My latest over at Republicans United.
What Does the Lord Require of Republicans?
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Friday, November 06, 2009
Why Gay Marriage IS a Big Deal
Like many gay Americans, I awoke this morning to the news that Maine voted for repealing a law allowing same sex couples to marry. I was saddened by the fact. And like clockwork, a lot of my friends starting saying bad things about the people of Maine and threatening not to spend any money there.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, Washington State approved a referendum that allowed domestic partnerships in the Evergreen State.
The win apparent win in Washington (which has seemingly been ignored among gays and our supporters) has started me thinking about how to best allow gays marriage rights. I've vacilated between calling for full marriage equality and calling it a marriage, and asking for something like a marriage ala civil unions. Yesterday's decisions has made me think that it's time to change how we work for marriage rights.
I think one thing that those of us who support same sex marriage have to admit is that asking that straight America get used to two people of the same sex getting married is a radical shift in how we think about marriage and love. Yeah, I know, getting married is not radical, it's as normal as two hetros getting married. But the fact is, that the thought of two people of the same sex getting married is still something that a lot of Americans can't get their heads around. It's not that they are all closet bigots. They can understand and accept gays in society. They can understand that gay people fall in love. But when we start talking about marriage, it starts to get confusing for them. Think about it for a moment. When the average Joe thinks about marriage, they think about bridal gowns and bachelor parties. But all of this is lost on most of us that support gay marriage. Listen to what Conor Friedersdorf says:
I think Conor is off on a lot of points. For one, most gay marriage supporters, myself included, think about marriage as a contractual and legal mechanisim in addition to all the things about love and monogamy. But I would argue that most Americans don't think about marriage in such terms and focus on all the cultural aspects: the photos, the bridal gown, the wedding ceremony and the like. All of that contractual stuff is handled off to side usually after the wedding ceremony, where the state certified officant and the bride and groom sign their marriage license. It's an afterthought.
Second, if most Americans think this way, then why has our side lost everytime the subject of gay marriage comes up for a vote? If we won a few and lost a few, I could agree but when we have lost each and every time, then we have to start wondering what are we doing wrong.
I think that one way we can advance the cause of gay marriage is by doing a few things: first, redefining what victory means; second, listening to our opponents, and three divorcing gay marriage from the civil rights movement.
First off is redefining victory. What this really boils down to is lowered expectations. It means pushing for marriage rights without using the word marriage. I know that many will say that not pushing for full marriage equality is rendering gay people to second class citizens and I would agree. But I would respond by showing those losses again. Thirty-one losses. Do we want half-a-loaf or none? The thing is, most European countries went through a period of calling same sex marriage for gays something else before marriage was made legal. The UK currently has marriage rights, but they don't call it a marriage at this point. Like Europe, I think most Americans are willing to give gay couples some marriage rights but at this point can't rationally wrap their minds around concepts like same sex marriage. I'm not saying that we should never call gay marriage a marriage or stop pushing for full marriage rights. But sometimes we have to find ways to make change happen incrementally, rather than betting the farm and losing it in the process. My own suggestion is that states like Maine and California should be pushing for civil unions and domestic partnerships first, and then move towards full marriage rights later down the road. Push for something that is marriage, but just don't call it marriage. It's just too emotionally charged.
Second, we need to listen to those that voted against same sex marriage. Instead of automatically branding these people as bigots, we need to understand why they voted against these measures. I really doubt that the good people are of Maine are all homophobes. But there has to be a reason they voted no. And let's stop whining about the Catholic Church or the Mormons or the Masons, or what-have-you. We need to find out what is keeping them from supporting same sex marriage rights and then tailor future campaigns in light of what these people say.
Finally, gay people need to stop linking their movement with the civil rights movement. I'm sorry, but one size of oppression doesn't fit all. I used to think that these two movements were alike, but while their are some similarities, there are also a ton of differences. As someone who is both African American and gay, I can say there are big differences. Let's start with marriage. Yes, many states in the South prohibited interracial marriage until the Supreme Court struck it down in 1967. Gay rights supporters have tried to link interracial marriage to same sex marriage, but the similarities are, pardon the pun, skin deep. An interracial couple that wanted to get married in say 1959 had no option to get married. At all. Also, you have to add the whole stigma of the races mixing, especially when it was a black man with a white woman. If the two were seen together in an intimate setting, then you could be sure the black man might end up in a noose a few hours later.
