BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Republicans Archive

Monday

1

April 2013

0

COMMENTS

Whose Vision Would You Trust?

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Culture & Society, Liberty & Limited Government

Rick Santorum had this to say in Politico (Hat-tip: Reason):

“Look, the Republican Party isn’t going to change. If we do change, we’ll be the Whig Party. …We’re not the Libertarian Party, we’re the Republican Party.”

Rather than respond directly to this assertion, I’ll simply offer another quote and then contrast the electoral records of the two speakers.

“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

That one was from Ronald Reagan.

Let’s compare and contrast their electoral careers.

Rick Santorum narrowly won his first House seat 51%-49%. After two terms he then narrowly won a Senate seat with just 49% of the vote despite running during the ’94 Republican wave. After two terms he was then ousted, getting thumped by Bob Casey Jr. 59%-41%. In the 2012 Presidential election, he managed a virtual tie in the Iowa caucus, followed by a few wins in the south before petering out and losing the nomination to Mitt Romney.

Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, was twice elected governor of California, the largest state in the union. After almost accomplishing the rare feat of defeating an incumbent President in a primary in 1976, albeit one appointed by Richard Nixon, Reagan went on and won a decisive victory in 1980 against incumbent President Jimmy Carter, and was then reelected in one of the most lopsided contests in Presidential history, taking 49 of 50 states against Walter Mondale. He is widely believed to have cemented an electoral realignment that brought millions of new voters (so-called “Reagan Democrats”) to the Republican Party.

So whose vision should today’s Republican Party adopt? The big government, social-and-values-based conservatism of Rick Santorum? Or the keep-government-out-of-our-values, limited-government conservatism of Ronald Reagan (perhaps best exemplified today by Rand Paul, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz)? Which sounds like the recipe for success to you?

 

Monday

24

September 2012

0

COMMENTS

Are Republicans Dumb Enough to Support a Carbon Tax?

Written by , Posted in Energy and the Environment, Taxes

When it comes to taxes, Republicans really do play the stupid party to the Democrats’ evil. If Democrats propose raising taxes, Republicans trip over themselves to offer to sharp contrast by offering to raise taxes a bit less. CF&P President Andrew Quinlan highlighted the latest example of this strategic brilliance in Forbes:

[I]t’s not just those on the left pushing for the tax. A few conservatives and Republicans are also quixotically jumping on the bandwagon.

The American Enterprise Institute, for instance, has recently hosted a series of events designed to brainstorm ways to sell the public, and in particular small government conservatives, on the idea of a tax on carbon. Former GOP Congressman Bob Inglis, who proposed a carbon tax bill while in Congress before he was defeated by a Tea Party primary challenger, has teamed up with supply side economist Art Laffer and created a new institute to push for carbon taxes.

The motives of the left in pushing for a tax are easy to understand, they want more “revenue” to spend. …The conservatives, in contrast, claim to want only a revenue neutral tax, trading carbon taxes for reductions in other, more economically destructive, tax rates, such as on income. In theory this is not a bad argument, but in practice it is rather naive.

If the political climate was such that cap-and-trade or other big government carbon regulations were on the horizon, proffering a more economically efficient carbon tax as an alternative might not be a bad strategy from a do-the-wrong-thing-in-the-least-destructive-fashion perspective. But that is not the case. Cap-and-trade is currently a nonstarter, and if the legislative will existed to undo destructive EPA carbon regulations – such as a proposed cap on carbon emissions for new energy plants – then it wouldn’t be necessary to even offer an alternative. After all, none on the left who otherwise support these EPA regulations are going to trade them away, even for a new tax.

More generally, the very idea of offering a new tax in exchange for lower rates elsewhere is flawed. Even if leftists agree to lower taxes on income to keep a new carbon tax revenue neutral, there’s nothing to stop them from raising rates in the future. On the other hand, given the love politicians have for taxes, eliminating an entire tax would be much harder…

He goes on to explain how the logic for a carbon tax doesn’t work even if you assume high-end estimates for the costs of carbon emissions, a point bolstered now by a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change:

A typical export from Western countries to developing giants is machine tools, which are then used to make products such as toys.

These machines are made in the West using comparatively low-carbon industrial techniques.

But when they are plugged in and used, they are usually powered by coal-fired electricity, the dirtiest of the main fossil fuels.

In such conditions, a carbon tax would be counter-productive.

