A Blue State Resident explains why Conservatives are Unhappy with the Miers Nomination
Carroll Andrew Morse
The conventional wisdom regarding RI Republicans is that they don’t believe they can win big, so they focus their efforts on winning an occasional office and on making deals to blunt the power of the majority. The CW holds that these modest goals are the rational response to insufficient numbers and institutional weakness. The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court makes me wonder if this picture has confused cause with effect.
The national Republican party of George W. Bush does not have a problem with tiny numbers or institutional weakness. The President is supported by a sizeable base that wants conservative judges. The President’s party has a 55 seat Senate majority, 52 of whom have been reliable votes on judicial nominations. Yet despite these advantages, the decision to nominate Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is strangely analogous to the kind of decision the overwhelmed RI Republican party would make – a less than ideal compromise, based on a fear of having to defend conservative ideas, that has the primary virtue of being acceptable to the opposition in the legislature.
The parallel behavior of a weak state party and a strong national party suggest that problem in RI, and in other blue parts of the country, is not that institutional weakness leads Republicans to settle for watered down ideas. It suggests that the problem is that Republican unwillingness to stand up for their ideals leads to institutional weakness.
7:21 PM
Conservatives are angry with Bush because they believe he has not repaid the political right for their efforts in his two election victories by furthering conservative causes through judicial nominees.
Conservatives have every right to be angry because they are the reason Bush was elected twice yet their payback hasn't happened.
~BUT~
Bush is not a conservative, never has been a conservative and conservatives need to stop thinking that he is.
Tim,
While I understand why you would say Pres. Bush is no conservative, he has undeniably implemented some conservative policies. He has lowered taxes. With the exception of the "unknown" Miers, his judicial appointments have never really come under fire from conservative groups. He clearly thinks there is a role for religious groups in shouldering some of the social load that liberals have tried to foist upon government for the past 40 years. Where he has fallen down mostly is with government spending. Of course, many paleo-cons have a problem with Iraq, too. I think it is painting with too broad of a brush to say simply that he isn't conservative. He has conservative ideals, but sometimes it seems like he goes along (in other words, plays politics) to get along so he can get things done on items that he deems more important (War on Terror/Iraq/Tax Cuts, etc.)
Ms. Morse: you nailed it!
The Republican Party no longer stands for anything … but incumbency. (Most) Republican office holders shrink from propounding Republican principles, for they don’t really believe in them themselves.
That explains why Bush campaigned for Arlen Specter, and may do so for Chafee – Ronald Reagan would not have spoken ill about them, but neither would he have lifted a finger to help them survive primary challenges.
That explains why – under a “Republican” Congress, and “Republican” President – the federal budget is growing at levels not seen since the 1960’s.
Will is right – while George W. Bush is conservative in an evangelical sense, he is not conservative in the political sense.
And Marc, Bush hasn't really lowered taxes. He lowered tax rates - but "taxes" are the reciprocal of the federal budget, if the federal budget goes up then, by definition, taxes are increased.
Tax rates merely determine whether the budget is currently balanced and when, and by whom, taxes are paid.
I have to admit, I'm a little split on how to come down on this Supreme Court choice. I would have preferred someone a little more readily identified as a conservative. I'm hopeful Bush will get another pick before his term expires, but I'd prefer to have it happen sooner; not later. I know so little about her, but I'm at least willing to reserve judgement at this point.
I've had this conversation with Tom before, regarding George W (and even Tim's a little right on this one -- scary!). I did end up voting for Bush, however, only after a considerable amount of internal turmoil (and not for the reasons that most people think of). My concern was that I wasn't sure he was conservative enough (but, at least I didn't write in his father!).
Basically, George W. Bush is much more "compassionate" than he is "conservative." His heart's usually in the right place, but that's not how we should be making public policy. Sure, he may support socially conservative positions in many ways, but in the sense that I would mean "Conservative" (some might call it Classical Liberalism, or a Jeffersonian view of government), George W. Bush is not a "conservative."
Ronald Reagan was a Conservative: while believing in social conservatism, he also believed in a "government that governs best, governs least," that "government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem!" He believed in the power of the individual, in that the biggest threat to freedom is a government by the few, having too much control over our day to day lives. Besides constitutional limited government, he also believed in (at least trying) to spend within our means, fighting pork-barrell projects, and vetoing spending bills when necessary. He believed in choosing our fights wisely, and fighting them to win. He had an uncanny ability to work well with others, remember he was dealing with a very Democrat congress. He was sunny, optimistic, extremely articulate in espousing his beliefs, and his legacy only keeps growing with time. He also didn't have a problem with getting rid of people around him who were giving him bad advice (hint, hint).