If two gay people are denied marriage, we have options. They aren't perfect or desired, but they are options. Also, there is less stigma attached to same-sex relationships as there are to interracial ones circa 1959. It's not great for gay couples, but it's not as dangerous either.
The other problem is that many gay marriage activists tend to copy the history of the civil rights movement using the courts to solve racial segregation. But again, the similarities are cursory. For African Americans, the courts had to be used be other venues of redress were not available. State legislatures in the South were filled with segregationists, and Southern Democrats made sure that civil rights legislation would come in its own sweet time on Capitol Hill. The courts were the last venue for justice.
For gay rights proponents, we too often want to head to the courts first, even though the passage through state legislatures is not as treacherous as it was for African Americans. African Americans used the courts in the 40s, 50s and 60s because we had no other choice. Gay Americans do have some choices.
Do I want to see gay marriage become a reality? Yes. But I'm learning that we need to learn to pick our battles and settle for partial victories on the way to ending the war. I'm also learning that not everyone who is queasy about gay marriage is a bigot ready to bash me. I'm learning that if we want to get to a point where same sex couples can have equal marriage rights, we are going to have to think and strategize and find the best steps to get to that point even if it means gradual change.
Marriage is a worthy goal. Let's think about how best to get there.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, Washington State approved a referendum that allowed domestic partnerships in the Evergreen State.
The win apparent win in Washington (which has seemingly been ignored among gays and our supporters) has started me thinking about how to best allow gays marriage rights. I've vacilated between calling for full marriage equality and calling it a marriage, and asking for something like a marriage ala civil unions. Yesterday's decisions has made me think that it's time to change how we work for marriage rights.
I think one thing that those of us who support same sex marriage have to admit is that asking that straight America get used to two people of the same sex getting married is a radical shift in how we think about marriage and love. Yeah, I know, getting married is not radical, it's as normal as two hetros getting married. But the fact is, that the thought of two people of the same sex getting married is still something that a lot of Americans can't get their heads around. It's not that they are all closet bigots. They can understand and accept gays in society. They can understand that gay people fall in love. But when we start talking about marriage, it starts to get confusing for them. Think about it for a moment. When the average Joe thinks about marriage, they think about bridal gowns and bachelor parties. But all of this is lost on most of us that support gay marriage. Listen to what Conor Friedersdorf says:
Would the legalization of gay marriage really be a “radical redefinition” of the social and cultural institution? Maybe same sex marriage is a radical departure from marriage as understood by orthodox Christians, or people for whom it is primarily a procreative union.
But I submit that a majority of Americans subscribe to a definition that more closely resembles the following: Marriage is the union of people who fall in love with one another, decide that they want to spend the rest of their lives together, and commit to do so monogamously. The definition I’ve offered isn’t merely more commonly accepted among Americans than whatever Rod Dreher would describe, it is perfectly consistent with marriage laws as now written.
I think Conor is off on a lot of points. For one, most gay marriage supporters, myself included, think about marriage as a contractual and legal mechanisim in addition to all the things about love and monogamy. But I would argue that most Americans don't think about marriage in such terms and focus on all the cultural aspects: the photos, the bridal gown, the wedding ceremony and the like. All of that contractual stuff is handled off to side usually after the wedding ceremony, where the state certified officant and the bride and groom sign their marriage license. It's an afterthought.
Second, if most Americans think this way, then why has our side lost everytime the subject of gay marriage comes up for a vote? If we won a few and lost a few, I could agree but when we have lost each and every time, then we have to start wondering what are we doing wrong.
I think that one way we can advance the cause of gay marriage is by doing a few things: first, redefining what victory means; second, listening to our opponents, and three divorcing gay marriage from the civil rights movement.
First off is redefining victory. What this really boils down to is lowered expectations. It means pushing for marriage rights without using the word marriage. I know that many will say that not pushing for full marriage equality is rendering gay people to second class citizens and I would agree. But I would respond by showing those losses again. Thirty-one losses. Do we want half-a-loaf or none? The thing is, most European countries went through a period of calling same sex marriage for gays something else before marriage was made legal. The UK currently has marriage rights, but they don't call it a marriage at this point. Like Europe, I think most Americans are willing to give gay couples some marriage rights but at this point can't rationally wrap their minds around concepts like same sex marriage. I'm not saying that we should never call gay marriage a marriage or stop pushing for full marriage rights. But sometimes we have to find ways to make change happen incrementally, rather than betting the farm and losing it in the process. My own suggestion is that states like Maine and California should be pushing for civil unions and domestic partnerships first, and then move towards full marriage rights later down the road. Push for something that is marriage, but just don't call it marriage. It's just too emotionally charged.