To do so could prompt the developing country to make its own machines, which are likely to be more energy-intensive. This in turn would drive up the carbon tax on what was manufactured.

That is likely just scratching at the surface of the unintended consequences a carbon tax would produce. Though its intended consequence – raising the price of energy – is bad enough by itself to warrant rejecting this latest foray into bipartisan economic destruction.

Friday

31

August 2012

0

COMMENTS

Criminal Justice Reform in GOP Platform

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

In my post listing 5 issues I thought Republicans needed to discuss at the convention, I pointed to the need for criminal justice reform. Apparently enough folks were on the same page, as it turns out that the 2012 GOP platform included language calling for much needed reforms. From Right on Crime:

This week, during its quadrennial national convention, the Republican Party released its 2012 platform. The platform is yet another indicator of how conservative leaders are reapplying basic conservative principles to criminal justice. For example, the new platform contains language explicitly emphasizing the importance of prisoner reentry, a notable change from the 2008 platform which contained none. The new platform urges that “[p]risons should do more than punish; they should attempt to rehabilitate and institute proven prisoner reentry systems to reduce recidivism and future victimization.”

Similarly, the new platform contains language emphasizing the importance of restorative justice, yet another element that did not appear in the 2008 platform:

“Government at all levels should work with faith-based institutions that have proven track records in diverting young and first time, non-violent offenders from criminal careers, for which we salute them. Their emphasis on restorative justice, to make the victim whole and put the offender on the right path, can give law enforcement the flexibility it needs in dealing with different levels of criminal behavior. We endorse State and local initiatives that are trying new approaches to curbing drug abuse and diverting first-time offenders to rehabilitation.”

Also very welcome is the language highlighting the serious threat of over-criminalization, particular regarding the federal criminal code.

The starkest change in the party platform from 2008 to 2012 is the inclusion of new – and relatively detailed – language criticizing overcriminalization:

“The resources of the federal government’s law enforcement and judicial systems have been strained by two unfortunate expansions: the over-criminalization of behavior and the over-federalization of offenses. The number of criminal offenses in the U.S. Code increased from 3,000 in the early 1980s to over 4,450 by 2008. Federal criminal law should focus on acts by federal employees or acts committed on federal property – and leave the rest to the States. Then Congress should withdraw from federal departments and agencies the power to criminalize behavior, a practice which, according to the Congressional Research Service, has created “tens of thousands” of criminal offenses. No one other than an elected representative should have the authority to define a criminal act and set criminal penalties. In the same way, Congress should reconsider the extent to which it has federalized offenses traditionally handled on the State or local level.”

Now party platforms don’t generally have much if any impact, but this is a welcome reflection of shifting GOP attitudes toward 1) Beginning to undo the labyrinth of federal criminal laws which are threatening basic freedoms and, 2) finding more effective and cost efficient solutions to certain crimes.

Wednesday

29

August 2012

3

COMMENTS

5 Issues Republicans Should Address At the Convention (Or After)

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Foreign Affairs & Policy, Liberty & Limited Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Being the more leftist party, I criticize Democrats frequently. But Republicans do a lot of stupid things and have plenty to answer for themselves. Here’s a list of issues I’d like to see the party address prominently to the American people (at the ongoing Republican National Convention would be an ideal choice, but anytime during the rest of the campaign would be good).

Explain Why We Should Trust That Republicans Will Get Spending Right This Time. Republicans criticize the President, and rightly so, for spending like a drunken sailor. His massive and wasteful stimulus was bad enough as a one time deal, but he’s since set the new baseline at post-stimulus levels, and has called for ever more spending each year. But it’s important to remember that the big spending didn’t start with Obama.

Republicans can’t simply excuse Bush’s big spending as a response to an unusual financial crisis. Yes, a lot of money was spent in response to the financial meltdown, and perhaps that can be excused even if it was misguided. But what’s the excuse for creating a massive new prescription drug entitlement? Or the 30% increase in federal subsidy programs? Or the massive increase in regulatory spending? Simply put, when Republicans most recently controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress, they spent like drunken sailors, too. They need to explain clearly how they’ve internalized the lessons of those mistakes, and what controls are or will be in place to ensure they aren’t repeated.

(more…)

Wednesday

6

July 2011

0

COMMENTS

Sick and Tired

Written by , Posted in Big Government, The Courts, Criminal Justice & Tort

If this Reason.tv video doesn’t get your blood boiling, I don’t know what will.

