Coburn (and Bastiat) = RINOs?
By Shaun Kenney | Monday, April 25th, 2011 | PolicySenator Tom Coburn, a longtime ally of conservative causes from life to taxes, is taking heat from Grover Norquist.
His sin? Advocating for some form of tax increase to fix the federal budget mess. From Senator Coburn:
“Which pledge is most important… the pledge to uphold your oath to the Constitution of the United States or a pledge from a special interest group who claims to speak for all American conservatives when, in fact, they really don’t?. . . . The fact is we have enormous urgent problems in front of us that have to be addressed and have to be addressed in a way that will get 60 votes in the Senate. . . and something that the president will sign.”
”Where’s the compromise that will save our country?. . . This isn’t about politics that is normal.”
Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist is lighting up Coburn like a Christmas tree for having violated the “taxpayer protection pledge” in trying to fix the macro-level economic pressures facing the federal government.
Spending is part of that equation, most especially at the federal level. Of course, it gets tricky when you talk about what to cut.
Who wants to cut entitlements?! Me too… until it’s your grandma who now has to come up with Medicare payments.
How’s about Social Security?! Me too, especially since my generation will never see it and I can make more money in a 401k than the Ponzi scheme that is paying for, oh, about 76 million Baby Boomers who are expecting you and I to work harder to get their due.
How’s about all those government pensions?! Me too… until you hear those Tea Party activists sitting on their pensions scream about what they “rightfully earned” and what you’re rightfully paying into a system that — again — won’t be there when you go to retire.
How’s about defense spending?! I’m sure that will make al-Qaeda and Ghadaffi happy…
How’s about cutting Labor, Energy, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Education?! Me too… but are you ready for the state tax increases that will follow in turn?
How’s about reforming education?! Me too… but that starts in Washington, then Richmond. Are your teachers unionized? Oops… what your next step?
How’s about stripping out welfare?! Me too… until all those families on food stamps and TANF cry out that food is a basic human right. In this economy, you’re going to be surprised at which one of your neighbors is truly struggling to get by…
The problem is that the economic conditions are truly macro level problems. Coburn like a lot of other conservatives is trying to hammer out a compromise that will preserve the best of America and allow our economy a chance to grow out of the economic H-bomb that the Keynesian economy has dropped on middle-class America.
- “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.” – Lord John Maynard Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1919
Now there are some from the objectivist right that insist that this collapse of the American government and economic system is what they want to happen. ”Shrug Atlas, Shrug!” is the mantra of the day.
Conservatives have never believed this. Conservatives believe that we require a strong polity in order to protect our rights. Without it, our rights are surrendered to those who have the might to make their own right… a Randian paradise if there ever was one, but certainly nothing that a conservative such as Reagan or Goldwater would have recognized.
Coburn is right. Conservatives need to gird themselves for a budget solution that will cut spending, raise taxes, increase the debt ceiling once (as Rubio has so famously drawn the line in the sand) and no more, alter the monetary policy of the United States, end major components of the entitlement system, devolve responsibilities to the state such as education, and seriously attack the federal deficit and national debt. Only then are we ever going to be able to allow the economy to grow our way back into prosperity (provided we have the backbone to keep the Leviathan in its box).
At the end of the day, Frederic Bastiat was right as well. It’s a war of plunder, a Hobbesian nightmare if we don’t preserve civil society. Coburn and other conservatives are doing well to defend American society against the twin extremes of socialism and tyrrany on the left, and libertine anarchism on the right. It’s the Aristotelian balance that made America great — not mere compromise.
That is the only Constitutional answer that will satisfy future generations of Americans. The “here and now” set is the enemy, whether it’s socialists on one side or Randian objectivists on the other.
Pry them out, bench those voices, and fix America.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
27 Responses to "Coburn (and Bastiat) = RINOs?"
While we might argue about where to make cuts and what taxes to raise, I thought that was well said.
Also let me take the opportunity to note the invisible hand of the free market has given the “Atlas Shrugged” movie the middle finger.
An honest and well written post.
Thanks!
Why is it Republicans never mention cutting the size of government by the most obvious means? Ending agencies like the EPA (an example of a Republican founded big government agency) ends the budget requirement.
You can’t cut the size of the budget without reducing the size of government. Lets start with agencies.
Good point — forgot to put agencies on the chopping block.