Second, we need to listen to those that voted against same sex marriage. Instead of automatically branding these people as bigots, we need to understand why they voted against these measures. I really doubt that the good people are of Maine are all homophobes. But there has to be a reason they voted no. And let's stop whining about the Catholic Church or the Mormons or the Masons, or what-have-you. We need to find out what is keeping them from supporting same sex marriage rights and then tailor future campaigns in light of what these people say.
Finally, gay people need to stop linking their movement with the civil rights movement. I'm sorry, but one size of oppression doesn't fit all. I used to think that these two movements were alike, but while their are some similarities, there are also a ton of differences. As someone who is both African American and gay, I can say there are big differences. Let's start with marriage. Yes, many states in the South prohibited interracial marriage until the Supreme Court struck it down in 1967. Gay rights supporters have tried to link interracial marriage to same sex marriage, but the similarities are, pardon the pun, skin deep. An interracial couple that wanted to get married in say 1959 had no option to get married. At all. Also, you have to add the whole stigma of the races mixing, especially when it was a black man with a white woman. If the two were seen together in an intimate setting, then you could be sure the black man might end up in a noose a few hours later.
If two gay people are denied marriage, we have options. They aren't perfect or desired, but they are options. Also, there is less stigma attached to same-sex relationships as there are to interracial ones circa 1959. It's not great for gay couples, but it's not as dangerous either.
The other problem is that many gay marriage activists tend to copy the history of the civil rights movement using the courts to solve racial segregation. But again, the similarities are cursory. For African Americans, the courts had to be used be other venues of redress were not available. State legislatures in the South were filled with segregationists, and Southern Democrats made sure that civil rights legislation would come in its own sweet time on Capitol Hill. The courts were the last venue for justice.
For gay rights proponents, we too often want to head to the courts first, even though the passage through state legislatures is not as treacherous as it was for African Americans. African Americans used the courts in the 40s, 50s and 60s because we had no other choice. Gay Americans do have some choices.
Do I want to see gay marriage become a reality? Yes. But I'm learning that we need to learn to pick our battles and settle for partial victories on the way to ending the war. I'm also learning that not everyone who is queasy about gay marriage is a bigot ready to bash me. I'm learning that if we want to get to a point where same sex couples can have equal marriage rights, we are going to have to think and strategize and find the best steps to get to that point even if it means gradual change.
Marriage is a worthy goal. Let's think about how best to get there.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Moderate Republicanism: Is It Worth Fighting For?
Fellow Republicans United blogger, Bill Golden had this to say earlier today about moderate and/or centrist Republicans:
It made me think a lot about the fate of the so-called moderate Republican, a moniker that I have long used to describe myself. I have been long frustrated with my fellow moderates for some the reasons that Bill has argued, specifically, that we tend to stand in the middle of the road whining that no one will give us a kiss. And because we sit there whining about the state of moderates in the party, we ended up getting our asses handed to us again and again.
I know that I might hurt some feelings here, but I am starting to think that a lot of moderates are some of the most feckless, flighty and downright cowardly people. We do not stand up for our convictions. At times, I wonder if we even have convictions. We whine about the dwindling state of the GOP, about how it is being taken over by extremists, but when it comes down to making a difference, we offer no solutions other than pleading for the Republican leadership to love us.
Right now, Dede Scozzafava is losing a race she should have won. For those not in the know, Scozzafava is running for a seat in Congress to represent the 23rd Congressional District in New York. The GOP leadership in Washington has realized it needs moderates in order to win and has backed her. But this has enraged many on the far right because she is more an old-school conservative or Northeastern Republican. They don't like that she is pro-choice and supports gay marriage. So they have rebelled and supported Doug Hoffman, a candidate for the Conservative Party. Because of this, Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate is now in the lead and could well win the race, the first time a Democrat has won in that district since before the Civil War.
The far right has attacked Scozzafava with everything they've got. And it is working. So where are the moderates? What are they doing? Well, the answer is not much. There are other moderate bloggers, but few have taken up the cause. Here is a fellow moderate that is being assaulted by the far right, and all we can do is....well nothing.
Moderate Republicanism has along and proud history. It has shown a more humane conservatism. Geoffrey Kabaservice has done a wonderful series on New Majority on the role of moderates in the GOP that you should read. But even Kabaservice tends to drift into a territory of wallowing instead of calling people to action.
