Pethokoukis

My reply to Ben Domenech on reform conservatism

My pal Ben Domenech takes up valuable space in his must-read daily newsletter, The Transom, to thoughtfully respond my essay yesterday on reform conservatism and the current GOP policy agenda, such as it is.

A recap of my basic case: Current Republican policy proposals — such as the flat tax (or slashing top rates to pre-Great Depression levels), a balanced budget amendment, single-mandate Fed reform – are either off-point with actual policy problems or economic/fiscal reality or with voters concerns — and in many cases all  three.

And here is the core of Ben’s counter:

Within a campaign, you want to take plans to the people which are as simple as possible, easy for the politician and the people to understand, and built on ideas which are already fairly popular. ..  The odd part about this is that if you step back from these various ideas, they tend to meet the test of simplicity, ease of understanding, and reasonable levels of popularity. Massive tax reform (which is what the flat tax represented), a balanced budget, and less debt are all concepts which remain consistently popular across the parties (a good deal more popular than Ben Bernanke or the Fed, or trade deals, or Medicare competitive bidding, or a host of other things I assume Pethokoukis wants Republicans to keep on espousing). …

If Pethokoukis really believes the aim of balancing the budget is a negative with voters, he needs to make the case in the political context. If you’re talking about making the case for entitlement reform politically, not in the policy context, the rules are different. Because if we don’t care about balancing the budget, why even care about reforming Social Security? With Medicare you can at least say it’s “good governance” to fix entitlements which don’t work, which transforms you into merely a conservative technocrat, but that’s your choice.  …

You can favor balanced budgets and favor more immediate help for the middle class. You can be in favor of reforming the tax code dramatically in order to reform it moderately. You can aim for significant entitlement reform in order to get some entitlement reform. And this is one of the reasons I’m more optimistic conservatism will be reformed. It will be reformed because politicians want to win, and they understand in the wake of the election that too few of the American people are buying what the GOP has been selling – they understand that they’ve been elected to block, not to legislate.

1. I’m all for talking about policy in ways average Americans understand. And there is nothing wrong, of course, with promoting policies that people like.

2. But just because people support an idea doesn’t mean it’s a priority. Balancing the budget polls well, but debt and deficits are not nearly as important as jobs and take-home pay. And I’m not so sure the flat tax  or slashing top marginal income tax rates would be big winners in a 2016 general election.

3. The fiscal math has to work, more or less. It doesn’t for a flat tax. Nor does it for a balanced budget amendment that assumes an unrealistically low level of spending for an aging society that also wants a lethal, power-projecting military. At some point, simplicity edges over into falsehood or fantasy. And I am not sure what problem a balanced budget solves since you can put the debt on a downward trajectory without one.

4. If someone is worried about paying for their kids’ college, the quality of K-12 education, rising healthcare costs, retirement savings, stagnant wages, and whether their job is going to be outsourced to either Asia or RobotLand, what is the GOP offering, exactly? To keep inflation low and balance the budget — even if the latter means slashing basic research or unrealistically deep entitlement cuts? To cut top taxes rates with a promise that rapid economic growth will more than make up for the lost the revenue? Doesn’t seem appealing to me.

7 thoughts on “My reply to Ben Domenech on reform conservatism

  1. Mr P, social director on the Titanic: The deck chairs on the A deck should be arranged in groups of four.

    Mr D, the Titanic’s bursar: No, our cabin passengers clearly prefer pairs.

  2. todd part of the black gang trapped in the engine room of the Titanic?

    Current Republican policy proposals such as the flat tax“…

    The real question is, Which flat tax are they really discussing

  3. MODERN CONSERVATISM has been a failure because it has been, operationally, de facto, Godless. In the political/civil government realm it has ignored Christ and what Scripture says about the role and purpose of civil government. Thus, it failed. Such secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God they are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:



    ”[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.

    

“American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”

    In any event, “politics,” for the most part today, is whoring after false gods. It will not save us. Our country is turning into Hell because the church in America has forgotten God (Psalm 9:17) and refuses to kiss His Son (Psalm 2.) See, please, 2 Chronicles 7:14ff for the way to get our land healed.

    John Lofton, Recovering Republican
    JohnLofton.com
    Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
    Active Facebook Wall
    JLof@aol.com

    • In the political/civil government realm it has ignored Christ and what Scripture says about the role and purpose of civil government. Thus, it failed“…

      LMAO! Another larry g

      • “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” — Galatians 6:7.

        John Lofton, Recovering Republican
        JohnLofton.com
        Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
        Active Facebook Wall
        JLof@aol.com

        • Oh please! Stop with the bible babble and actually show us where Christ said it was a good idea for the country to go into debt by pandering to the parasites…

          • God’s Word has much to say re: the evils of debt. If you went to a government-run school have someone from a Christian homeschool read those verses to you.

            John Lofton, Recovering Republican
            JohnLofton.com
            Editor, Archive.TheAmericanView.com
            Active Facebook Wall
            JLof@aol.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>