Government Costs Money

"There is an argument floating around Republican circles that in order to win again, the G.O.P. has to reconnect with the truths of its Goldwater-Reagan glory days," writes David Brooks, "This is folly. It’s the wrong diagnosis of current realities and so the wrong prescription for the future." He's right. He's also right about this:

The sad thing is that President Bush sensed this shift in public consciousness back in 1999. Compassionate conservatism was an attempt to move beyond the “liberty vs. power” paradigm. But because it was never fleshed out and because the Congressional G.O.P. rejected the implant, a new Republican governing philosophy did not emerge.

The missing piece, as a wise man has remarked to me already today, is that an at least nominal commitment to rolling back the state is required by the GOP's real-life commitment to tax cuts. Obviously, as we've seen, you can slash taxes without actually cutting spending. But if you want to cut taxes you do at least need to say that the plan is to roll back the state. Or, at a minimum, you can't engage in the sort of creative governance Brooks mentions here aimed at tackling "Islamic extremism, failed states, global competition, global warming, nuclear proliferation, a skills-based economy, economic and social segmentation" if the government isn't going to have any funds.

3/29/07 9:18AM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

Look, I wish they had even a nominal commitment to rolling back the state, but I don't think that is necessary. People want their taxes lowered for one main reason: because they like money. I like money. I bet you like it too. This is a perfectly sufficient reason for tax cuts as a winning political promise. Only ideological libertarians care about the size of the state as such. This is, in fact, what "compassionate conservatism" means: it means, "fuck that libertarian shit! we'll continue the handouts, OK? so you won't vote us out for being meanies".

Posted by: Leonard on March 29, 2007 09:50 AM

an attempt to move beyond the “liberty vs. power” paradigm.

Yeah. "Beyond."

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim on March 29, 2007 09:50 AM

Obviously, as we've seen, you can slash taxes without actually cutting spending.

That is not cutting taxes. That is defering taxes. If the money is spent then you have to pay it back. Originally the idea was that growth from the decrease in taxes would increase GDP enough that we could lighten the blow. However, all this administration has really done is let inflation run rampant so that the debt is less. The problem is that price pressures from globalization won't let this happen anymore.

Less taxes, more spending is killed dead by the coming (and arguably already here) recession. This administration has eaten the seed corn and our economy is going to take years to recover from it.

Posted by: Walker on March 29, 2007 10:25 AM

What was that sarcastic FDR line about how the Republicans were going to outdo his New Deal programs, and how under them it wouldn't cost anyone anything?

Posted by: aleks on March 29, 2007 12:22 PM

(1) Cut taxes.

(2) Increase spending.

(3) Sell government debt to China.

(4) Get into shooting war with China.

(5) Suspend debt payments to China while at war with them.

(6) ???

(7) Buy ponies for everyone with the proceeds.

(8) Start over at (1), but use another nation that threatens our global dominance.

Posted by: mds on March 29, 2007 06:27 PM

Mds, more or less right but I think the idea is to place (7) in between (3) and (4).

Posted by: Leonard on March 29, 2007 07:29 PM