But wallowing in the past and whining about the future will not change the GOP. What will change the party is when good people of conviction have the balls to fight for change.
But that means that we have to have principles. And sometimes I wonder if we do. Sometimes I think that moderates are more about going along to get along than in acutally believing in something enough that they will defend it.
I didn't grow up as a Republican. I came to Republicanism after doing a lot of thinking and reading. I came to the conclusion that I believed in some of the values of conservatism as preached by people like Edmund Burke. I knew there was a place for government, but I believed that it could not and should not solve every problem. I believed in the equality of opportunity but not the equality of outcomes. I'm a Republican because of the values I came to believe in. I am a moderate Republican because while I hold these values, I also am pragmatic. Being a moderate to me means holding both in balance.
My guess is that too many moderates have not given much thought as to why they are Republicans. Maybe they just grew up that way. And along the way, they lost any reason to fight for their party. It became such a part of them that the party became nothing to them.
Earlier this year, when Arlen Specter left the GOP to sit with the Dems, there was a lot of handwringing about how the GOP treats its moderates. I think that was a worthy thing to chat about, but I think Specter showed a lot more about the soul of some moderates. As David Broder noted back in April, Specter is one of the most opportunistic politicians out there. And it has shown itself in the fact that since his primary challenge, he has voted with the Dems 97 percent of the time.
The whole Specter affair at times seems to sum up some of what is at the heart of what is called moderate Republicanism: it is too opportunitistic, too willing to abandon any belief in order to get approval.
In short, moderate Republicanism at least in 2009 seems to be hallow, with little substance. We don't care enough about the GOP to be willing to put up a fight. If you don't really have any strong beliefs, then why in the world would you fight?
This is why Dede Scozzafava has very little support from fellow moderates. If you are lukewarm, well why would you lift a finger to help anyone?
You want to know the sad thing here? It's that those Tea Party folks, the ones that make us squirm, at least have their convictions. They at least believe in something worth fighting for. I might dislike them, but I have admire their energy. I can't say they same for my fellow moderates. We are lazy.
Those of us who call ourselves moderate Republicans (and those that call themselves former moderates) need to ask ourselves: is the work to make the GOP a truly Big Tent party, worth fighting for? Is moderate Republicanism worth fighting for? If it's not then, we should just give up. If it is, then we need to get off our asses and get to work. As Bill noted, we need to pick a philosophy and defend it.
Otherwise, quit whining. You're wasting my time.
And for moderates — you need to find some principles quick. Being “moderate” or “centrist” is a mode. If you keep standing in the middle of the road whining that no one is stopping to give you a kiss … then you are just going to get your arse run over. Become a liberal, libertarian or conservative or whatever, but get some principles and go with it. Defend them. Live them. Be “moderate” when it comes to time to work out agreement but please stop standing in the middle of the road.
It made me think a lot about the fate of the so-called moderate Republican, a moniker that I have long used to describe myself. I have been long frustrated with my fellow moderates for some the reasons that Bill has argued, specifically, that we tend to stand in the middle of the road whining that no one will give us a kiss. And because we sit there whining about the state of moderates in the party, we ended up getting our asses handed to us again and again.
I know that I might hurt some feelings here, but I am starting to think that a lot of moderates are some of the most feckless, flighty and downright cowardly people. We do not stand up for our convictions. At times, I wonder if we even have convictions. We whine about the dwindling state of the GOP, about how it is being taken over by extremists, but when it comes down to making a difference, we offer no solutions other than pleading for the Republican leadership to love us.
Right now, Dede Scozzafava is losing a race she should have won. For those not in the know, Scozzafava is running for a seat in Congress to represent the 23rd Congressional District in New York. The GOP leadership in Washington has realized it needs moderates in order to win and has backed her. But this has enraged many on the far right because she is more an old-school conservative or Northeastern Republican. They don't like that she is pro-choice and supports gay marriage. So they have rebelled and supported Doug Hoffman, a candidate for the Conservative Party. Because of this, Bill Owens, the Democratic candidate is now in the lead and could well win the race, the first time a Democrat has won in that district since before the Civil War.
The far right has attacked Scozzafava with everything they've got. And it is working. So where are the moderates? What are they doing? Well, the answer is not much. There are other moderate bloggers, but few have taken up the cause. Here is a fellow moderate that is being assaulted by the far right, and all we can do is....well nothing.