@Steve –
Middle finger? Or epic pimp slap?
Shaun, this is one of your best commentaries; ditto Steve V. A whole bunch of us baby boomers have decent nest eggs because, like you, we never believed SS would be there for us, and planned accordingly. We’ll scream, but we won’t starve if you delay, tax, or trim our SS/benefits or medicare.
OTOH, imagine, what could a large wave of singularly focused under 45s accomplish if they could set aside political identities and work together? Alone, Gen X, Y & Z have little chance to beat the sheer numbers (or political pressure) of us boomers – for at least another 2 decades. However, join ranks in a non-partisan force and the odds change.
– 34% of US population is over 50 and generally speaking w/ one loud voice on aging issues and benefits.
– 39% of US population is between ages 20 and 49. What are you guys waiting for?
John,
EPA budget: $10.5 Billion (2010)
EPA personal: 17,384 employees
DOD budget: $664 Billion (2010)
DOD personal: 700,000 civilian and 1,418,542 military
You’re right, the EPA just costs soooooo much to run. My numbers come from a quick Wikipedia search-if they’re incorrect, please correct me.
Jay D,
That is if you didn’t get destroyed by the markets. Luckily I have 40 years to make mine back. But my mutual funds were killed 5 years ago. SS, Medicare, etc should never be the backbone. It should be the “in case shit happens” for the middle class. Its the lower economic rungs that should be turning to it in the golden years.
ToR,
DoD contribution to American exceptionalism: America is the hyper-power of the world and we don’t take shit from anyone.
EPA contribution to American exceptionalism: the snail darter and the spotted owl.
See how much the discretionary spending makes sense when you break it down to a per-unit basis?
The cost of the EPA is not what it’s budget is. It’s what it costs the American economy and individual choices. I don’t dispute that some small benefits might reduce the cost by a few percent. An agency could be free of charge and still destroy everyone’s life and property.
We’re talking about cutting spending and balancing budgets.
I try not to pick and choose one over the other, both agencies provide valuable services to our country. Personally I like clean drinking water and breathable air, just as much as I like having the freedom our military strength provides.
There just seems to be a LOT more to cut out of $664 billion compared to $10.5 billion. You could start with Korea, Japan, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. Then we could move on to other areas such as weapons systems. Those cuts alone would more than offset any costs imposed by EPA regulations.
No?
ToR –
EPA budget per employee: 604k
DOD budget per employee: 313k
Let’s roll the EPA into the DOD since it’s a hell of a lot more efficient.
You might have a point, Shaun … if Coburn were talking about raising taxes where the money is: in the middle class. As figures published in the WSJ last week demonstrate, we could seize ever dime from the “wealthy” President Barry loves to demonize, and we’d still have massive deficits. Furthermore, ToR, we could shut down the Pentagon ENTIRELY, and President Barry would still have trillion-dollar deficits.
The figures demonstrate beyond that this is a SPENDING problem, and a spending problem only. Taxing the “rich” — the only taxes President Barry is talking about — is plainly not the answer or solution.
@ Jason
If your measure of efficiency is budget/employees then we might as well roll everything into Americorps, Peace Corps, or the National Park Service. But then again who would want that?
@ James,
Show me the numbers. What are you going to cut out to balance the budget? Then re-read the original post and realize that people are NOT going to go along with your cuts.
You must be the only person the actually believes the money is in the middle class. President Obama wants to return the tax rate for the top 1% to the rate before the Bush Tax Cuts which, just so happen to have coincided with the Great Recession. However, there should be marginal tax increases on all income scales to cover government expenses and pay down the deficit. It is not fair to make younger Americans pay for the mistakes of the Regan, Bush, Bush, Obama years.
Yes, I left Clinton out of there, he balanced the budget and paid down the debt. Sure, you think it must have had something to do with Reganomics.
For anyone interested, this is one of the best, 2-minute, in a nutshell, analytic responses to the the cut/raise taxes, grow the economy, and/or cut spending debates raging … with numbers attached.
http://mercatus.org/video/veronique-de-rugy-bloomberg-tv-we-can-t-tax-or-grow-our-way-out-deficit
de Rugy makes the critical point — you can’t tax your way out of this hole, nor can you let the economy grow its way out of the problem.
…but she does recommend closing the loopholes. Very analytical, and probably right over the heads of most folks, but very well stated.
