried to address the long-term imbalances in Social Security, but got shut down by the Pelosi Democrats
Is anyone still supporting giving Social Security money to Wall Street?
Bush’s privatization scheme was shot down by Republicans, not Democrats. After 2006 Pelosi was smart not to allow any serious Social Security legislation, because the Dem majorities were so fragile any bill would be highly vulnerable to mischevious Republican amendments, probably including more privatization. America thanks you, Nancy.
I am constantly amazed at the uninformed answers on this blog.
1. Bush never proposed privatizing social security, never.
2. The Bush tax cuts had no impact in the Social Security Trust Fund.
3. The never ending and always expanding spending levels are a bipartisan effort.
4. The Social Security Trust Fund has been bankrupt for years and structurally unsound before Bush ran for Governor of Texas.
5. Single payer is the absolute last choice for America.
Mike Protack
1. Bush never proposed privatizing social security, never.
Right here pal. And if you were thinking of coming back and redefining “privatize” – spare me.
5. Single payer is the absolute last choice for America.
America will always do the right thing, after first exhausting all the other options.
CBO: Public option premiums higher than private plans
The public insurance option would typically charge higher premiums than private plans available in the exchange, according to the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House bill.
That surprising conclusion raises doubts about Democratic promises that a government-run insurance plan would provide a lower-cost alternative to consumers. At the same time, it calls into question Republican charges that the plan amounts to government takeover of health insurance — because only 6 million people would enroll in the plan, according to the CBO.
The CBO has been off when it comes to participation dynamics. They are right that cost would likely be higher. There is no investment for the future in the public option to offset increasing costs, it is pay as you go. That does not mean premiums will be higher. It is likely to be subsidized with tax money and cramming down costs. The latter will cause a cost shift which will raise insurance rates.
Madoff went to jail for running a Ponzi scheme, which is what Social Security is. There is no trust fund; Congress spends the money. When there were 30 or so workers for every retiree, everything was fine. Now, we’re down to 3-1, and it simply can’t work.
I am all for a mandatory retirement system; it could be stocks, bonds or even T-bills; all will out-perform SS, and, in cases of premature death, could be inherited rather than go to the government.
Like the ‘healthcare’ plan, keeping SS alive is merely continuing, and even expanding the federal government’s legalized theft. Eventually, the productive will drop-out; see NY State and California…or, the Soviet Union.
Eventually, the productive will drop-out
Actually the most productive are the ones who need Social Security the most and can’t afford to drop out.
But if by productive you mean “rich” – why would the rich drop out? Social Security is probably the lowest tax they pay.
Actually now that I think about it – a lot of the rich already HAVE dropped out of Social Security. By taking their income as investment income and not having wage-paying jobs, their Social Security tax is zero-point-zero.
Hmmm… maybe that is the problem with Social Security.
Bush proposed the option of diverting 10% of SS to private investment, the idea being we begin shifting away from a fixed benefit system. All you have to do is read the Heritage Foundation and Cato Instutute to understand the idea was to undo the New Deal, get away from these big programs. That idea was thankfully put down by a Republican controlled Congress not Pelosi. I was happy.
The Bush tax cuts screwed our plans to put surplus money back into the SS trust fund. Mike is wrong to say there is no connection, there clearly is.
Social Security has never been bankrupt. SS runs huge $100 billion dollar surpluses year after year. We are just now reaching break even. Funny how we call an impending deficit in SS “bankrupt”, but we never say the U.S. Marines are “bankrupt” even though they operate on money borrowed from SS surpluses. If SS is “bankrupt” so is the Pentagon. Throwing that word around is more an expression of hostility towards the program, than fact.
Anon, please google OMB historical records. Yes, the budget was balanced with surpluses as far as the eye could see in 2000. A Republican President supported by a Republican controlled Congress totally trashed us. They thought governing was more about theories than math. That is why even Republicans like me voted to kick them all out last year.
I would love to blame the Democrats, but right now I think it is more important for us Republicans to be honorable and honest.
When there were 30 or so workers for every retiree, everything was fine. Now, we’re down to 3-1
The income base for Social Security has shifted. Once we had a lot of wage-earners with relatively few rich people. Now we have more rich people holding disproportionately more wealth. Social Security needs to move its tax to follow the money.
I just rechecked the OMB historical record regarding SS – specifically the Old Age and Survivors portion – that is where the ratio of workers to retirees mainly applies (different from the SS outlays for disability etc).
Every year since 1984 there have been huge surpluses. From 2000 to 2004 the surplus – funds collected vs funds paid to retirees – averaged around $140 billion annual surplus.
Check it out. It’s a lot of numbers, maybe I got it wrong –
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/hist.pdf
Social Security needs to be optional, for helpless people like you, norman, and others who willingly allow a ring to be slipped through their noses; if you want to be cattle, cattle you shall be.
Mark my words: The day will come when Rick will change his mind on SS, and bow down to FDR, as the legacy of FDR will put food on his table, plus an occasional beer or two!
Not to mention golf.
Today, FDR’s Ponzi scheme is almost upside-down, as all such schemes must inevitably become, sooner or later.
Social Security is a mandatory insurance/retirement program, and I agree with the idea…you can’t have the elderly (or, infirm) wandering the streets. I understand that. But, the system is flawed. There are safe ways to get a better return (like your pension, Perry), and said return could, and should, be inherited in cases of premature death. That would be a real, long-term ‘stimulus.’
said return could, and should, be inherited in cases of premature death.
Social Security benefits ARE inherited, by your spouse.
If a man and woman put thousands of dollars into the federal Ponzi scheme over fifteen years, and they both die in a car accident, what do their children get? Nothing. What does the government get? Everything.
If Social Security plans were for sale, who would buy them? Nobody.
Social Security is legalized theft. The need for mandatory retirement is real- I agree. But the Ponzi scheme system is a joke- unfortunately, the joke is on us.
Rick, a ponzi scheme is defined by motive as well as method. The motive behind Social Security is good. Ponzi schemes are short lived. Social Security has been humming along for 75 years running strong surpluses. So the core structure of the program is strong.
Even worst case scenario says benefits would have to be reduced by 15% in thirty years if we so nothing. Don’t be so hard on such a good program. Remember, it’s not just the old age pension, it’s about disabled people,unemployment benefits,temporary assistance to needy families, widows, orphans. Social Security IS the American safety net. No matter who we are or how well we did in life, we all get a small fixed benefit stipend when the game is over and Medicare health insurance which is also part of the Social Security adminstration.
It’s correct that some people get more than they put in. Some people get less. Iff you die early you might leave money in the pot. But it’s our pot. The people’s pot. You are part of this collective. This is not FDR’s creation alone. It’s legislation passed in the People’s house in 1935. Only 30 in the house and 6 in the senate voted nay. The generation who created this for us understood the necessity of looking out for each other.
The GOP needs to return to its Conservative roots and its focus on the Founders intents instead of pulling along with the Progressive Democrats. That fact is in evidence in the New York 23rd District as the Conservative Party candidate is winning easily there. The Progessive Republicans like Mike Castle, Teddy Roosevelt, George W. Bush are what has hurt the party. Personally I wonder if the party is even relevant anymore. I think it’s more about principled candidates who represent the values people believe in. If the Delaware GOP continues to put up candidates like Castle it will continue to fail.