Moderate Republicanism has along and proud history. It has shown a more humane conservatism. Geoffrey Kabaservice has done a wonderful series on New Majority on the role of moderates in the GOP that you should read. But even Kabaservice tends to drift into a territory of wallowing instead of calling people to action.
But wallowing in the past and whining about the future will not change the GOP. What will change the party is when good people of conviction have the balls to fight for change.
But that means that we have to have principles. And sometimes I wonder if we do. Sometimes I think that moderates are more about going along to get along than in acutally believing in something enough that they will defend it.
I didn't grow up as a Republican. I came to Republicanism after doing a lot of thinking and reading. I came to the conclusion that I believed in some of the values of conservatism as preached by people like Edmund Burke. I knew there was a place for government, but I believed that it could not and should not solve every problem. I believed in the equality of opportunity but not the equality of outcomes. I'm a Republican because of the values I came to believe in. I am a moderate Republican because while I hold these values, I also am pragmatic. Being a moderate to me means holding both in balance.
My guess is that too many moderates have not given much thought as to why they are Republicans. Maybe they just grew up that way. And along the way, they lost any reason to fight for their party. It became such a part of them that the party became nothing to them.
Earlier this year, when Arlen Specter left the GOP to sit with the Dems, there was a lot of handwringing about how the GOP treats its moderates. I think that was a worthy thing to chat about, but I think Specter showed a lot more about the soul of some moderates. As David Broder noted back in April, Specter is one of the most opportunistic politicians out there. And it has shown itself in the fact that since his primary challenge, he has voted with the Dems 97 percent of the time.
The whole Specter affair at times seems to sum up some of what is at the heart of what is called moderate Republicanism: it is too opportunitistic, too willing to abandon any belief in order to get approval.
In short, moderate Republicanism at least in 2009 seems to be hallow, with little substance. We don't care enough about the GOP to be willing to put up a fight. If you don't really have any strong beliefs, then why in the world would you fight?
This is why Dede Scozzafava has very little support from fellow moderates. If you are lukewarm, well why would you lift a finger to help anyone?
You want to know the sad thing here? It's that those Tea Party folks, the ones that make us squirm, at least have their convictions. They at least believe in something worth fighting for. I might dislike them, but I have admire their energy. I can't say they same for my fellow moderates. We are lazy.
Those of us who call ourselves moderate Republicans (and those that call themselves former moderates) need to ask ourselves: is the work to make the GOP a truly Big Tent party, worth fighting for? Is moderate Republicanism worth fighting for? If it's not then, we should just give up. If it is, then we need to get off our asses and get to work. As Bill noted, we need to pick a philosophy and defend it.
Otherwise, quit whining. You're wasting my time.
Friday, October 09, 2009
About That Nobel Prize…
My take on Obama's Nobel is up at Republicans United.
About That Nobel Prize…
About That Nobel Prize…
The War Against Dede
Politico is running a story about how some groups on the hard right are upset at National Republican Committee for supporting New York Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, who is running to fill the seat vacated by John McHugh. They see Scozzafava as a "liberal," a "radical" who happens to have an "R" after her name.
Here are a few exerpts from the article:
And there's more...
This is a case where the wingnuts are...well acting like wingnuts and the national party is acting more pragmatic. The hard right is not concerned about winning as much as they are about being heard, even if it means handing the seat to a Democrat.
As I've said before, if one were to look at Scozzafava's record, one would see that she is not a flaming liberal. But then to those on the hard right, anyone to left of a Ghengis Khan is a commie.
I think that those who believe in a politically diverse party should consider donating to Dede's campaign. Let's not let the crazies torpedo another good Republican.
Here are a few exerpts from the article:
At a private Washington luncheon attended by activists last week, frustrations spilled over, and several attendees demanded to know why NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions of Texas, who was the featured speaker, was supporting Scozzafava over the more conservative Hoffman.
After Sessions conceded that Scozzafava's record on gay marriage and abortion fell short of where those at the lunch wanted it to be, he sought to defend her record on taxes. At that point, according to two sources who were present, the Texas congressman came under forceful pushback from several conservative leaders who insisted Scozzafava fell far short in that area as well.
"I was flabbergasted that he could come into a meeting of conservatives and be as defiant as he was," said one person who was at the Free Congress Foundation's Paul Weyrich lunch meeting, adding that the Texas congressman "stuck a finger in our eye."
And there's more...
Club for Growth Executive Director David Keating, whose deep-pocketed organization is already flooding New York’s North Country with ads targeting Scozzafava, slammed her as a “flaming liberal” whose politics are to the left of many House Democrats.