ToR
Regan was Reagan’s Sec of Treasury. Gingrich and the Repubs balanced the budget by controlling spending. Stop this baloney about Clinton doing any such thing. With a Dem Congress he would have done Bush 43 and Obama proud spending and spending.
The EPA has outlived its utility and exceeded its mandate. Clean air and water are too mundane for them.
Shaun, you’re a good friend, but you’re young . . .
. . . and, dare I say, naive.
You may not remember the last two times the “responsible” method of balancing the budget was proposed (tax hikes and spending cuts). It was 1990 and 1993; in each case, the tax increases were immediate – and damaging, while the spending cuts were mythical. In fact, the deficit got *worse* after the 1990 tax increase, and the same would have occured in 1993 but for the GOP Congress pushing Clinton toward lower spending (as it was, the economy took four years to reach decent recovery levels).
Tax reveune is driven by GDP, not rates. Recessions hurt revenue; recoveries help it.
The tax code need serious scrubbing, Coburn is right about that. But rates should be lowered to ensure no static effect on the taxpayer.
You can’t reverse Keynesian damage without reversing Keynesian economics. That means swallowing hard and making the “tricky” decisions.
Yet another example that the hardest thing to do in politics is to *avoid* tax increases, not embrace them.
ToR, you are as capable of a Google search as I am. Do your own damn research! Aside from that, it is unhealty for a republic to have a large percentage — approaching 50% at last report — of a people having no “skin in the game” to bear the costs of government. Don’t feed me this BS about the rich not paying their “fair share.” The “rich” not only pay their “fair share,” but they pay the share of a lot of people who are left as little more than plunderers.
And I didn’t suggest any “cuts.” However, since you asked, the problem is in so-called “entitlements,” which are unconstitutional in any case. Cut — actually, repeal — them all, and get government out of a business in which it has no business or power, and at which it is incompetent, in any case.
“[R]eturn the tax rate for the top 1% to the rate before the Bush Tax Cuts”? Why don’t you give us a figure on how much that would yield? It’s miniscule in comparison to the budget, and would choke off even the anemic economic growth that we have. YOUR President Barry conceded that when he signed an extension late last year, passed by the lame … er, “lame duck” Democrat Congress. They’re no longer “the Bush tax cuts”; they’re President Barry’s and the Democrat Congress’ tax cuts.
Moreover, please don’t indulge your penchant for historical revisionism with those who are, say, more than three years old. Bush’s tax cuts did NOT “just so happen to have coincided with the Great Recession.” They went into effect in 2001 and 2003; “the Great Recession” started at the end of 2008, with a financial meltdown precipitated by the chickens coming home to roost on 1970s legislation — the Community Reinvestment Act — which forced lenders to make irresponsible loans.
And “It is not fair to make younger Americans pay for the mistakes of the Regan [sic], Bush, Bush, Obama years”? Why not? You apparently would have “younger Americans pay for the mistakes” of the Roosevelt and Johnson years (Social Security; Medicare; Medicaid; [not so-]Great Society programs).
How old are you, anyway?
James,
Calm down and take an ibuprofen; I wouldn’t want to have one less Social Security and Medicare enrollee due to an early heart attack.
Did you read my post before you became livid?: “there should be marginal tax increases on all income scales to cover government expenses and pay down the deficit.” That is in addition to “return the tax rate for the top 1% [2%] to the rate before the Bush Tax Cuts.” I don’t like the idea that 45% of the households didn’t pay income taxes this year but they certainly paid sales taxes and made contributions to Social Security and Medicare if they were receiving any employment compensation and thus contributed to the running of the states and the republic.
Read the original post. The fact of the matter is you’re not going to be able to eliminate entitlement programs or any thing else you might want to. As much as it might enrage you, there aren’t that many people that agree with you. I’m for cutting 10% across the board, raising taxes a bit and working from there. Why not start with something that a majority of the people in the country can agree with. Becasue leaving the mistakes of your generation to my generation certainly isn’t fair.
P.S. if they haven’t been ruled unconstitutional by now, I don’t think you’re gonna have any luck in the near future. But hey, put that 3 cornered hat back on, throw some tea in Tidal Basin, and keep up the good work.
Do you still want to know my age? Because I would love to know you reading comprehension level and blood pressure.
And I believe it started in December of 2007 (Wikipedia). Here’s to the 3 year old historical revisionists!
