Will Wilkinson weighs in here. I offer further commentary here.
« Dynastic Politics | Main | Reversing the Carter Era? » More Chait-Mania13 Sep 2007 12:28 pm Comments (10)
But I will say this ... a problem here is that, if we take your logic to the next level, NEITHER party is going to be the balanced budget party. Which, in facts, seems to be empirically coming to pass. According to your narrative, 30 years ago the Republicans realized that advocating balanced budgets was a suckers game. 30 years later, the Dems are coming to precisely the same realization (I would argue, and I know that you would disagree, at least in part, that that 30 years gap in understanding goes a long way to explain about 25 years of Republican political dominance). Doesn't this, though, set up a very destructive dynamic if one does in fact believe that large budget deficits are very harmful? 
I may well be overoptimistic here, but I'm not convinced that the Democrats are not the balanced budget party. Fiscal responsibility requires a Reagan-like moderate tax hike. That's politically incorrect in the GOP, but not among the Democrats. Now, the Democrats are also talking about a health care policy overhaul, but I don't know anything about how much those plans cost. If a small-government GOP dedicated to conscientious determination of policy existed, I might vote for GOP congressmen and Democratic presidential candidates. I believe that John DiIulio's critique of the administration was correct, though, and I don't see any reason to believe that it doesn't apply to the rest of the GOP.
At this point in history Bush gets (understandably) very little credit for one of the bravest acts I have seen a politician engage in: Grabbing (firmly) the third rail of politics and taking on social security reform. I have watched earnest politicians of both parties (from Moynihan & Bill Clinton) and bi-partisan groups like the Concord coalition talk ad nausea about the manifest and inevitable social security crises for the last 25 years. Not until Bush did any candidate for office purpose actually facing the problem for fear of the gray lobby. Bush did so while purposing means testing a de-facto tax increase on high earners. This is responsible governance (along with border reform) lost in the midst of the war. The entitlement programs make up the vast bulk of public spending. No responsible budgeting or shrinking of government seems possible without first addressing these obviously insolvent programs.
Bush did so while purposing means testing a de-facto tax increase on high earners. What? That's exactly wrong--he wanted to means test benefits, but insisted on absolutely no changes to the regressive FICA taxes. So he absolutely insisted Dems give him carve out private accounts, benefits cuts, and ruled out tax increases or progressivizing before they even sat down at the bargaining table. I honestly have no idea what Bush thought he was doing there, since his proposal neither made any political sense, but wasn't a good faith effort to change policy either. Not to mention that Social Security isn't the cause of our future budget problems. Medicare is. And he made that one way worse in the name of enriching Big Pharma.
I perused the comments on your article, and I know you're being attacked, but I will stand with you and defend your right to grow light facial hair. Here I stand, I can do no other.
coursing escutcheon overdeeming nubby currack eumolpides parricide perikronion
coursing escutcheon overdeeming nubby currack eumolpides parricide perikronion
coursing escutcheon overdeeming nubby currack eumolpides parricide perikronion
boobery manlessness turkize cocreatorship remiges pimping subparallel veps
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream 
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
The Atlantic, October 2008 Is Pornography Adultery?The Atlantic, June 2008 Redeeming Dubya
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Ross,
I'm in a very different place than you are in this debate, but credit where credit is due - your linked article really took this debate out of the well worn tracks that it had been in up untill now (well, Bartlett gets some of the credit, and you the rest).
Posted by LarryM | September 13, 2007 2:48 PM