BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

Republicans Archive

Monday

20

September 2010

0

COMMENTS

Democratic Senator Compares Tax Cutters To Terrorists

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

But remember, it’s those dirty tea baggers who need to watch their mouths and stop using divisive rhetoric:

Republicans are fighting to extend tax cuts for high earners with the intensity of a “holy jihad,” a Democratic senator charged Monday.

Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) said he didn’t see any room for compromise with Republicans on the extension of income tax cuts that are set to expire at the end of the year, blaming the GOP for being unflinching on tax rates.

“We talk about bending — it’s incredible. There’s no bending! Pick up your morning Washington Post and find out what Republicans are willing to bend on,” Kaufman said during an appearance on CNBC. “This is like a holy jihad to keep the tax cuts going.”

While I’m sure Sen. Kaufman might wish Republicans were blowing themselves up in the name the great supply-side god, that is not the case. Pointing out the facts about tax cuts is not “holy jihad,” it’s just winning the argument.

Friday

17

September 2010

0

COMMENTS

Constitution Day Is Here Again

Written by , Posted in Liberty & Limited Government, Waste & Government Reform

I don’t typically prepare long  thoughtful posts in anticipation for days such as this, and this year is no exception. Rather, I’d like to just take a moment to remind all the many bloggers and activists discussing the Constitution today to keep it in mind more than just once a year (I realize most in these groups do not need this reminder).  Every day ought to be Constitution Day.

I also fully endorse this proposal:

House Republicans, marking the anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution, called Friday for members of Congress to adopt a proposal that would require every bill to include language citing its constitutional authority.

The idea was proposed by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., on Republicans’ “America Speaking Out” website — an online discussion board for legislative ideas. GOP leaders talked up the idea in honor of Constitution Day, being celebrated Friday.

I can think of no other reform both as simple and as powerful as this.  If politicians actually had to go on record justifying the authority for their ideas, the entire policy discussion would inevitably change in the direction of less government.

Thursday

13

May 2010

0

COMMENTS

The Benefits Of Party Homogeneity

Written by , Posted in General/Misc.

A recent Washington Post editorial discusses the apparent “Party purges” that some have observed in recent years.  Whether or not “purge” is the most appropriate word, I think there is a general truth to the idea that the parties have been slowly but surely sorting themselves out ideologically.  Southern conservative Democrats like John Breaux and Zell Miller are no longer welcome in the Democratic party.  On the Republican side the same can be said of northern liberals like Lincoln Chafee.

The editorial is reasonably even-handed in discussing the good and the bad of these changes, but I think it falls short in one important area.  A significant unidentified benefit of having parties with more clearly delineated ideologies is the increased ability for voters to replace bad policies with potentially better ones.

Assuming neither party has a monopoly on correct policy responses to various problems, when wrong policies are pursued and one ideology fails to deliver on a particular problem, having a clear alternative is preferable to two parties that are just a mix of both left and right.  In other words, if a governing party is already using a mishmash of liberal, conservative or any other policy solutions because they have a “big tent,” then it’s not altogether clear where the failure stems from when a policy flops.  But if a distinctly liberal or conservative party implements a policy and it fails, the source of that failure is easily identifiable.

The obstacle is our electoral system, which really guarantees the viability of two and only two parties, whereas the array of ideological choices on most issues. is typically greater. But just because we’re stuck with a two party system – one that encourages parties to be ideologically expansive despite all the hand-wringing over “purges” – doesn’t mean we have to have two parties with significant, and confusing, ideological overlap.  If you’re conservative, there’s really no good reason to be in the Democratic party, and no real benefit to the voters for having you there. The same goes for liberals and Republicans. If you’re a libertarian…well, pick your poison.

Wednesday

12

May 2010

0

COMMENTS

Enough With The Mindless Attacks

Written by , Posted in Election Time

I’m not usually one to complain about partisanship because I believe that ideological competition serves a valuable purpose.  But there comes a point when attacking every little minuscule thing the other side does just becomes stupid.  Case in point, the Republicans have picked Tampa as the location of their 2012 convention and Democrats immediately responded with an “attack” on the choice.

Democrats are preparing efforts to hammer the GOP over its reported selection of Tampa as the location of its 2012 convention, pointing to benefits the city and the state of Florida reaped from stimulus and healthcare reform legislation.

Democrats seized on an expected decision this afternoon by members of a Republican National Committee (RNC) steering committee that will recommend Tampa as the site of their nominating convention.

Give me a break.

Monday

15

March 2010

0

COMMENTS

That’s One Way To Go

Written by , Posted in Waste & Government Reform

When the Republican House Caucus swore off earmarks recently, I noted that this didn’t necessarily mean all the Republicans behind such a move were taking a principled stance. Some probably are serious, but others are just capitalizing on the political environment.

And still others, like Senator Inhofe, have gone in the complete opposite direction:

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R.-Okla.), named by the National Journal as the senator with the most conservative voting record in 2009 and rated by the National Taxpayers Union as having the Senate’s fifth-best voting record on bills affecting taxing and spending, told CNSNews.com that he intends to lead a new effort to protect and defend the right of members of Congress to “earmark” appropriations and authorization bills.

Interesting. Let’s see what his argument is…

Inhofe said it is important to preserve earmarking not only to protect the constitutional prerogative of Congress to control where and how the federal government spends the taxpayers’ money, but also that it is particularly important for Congress to protect its authority in this area against encroachment by the Obama administration.

If Congress bans earmarks and thus restricts its own authority to direct federal programs, Inhofe said, “we would be delegating that back from Congress to President Obama to make those decisions. And I look at him, I look at his social engineering, I see the destructive forces in his administration that are tearing down every institution that has made America great, and I don’t want to put all this power in his hands.”