The problem of police abuse, lack of accountability for so-called law enforcement, and a loss of confidence by the public in their would-be servants and protectors is a widespread problem that needs to be seriously addressed.

Unfortunately there are some, such as the Pima County GOP, who are thrusting their heads in the sand and siding with the rights violators over the rights holders by refusing to even allow discussion of the issue.

Pima County, you’ll remember, is where Iraq War veteran Jose Guerena was murdered by Sheriff Dupnik’s officers. When the local GOP Party Chairman Brian Miller dared question the propriety of a SWAT raid which saw Guerena gunned down because he was prepared to defend his wife and child against armed invaders who had no justification for being there, and which was followed by consistent lies and misinformation by the officers involved, the local party wienies decided to strip him of his office. They said (Hat-tip: The Agitator):

The role of the Republican Party is clear: to elect candidates and support those candidates once elected. The recent statements and actions of Chairman Brian Miller have not served to further those goals, but rather the opposite. Mr. Miller’s statements regarding the SWAT raid have created serious problems for our elected officials, money raising efforts and have divided the Party.  Mr. Miller was given repeated opportunities to either mend these fences or resign his position, and has chosen to do neither.  Instead, he has continued to make controversial statements to the press.

The role of the Pima County Republican Party is indeed clear: Defend statist thugs who murder veterans at all costs. Isn’t the GOP supposed to protect rights to life, liberty and property? What ever happened to that party?

Monday

21

March 2011

0

COMMENTS

Republicans Must Avoid the Tax Hike Trap

Written by , Posted in Big Government, Taxes

The Wall Street Journal reports on a “rift” among Republicans on whether or not tax hikes should be on the table:

Two decades after President George H.W. Bush abandoned his “read my lips” promise, some Republicans are chafing at their party’s stand against new taxes.

A few prominent GOP lawmakers believe they will have to raise some tax revenue if they are to bring Democrats along on a bipartisan compromise to address the U.S.’s long-term fiscal problems. Many Democrats want higher taxes to cover at least part of future budget gaps. That has led to clashes between Republican lawmakers and a Washington advocacy group, Americans for Tax Reform, the self-appointed keeper of the party’s anti-tax flame.

Grover Norquist, the group’s president, said he has “sent up a flare” against placing trust in Democrats, given how bipartisan agreements, including the one struck by then-President Bush in 1990, eventually unraveled. Those tax increases took effect as scheduled, but Democrats didn’t always deliver on promised spending cuts, Mr. Norquist said.

Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), one lawmaker targeted by Mr. Norquist’s group, is having none of it. “These fights … help raise money for interest groups, but they don’t do anything for solving problems,” he said.

I’d be interested to see the rest of Coburn’s quote in full, because he’s making no sense here. What is proven not to solve problems is giving more money to politicians. Grover Norquist is right: everytime Republicans show how ‘reasonable’ they are by bargaining with Democrats for a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts, the result is always more taxes and no cuts. How many times must Lucy pull the football out from under Charlie Brown before he learns his lesson?

This entire “rift” is a function of fundamentally misunderstanding the problem Washington faces. Too many Republicans are content to consider it a deficit or debt problem, but these are just symptoms of the disease that is federal spending. If closing the budget deficit entails placing greater burdens on the economy through higher taxes and larger government, it is a step in the wrong direction. Today’s federal government is simply too large, and must be shrunk. The only proven way to shrink government is to shrink government.

Handing politicians yet more tax dollars to spend not only won’t shrink government, it won’t even reduce the deficit. They will just spend it. It’s time for the Charlie Brown Republicans to stop falling into these big government traps.

Thursday

23

December 2010

0

COMMENTS

Abolish the FCC

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government, The Nanny State & A Regulated Society

Fox reports on Republican efforts to FCC plans to snare the internet in the regulatory web of big government:

Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can strike down a regulation by passing a joint resolution. If President Obama vetoes the resolution, Congress could overturn it by a two-thirds majority.

While blocking the FCC’s Internet rules appear to be a longshot, Republicans aren’t backing down.

Sens. John Ensign and Kay Bailey Hutchison plan to introduce a resolution of disapproval to stop the ruling from going into effect.

“This vote is an unprecedented power-grab by the unelected members of the Federal Communications Commission, spearheaded by Chairman Genachowski,” Hutchison said in a statement, referring to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowksi. “The FCC is attempting to push excessive government regulation of the Internet through without congressional authority and these actions threaten the very future of the technology.”