I'm very much a child of the "Reagan Revoluion," so any threat to that legacy, I take seriously. I hope that you can see that this isn't an easy topic for me to discuss. I'm also still hopeful the GWB can get it right. I haven't given up on him yet. I don't know what GWB's legacy will be at this point, but he still has 3 more years to get it right!
Will: I agree!
Tom W.: You're getting a little semantical, there. I understand what you mean and it may be true in a true Economic 101 sense, but to the average Joe, lowering tax rates = lowering taxes. Though I do have an honest question. Does your definition of how taxes are the reciprocal of the budget depend upon a theory similar to baseline budgeting or the economy is a zero-sum game? I'm certain that it has been shown that while tax rates go down, tax revenue can increase. So if tax rates go down, the budget goes up, but the revenue taken in exceeds the budget (ie: a budget surplus), then I'm not sure that your equation holds true.
>>>Tom W.: You're getting a little semantical, there. I understand what you mean and it may be true in a true Economic 101 sense, but to the average Joe, lowering tax rates = lowering taxes. Though I do have an honest question. Does your definition of how taxes are the reciprocal of the budget depend upon a theory similar to baseline budgeting or the economy is a zero-sum game? I'm certain that it has been shown that while tax rates go down, tax revenue can increase. So if tax rates go down, the budget goes up, but the revenue taken in exceeds the budget (ie: a budget surplus), then I'm not sure that your equation holds true.
Marc,
Lowering tax rates can result in an increase in revenue - supply side works. And yes, quite understandably, to most people a lowering of tax rates equates to a lowering of taxes.
Further, one can measure taxes as, e.g., a percentage of GDP rather than in absolute terms.
To my mind ANY increase in a government budget is (ultimately) a tax increase, period.
For ultimately that total budget will be paid for from taxes involuntarily extracted from citizens; the only variation being whether paid for immediately or through the eventual (re)payment of principal of Treasury securities (both publicly traded Treasuries and the IOU Treasuries sitting in the "Social Security Trust Fund").
Therefore a budget increase is by definition a tax increase.
The rest is really a measure of the RELATIVE tax increase - whether vis-a-vis inflation (an increase in "real terms") or vis-a-vis GDP (an increase relative to the economy as a whole).
Click here for the new Anchor Rising & Ocean State Current page
About Community Crier
About Engaged Citizen
Administrator
Conservatives are angry with Bush because they believe he has not repaid the political right for their efforts in his two election victories by furthering conservative causes through judicial nominees.
Posted by: Tim at October 4, 2005 7:34 PMConservatives have every right to be angry because they are the reason Bush was elected twice yet their payback hasn't happened.
~BUT~
Bush is not a conservative, never has been a conservative and conservatives need to stop thinking that he is.
Tim,
Posted by: Marc Comtois at October 4, 2005 7:44 PMWhile I understand why you would say Pres. Bush is no conservative, he has undeniably implemented some conservative policies. He has lowered taxes. With the exception of the "unknown" Miers, his judicial appointments have never really come under fire from conservative groups. He clearly thinks there is a role for religious groups in shouldering some of the social load that liberals have tried to foist upon government for the past 40 years. Where he has fallen down mostly is with government spending. Of course, many paleo-cons have a problem with Iraq, too. I think it is painting with too broad of a brush to say simply that he isn't conservative. He has conservative ideals, but sometimes it seems like he goes along (in other words, plays politics) to get along so he can get things done on items that he deems more important (War on Terror/Iraq/Tax Cuts, etc.)
Ms. Morse: you nailed it!
The Republican Party no longer stands for anything … but incumbency. (Most) Republican office holders shrink from propounding Republican principles, for they don’t really believe in them themselves.
That explains why Bush campaigned for Arlen Specter, and may do so for Chafee – Ronald Reagan would not have spoken ill about them, but neither would he have lifted a finger to help them survive primary challenges.
That explains why – under a “Republican” Congress, and “Republican” President – the federal budget is growing at levels not seen since the 1960’s.
Will is right – while George W. Bush is conservative in an evangelical sense, he is not conservative in the political sense.