D.J. –
Those were straight up tax increases for their own sake. We’re now in a situation where the budget is truly a wreck, and America’s prestige and power are on the line — the entire economic system is at risk because of profligate spending.
Now obviously, the problem is one of spending. But when you’re looking at a $70 trillion safety net and a $14 trillion debt, to think that the middle class of America is going to escape without a tax increase of some sort is, to put it bluntly, naive at best.
Unless we fix the problem once and for all with the FY 2012 budget, we are going to push the pendulum back and it will swing. Taking a page from the Reagan playbook and putting Leviathan in a long-term box while allowing the economy to recover and grow isn’t a bad long-term plan… then maybe we can start talking tax cuts once we pay back the national credit cards.
The other catch to this is the debt ceiling and the Keynesian system we exist in currently… just pressing the reset button and saying “all better” isn’t going to correct the fundamentals that brought us to where we are today.
“Calm down and take an ibuprofen; I wouldn’t want to have one less Social Security and Medicare enrollee due to an early heart attack.”
Did you read my post before you became livid?”
Rest assured, your brand of arrogant (i.e., thinking that you’re better — in this case, far better — than you are) condescension doesn’t make me less than “calm,” or “livid,” for as The Economist recently observed, “this sort of psychologising diagnosis of strong political conviction often serves as a cheap, supremely condescending trick for pathologising and thus dismissing those with whom we disagree.”
You ask “Why not start with something that a majority of the people in the country can agree with”? Because “a majority of the people in the country” are morons who think we can tax the rich out of this fiscal mess your ideological ilk have put us into. And as for “leaving the mistakes of your generation to my generation”? It was your moronic and zombie-like generation which gave us President Barry, who has doubled down on them. But they aren’t generational mistakes; they’re ideological mistakes. And you are responsible for them, not my generation.
[...] should know better, are rolling over for tax increases to solve “urgent problems” (Bearing Drift: please note that the author of that post recently raised taxes on his own constituents in [...]
I suggest you read Marvin Olasky’s “The Tragedy of American Compassion” before you draw any conclusions about the effects of dismantling the welfare state. As for cutting defense spending, there is no reason to be in Libya and Quaddafi was not a serious threat, of course now he’ll be out for revenge but such are the effects of interventionism. Those baby boomers can do like the rest of Americans through history – work longer and rely on families and not government for support when they can no longer work; Social Security is primarily geared towards subsidizing heirs and not the elderly, consider this: Seniors have the highest home ownership rates of any demographic, why not take out reverse mortgages for retirement? Sure there’s not much left for the heirs – but inherited wealth has a detrimental effect to most anyway. As for Labor, Energy, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Education – why do you suppose that states would raise taxes? These departments do not perform any legitimate governmental functions and there is no reason that states should adopt their roles.
I also find it interesting that you dismiss Rand on one hand and cite Bastiat on the other – they shared virtually identical views on the role of government.
Joseph Taylor, you have got to be frigg’n kidding me. Boomers took care of the 3 generations ahead of me AND it was our FICA taxes Congress balanced the books with for decades. Let’s do this … why don’t I clean out YOUR bank account – because you don’t need it; you can move back in with your folks. Fair??
Shaun,
I was able to listen to most of the show on the Coffee Party’s blog radio show today.
I grew up Republican and Conservative — then the party bowed to the radical right and big money contributions and lost its soul. Now I don’t affiliate with either major party.
It was good to hear some reasonable conservatives on the show today.I posted a question that Eric didn’t see and he suggested I send it to you here.
Have you looked at the APT Tax (http://www.apttax.com) which was one of the proposals made during the GW Bush administration? It seems pretty clear that the key to the revenue side of the formula is to drop the rate of taxation and broaden the base with no deductions. If the math is correct we could balance the budget and start buying down the debt for less than a 1% rate (with no Income, Fuel, Inheritance, or payroll taxes) in a single Federal tax.
What are your thoughts on this?
If we remove the incentive to special interests for tax concessions, perhaps lobbying and legislation could be argued on a merit basis, rather than what would get the bigger campaign contributions. We can debate what the national priorities are, from the left, right, and center of the political spectrum but the decisions should come from factual merit, not who’s buying which politician. (The rate of return for tax break based legislation is orders of magnitude over the cost.)
– John
Leave your response