…Rep. Fred Upton, who will oversee the powerful House Energy and Commerce in the next Congress, has pledged to summon all members of the FCC to Capitol Hill to explain their move while working to block the plan “by any legislative means necessary.”

While withholding judgment on just how much backbone we’re likely to see from Republicans, it’s good that there’s at least the rhetoric of serious opposition to this move. And while I think the Congressional Review Act is an under-utilized tool for reigning in bureaucratic power grabs, more can be done here. The ultimate goal should simply be to abolish the FCC.

The FCC is an outmoded bureaucracy designed to regulate a state of technology that is no longer exists.  It’s simply not relevant to the modern world. Cable, satellite TV, and even internet radio have negated any need to regulate the “public airwaves.” What limited useful functionality they might still be able to serve, such as selling broadcast licenses, can be done by some other department, while the rest of the FCC’s docket (censorship and bureaucratic control) needs to go the way of the dodo.

It’s great that Republicans are opposing this ruling, but they might as well go big or go home. Abolish the FCC.

Friday

26

November 2010

0

COMMENTS

Republicans Look To Halt Honorific Legislation

Written by , Posted in Waste & Government Reform

The story:

The House this session has spent time honoring Geronimo, celebrating the Hollywood Walk of Fame’s 50th anniversary, declaring country music a distinctly American art form and congratulating the Saratoga Race Course on its 142nd season.

But the days of lawmakers spending hours on such niceties are on the way out.

A leader of the House’s new Republican majority intends to end the practice of voting on such resolutions — or at least dramatically scale it back.

…”I do not suspect that Jefferson or Madison ever envisioned Congress honoring the 2,560th anniversary of the birth of Confucius or supporting the designation of National Pi Day,” said Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the next House majority leader. “I believe people want our time, energy and efforts focused on their priorities.”

I’m somewhat torn on this issue.  As a general rule, I like when Congress wastes time. The more time they waste on these kinds of bills, or stuck in partisan gridlock, the less time they can spend further destroying the economy or invading personal liberties.

That said, as a Congressional observer, I grow tired of scrolling through vote after vote of nonsensical bills to get to the important stuff.  Put less selfishly, Congress might be a tiny bit more transparent and accessible if people don’t have to weed through so much nonsense just to see what Congress is really up to.

Wednesday

17

November 2010

0

COMMENTS

That's Not What Happened

Written by , Posted in Health Care, Welfare & Entitlements

Greg Sargent at the Washington Post reports and comments on the new book by Richard Wolff, which quotes Rahm as being anti-bipartisanship.  This is not news, as the very fact that Obama brought Rahm on board was enough to convince any thinking person that the President did not really believe his own unifying campaign rhetoric. More interesting to me is Sargent’s recounting of the health care debate:

The decision to waste time chasing bipartisan support for health reform was clearly one of the mistakes that led to health care being such a big political liability for Dems. It extended the whole mess by months and months, which gave opponents more time to demagogue the bill and scare voters and helped turn the public against the process.

Sargent is presenting a fictional account of events. No bipartisanship was ever sought on health care. That’s not what Democrats were doing. The reason it took so long is because they couldn’t get their own caucus to agree on what to include. At no point did they ever sincerely attempt to bring Republicans into the process.

Friday

24

September 2010

0

COMMENTS

Completely Out Of Touch

Written by , Posted in Election Time, Taxes

Two recent stories indicate just how clueless and inept is the Democratic Party.  First, we see that Democrats are punting on the issue of taxes:

Senate Democrats huddled behind closed doors for one hour on Thursday trying to figure out what to do about the expiring Bush tax cuts. With no consensus emerging, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., decided to postpone a vote until after the election.<

Why are Democrats refusing to address the pending tax hikes which will cripple the economy? Because they know there is majority support in their House caucus, and growing support in the Senate, for extension of all of the tax cuts. The American people want it, too. But this arrogant Democratic majority refuses to let such a vote take place.  They’d rather play class-warfare politics and prevent the tax cuts that would have the biggest economic impact from taking place than do what is best for everyone – across the board protection from rate hikes, including on crucial capital gains, dividends and death taxes.

The second story has to do with the Democratic response to the recently released GOP Pledge to America. Would they respond with a similar clear(-ish) enunciation of their positions, many asked? No. They say they’ll just run on their record.  Seriously.

If I didn’t know better I’d suspect they’re throwing the election.