“The Republican Party bosses in New York state are not in touch with the Republican primary voting electorate,” said Keating. “She would never win a primary there, if there was one.”
As referenced by Keating, part of the frustration over Scozzafava is the way she claimed the GOP nomination in July — not through the standard primary election process but, rather, on the third vote taken by the 11 Republican county chairmen within the 23rd Congressional District.
Local Republicans tapped Scozzafava as the nominee in July because they believed her centrist views would appeal to a coalition of centrist Republicans, independents and Democrats in a moderate-minded district that Barack Obama won with 52 percent of the vote in 2008. The national party supports her for the same reason: her perceived electability.
This is a case where the wingnuts are...well acting like wingnuts and the national party is acting more pragmatic. The hard right is not concerned about winning as much as they are about being heard, even if it means handing the seat to a Democrat.
As I've said before, if one were to look at Scozzafava's record, one would see that she is not a flaming liberal. But then to those on the hard right, anyone to left of a Ghengis Khan is a commie.
I think that those who believe in a politically diverse party should consider donating to Dede's campaign. Let's not let the crazies torpedo another good Republican.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Deficits DO Matter, Continued
James Pethokoukis has a post about how President Obama might just raise taxes by instituting a Value Added Tax or VAT that has been used in European countries. Pethokoukis isn't that crazy about adding a VAT, but would give it some support if some deals were made:
This is yet another example of how the GOP is not really serious about fiscal policy. I don't want to soak-the-rich-either for many of the same reasons that Pethokoukis does (though I do support letting the Bush tax cuts to expire), but the requirement of a supermajority to pass taxes is just lame.
Why? Well, I'm not an economist, but let's consider a state that DOES have a supermajority rule: California. That state is not the shining example of fiscal stability. Pethokoukis and others on the Right tend to think that if one makes raising taxes harder, then no new government programs (and therefore spending) will come to fore.
However, what Pethokoukis forget is that why it might stymie governments from raising taxes, such a law does nothing to slow spending. As long as the wider public can believe that one can get all the goodies from the government without paying more, then spending will increase. And when spending outpaces revenue, we have a funny little thing called a deficit.
Over the past 8 years, the GOP did not raise taxes, but they spent and spent and spent. There was no ephasis in cutting spending, because as much as people don't want their taxes raised, they do expect the government to cater to their every whim and fancy.
The GOP needs to take part in a "fiscal Lent" where we take stock in our fiscal record and decide to reform. We need to stop with all the silly gimmicks that only fool the people and actually try to find ways to provide good government services efficiently and for little cost.
That's a long way of saying call me when you are serious.
Obama wants a VAT? First, it should be part of broader tax reform, including getting rid of capital gains and corporate taxes. Second, it should accompany an Economic Bill of Rights much like Ronald Reagan used to suggest. Its elements: a) a balanced budget amendment, b) a line-item veto, c) a spending limit such as inflation plus population growth, d) and a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate for any tax increases. (Reagan also wanted a prohibition on wage and price controls. That would likely kill ObamaCare.)
And come to think of it, let’s cut spending and streamline government before cash-strapped, wealth-reduced taxpayers are forced to pony up a penny more, OK?
This is yet another example of how the GOP is not really serious about fiscal policy. I don't want to soak-the-rich-either for many of the same reasons that Pethokoukis does (though I do support letting the Bush tax cuts to expire), but the requirement of a supermajority to pass taxes is just lame.
Why? Well, I'm not an economist, but let's consider a state that DOES have a supermajority rule: California. That state is not the shining example of fiscal stability. Pethokoukis and others on the Right tend to think that if one makes raising taxes harder, then no new government programs (and therefore spending) will come to fore.
However, what Pethokoukis forget is that why it might stymie governments from raising taxes, such a law does nothing to slow spending. As long as the wider public can believe that one can get all the goodies from the government without paying more, then spending will increase. And when spending outpaces revenue, we have a funny little thing called a deficit.
Over the past 8 years, the GOP did not raise taxes, but they spent and spent and spent. There was no ephasis in cutting spending, because as much as people don't want their taxes raised, they do expect the government to cater to their every whim and fancy.
The GOP needs to take part in a "fiscal Lent" where we take stock in our fiscal record and decide to reform. We need to stop with all the silly gimmicks that only fool the people and actually try to find ways to provide good government services efficiently and for little cost.
That's a long way of saying call me when you are serious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