I find this argument wholly unconvincing. Earmarks are not the sole means by which Congress allocates funds. Senator Inhofe is confusing process for outcomes. Refusing to use the corrupt and unaccountable earmark process to disperse funds does not amount to a delegation of authority for spending from the legislative to the executive. It simply means that individual members of Congress cannot sneak in special carve-outs for district interests as a needle in the massive haystack that is typical Washington legislation.  They will have to actually make the case for their spending, and Congress will have to use a more transparent approach to funding.

I think Senator Inhofe will find that, in the end, a less corrupt process will provide Congress with more authority, as it will help restore public faith in what is now one of, if not the single, most unpopular institution in America.

Friday

12

March 2010

2

COMMENTS

Republicans Swear Off Earmarks

Written by , Posted in Waste & Government Reform

Yesterday the House Republican Conference swore off earmarks by adopting a unilateral ban on all earmarks:

House Republicans approved a conference-wide moratorium on earmarks on Thursday, one day after a House committee enacted a ban on for-profit earmarks.

The Republicans’ moratorium is more extensive than the House Appropriations Committee’s ban in that it applies to all earmarks for all members of the caucus.

The moratorium was passed via a “strong” voice vote, according to Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), who participated in the nearly two-hour-long conference meeting.

Republicans had discussed enacting a ban in the last Congress, but a vote never materialized.

Does this mean that Republicans, after years of profligate spending, have suddenly realized fiscal principles?  Probably not.

The beauty of a competitive political system is that the public, by hounding politicians long enough, can eventually force them to make the right choice for the wrong reasons.  Sure, some of the people involved have taken principled stands against earmarks consistently, but by and large Republicans just want back in power, and they’re doing what they have to do to court voters.

Just remember, they’ll betray these same principles the minute they get back into power if you let them.  That’s why the public has to stay informed, engaged and outspoken.

Sunday

28

February 2010

0

COMMENTS

Tuesday

9

February 2010

0

COMMENTS

Paul Krugman Unintentionally Offers Sound Advice For Republicans

Written by , Posted in General/Misc.

Paul Krugman is all in a tizzy once again.  This time he’s lamenting the lack of dictatorial powers available to liberal presidents, and thus their inability to ram their agenda down our throats.  He then attempts to criticize the Republicans:

It should be a simple message (and it should have been the central message in Massachusetts): a vote for a Republican, no matter what you think of him as a person, is a vote for paralysis.

Is it just me, or has he just suggested a powerful campaign commercial for…the Republicans?

It turns out that, for the electorate, paralysis is preferable to the radical left-wing policies advocated by the likes of Paul Krugman.

Monday

14

December 2009

1

COMMENTS

Leftists Decry Lack Of Dictatorship In America

Written by , Posted in Legislation, Liberty & Limited Government

Matt Yglesias is upset and considers America to be “ungovernable” because Obama can’t just wave his hand and have his agenda pass without opposition:

We’re suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority’s governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking. Or you can have a system in which a defeated minority rejects the majority’s governing agenda out of hand, seeks opening for attack, and hopes that failure on the part of the majority will bring them to power. But right now we have both simultaneously. It’s a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. It’s insane, and it needs to be changed.

No, it doesn’t.  What we have is a system that protects itself from the whims of fanciful, but ill-considered change.

The guardian has also taken up the cause of whining about America’s “broken” system, which just refuses to allow the immediate and thoughtless adoption of a sweeping, radical agenda.

This is not Latin America, where any colorful demagogue can rise to power and immediately reshape an entire nation in his imagine.  Where Matt Yglesias and the hard-left see a bug, those more concerned about the nature of American democracy than the ability to ram through radical legislation see a feature.

The Senate is the only body in the government which protects minority rights from the trampling of the majority. It was designed specifically for that purpose, and although the nature of how it does so has changed, it continues to serve that purpose today.  We should not undo our governing model on the basis of the dictatorial impulses of Matt Yglesias.

Wednesday

23

September 2009

0

COMMENTS

NPR’s Crocodile Tears

Written by , Posted in Election Time, Liberty & Limited Government, Media Bias

An NPR piece spotlights Rep. Inglis, a South Carolina Republican facing primary competition after being targeted as a RINO.  I don’t know much about Inglis, so I’m not going to get into the merits of whether or not he is a RINO.  But I do want to point out the utter shallowness and one-sided nature of NPR’s analysis.

The article repeatedly points out the risks of targeting moderate GOPers.  If the RINOs are ousted, the party will be too small to compete, they claim.  There is a basis for this concern, as obviously there must be a balancing act between enforcement of principles and inclusion.  But they present a false choice when they make it seem as if Republicans can either have a smaller, more principled party or a larger one which includes a few squishy moderates.   There are in fact other possibilities.  Disillusioned conservatives that stayed home the last few elections could be persuaded to return if the party more consistently represents its stated principles.  Likewise, if they continue to stray too far from them, even more might abandon the GOP.

What they completely ignore while fretting about the costs of ousting a few RINOs is that the party has already shrunk, and it did it by being too much like the Democrats.  Republicans didn’t lose the House, the Senate and the White House by purging the party of moderates, they lost it by being moderate – i.e. by proposing big government solutions to things like education and prescription drugs, and just generally spending like there was no tomorrow.

But the public is fed up, and there is a strong anti-incumbent, anti-government movement brewing.  If the Republicans are able to capture this movement, a feat that is not at all certain, it is likely to work to their benefit.  But in order to do so, it will necessarily mean replacing some old Washington incumbents with new, more principled blood.

Newer Entries →
← Older Entries

About Me

profileI serve as Vice President of the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a non-profit think tank dedicated to preserving tax competition and free markets. This site features my personal views, which are not reflective of CF&P.

Search Site

Categories

Archives