And Marc, Bush hasn't really lowered taxes. He lowered tax rates - but "taxes" are the reciprocal of the federal budget, if the federal budget goes up then, by definition, taxes are increased.
Tax rates merely determine whether the budget is currently balanced and when, and by whom, taxes are paid.
Posted by: Tom W at October 4, 2005 7:54 PMI have to admit, I'm a little split on how to come down on this Supreme Court choice. I would have preferred someone a little more readily identified as a conservative. I'm hopeful Bush will get another pick before his term expires, but I'd prefer to have it happen sooner; not later. I know so little about her, but I'm at least willing to reserve judgement at this point.
Posted by: Will at October 5, 2005 1:58 AMI've had this conversation with Tom before, regarding George W (and even Tim's a little right on this one -- scary!). I did end up voting for Bush, however, only after a considerable amount of internal turmoil (and not for the reasons that most people think of). My concern was that I wasn't sure he was conservative enough (but, at least I didn't write in his father!).
Basically, George W. Bush is much more "compassionate" than he is "conservative." His heart's usually in the right place, but that's not how we should be making public policy. Sure, he may support socially conservative positions in many ways, but in the sense that I would mean "Conservative" (some might call it Classical Liberalism, or a Jeffersonian view of government), George W. Bush is not a "conservative."
Ronald Reagan was a Conservative: while believing in social conservatism, he also believed in a "government that governs best, governs least," that "government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem!" He believed in the power of the individual, in that the biggest threat to freedom is a government by the few, having too much control over our day to day lives. Besides constitutional limited government, he also believed in (at least trying) to spend within our means, fighting pork-barrell projects, and vetoing spending bills when necessary. He believed in choosing our fights wisely, and fighting them to win. He had an uncanny ability to work well with others, remember he was dealing with a very Democrat congress. He was sunny, optimistic, extremely articulate in espousing his beliefs, and his legacy only keeps growing with time. He also didn't have a problem with getting rid of people around him who were giving him bad advice (hint, hint).
I'm very much a child of the "Reagan Revoluion," so any threat to that legacy, I take seriously. I hope that you can see that this isn't an easy topic for me to discuss. I'm also still hopeful the GWB can get it right. I haven't given up on him yet. I don't know what GWB's legacy will be at this point, but he still has 3 more years to get it right!
Will: I agree!
Tom W.: You're getting a little semantical, there. I understand what you mean and it may be true in a true Economic 101 sense, but to the average Joe, lowering tax rates = lowering taxes. Though I do have an honest question. Does your definition of how taxes are the reciprocal of the budget depend upon a theory similar to baseline budgeting or the economy is a zero-sum game? I'm certain that it has been shown that while tax rates go down, tax revenue can increase. So if tax rates go down, the budget goes up, but the revenue taken in exceeds the budget (ie: a budget surplus), then I'm not sure that your equation holds true.
Posted by: Marc Comtois at October 5, 2005 7:29 PM>>>Tom W.: You're getting a little semantical, there. I understand what you mean and it may be true in a true Economic 101 sense, but to the average Joe, lowering tax rates = lowering taxes. Though I do have an honest question. Does your definition of how taxes are the reciprocal of the budget depend upon a theory similar to baseline budgeting or the economy is a zero-sum game? I'm certain that it has been shown that while tax rates go down, tax revenue can increase. So if tax rates go down, the budget goes up, but the revenue taken in exceeds the budget (ie: a budget surplus), then I'm not sure that your equation holds true.
Marc,
Lowering tax rates can result in an increase in revenue - supply side works. And yes, quite understandably, to most people a lowering of tax rates equates to a lowering of taxes.
Further, one can measure taxes as, e.g., a percentage of GDP rather than in absolute terms.
To my mind ANY increase in a government budget is (ultimately) a tax increase, period.
For ultimately that total budget will be paid for from taxes involuntarily extracted from citizens; the only variation being whether paid for immediately or through the eventual (re)payment of principal of Treasury securities (both publicly traded Treasuries and the IOU Treasuries sitting in the "Social Security Trust Fund").
Therefore a budget increase is by definition a tax increase.
The rest is really a measure of the RELATIVE tax increase - whether vis-a-vis inflation (an increase in "real terms") or vis-a-vis GDP (an increase relative to the economy as a whole).
Posted by: Tom W at October 6, 2005 12:40 PM