The Republicans Pretend to Debate Economic Policy
As a public service to my fellow TPM’ers, I watched the Tuesday night’s Republican debate—the one focusing on the economy.
It’s too easy to make fun of the process and lack of substance of these debates. I can’t imagine we learn much from, for example, the “lightening round:” thirty second answers to pressing policy questions.
To the extent that these seemingly endless primary debates are useful, perhaps they’re answering amorphous questions like: was X presidential enough? Did Y seem likeable? Did X stand up to Y? Who got trapped in a gotcha moment?
I’m neither interested in nor qualified to answer these questions. Instead, allow me to plumb this theme: where are these guys really at on the role of government?If you just listen to the broad rhetoric of the front runners, all you get are the talking points: less taxes, less spending, free trade. There was some dissent on trade from the back benchers, but these will be the clarion calls of the next Republican candidate for president. (And the next…and the next…etc.)
But if you listen a little more carefully, they recognize that the electorate, even the Republican base, has some issues they want the next president to deal with, and so they have this revealing, nervous tic. They say they’re going to cut taxes, cut spending, and…raise spending.
For example, in one of his first responses, Mitt Romney led off with a tax cutting sound-bite and then dropped a line about how we’ve got to “fix the schools.” McCain, speaking to the loss of industrial jobs (the debate was in Dearborn, MI), spoke—in so many words—about cutting entitlements, while asserting that “we need to do more to take care of the people left behind.” Thompson’s call for less spending was followed by a comment that we needed to take better care of our bridges and parks.
They’ve all got health care plans too, and while they’re typically financed by tax credits as opposed to direct spending, it’s the same thing in terms of the public purse.
Clearly they’re stuck in a vice: they want voters to believe that they can have their tax-cuts and their desired services. In this regard, their “less spending” rhetoric is usually phony. Not only are they unable to be specific, which ought to tell you something, but they can’t even bring themselves to say the words.
For example, when it comes to entitlements, which they’d really love to cut, they want to “look at” them, “fix” them, “strengthen” them, and “solve” them.
There were exceptions. Thompson was semi-forthright about his idea to cut (not the word he used, of course) Social Security benefits by indexing them to prices rather than wages—since average wages usually grow faster than average prices, that turns out to be a pretty hefty cut. And Ron Paul—who is extremely forthright—wants to eliminate a bunch of departments. Giuliani, though jockying with Romney for the “I’m the true tax cutter” mantel, has refused to sign a pledge never to raise taxes.
And remember, all the frontrunners want to stick to the Bush plan on Iraq, which in this regard consists of borrowing and spending more than $10 billion a month.
Let me be clear about all this. Except for the last part re the war, I’m with these guys on government’s role in schools, parks, bridges, health care, dislocated workers and so on. But does anybody listening believe they can accomplish this while extending, if not deepening, the Bush tax cuts (Romney wants to go a good bit further than Bush, eliminating taxes on investment income for families with incomes below $200,000)?
To the extent that they address the contradiction at all, it’s through the magic elixir of supply-side economics: cut taxes and you’ll have more revenue than you would otherwise. Would it were so. In the real world, you’re very lucky if you get back more than 10% of the lost revenue.
Maybe voters who want something for nothing found enough in that supply-side rhetoric to suspend disbelief. Maybe the Republican base enjoys hearing only the most shadowy allusions to cuts in entitlement programs they really value.
As for the rest of us, we need to recognize and amplify this theme: every serious candidate, regardless of their political stripes, their anti-government rhetoric, their free-market genuflections, recognizes that there is a big, important role for government to play in a complicated, challenging, global economy like ours.
Here’s where this leads you: there should be no, none, zilch, zero discussions of tax cuts without reference to what services will be lost. Progressives cannot win a disembodied argument against tax cuts. Conversely, absent what you’re going to do with the added revenue, there’s no reason to support a disembodied tax increase.
Here’s where else this leads you: the real question is not will we slash taxes and spending, nor is it will we raise them a lot. Since the late 1960s, we’ve spent about 20% of our economy on federal government, with a standard deviation of 1.4 percentage points (meaning not a lot of variation). The question is will we spend it wisely and efficiently on things most people care about.
Now that would be a fine debate to have.
Comments (25)
The "fix" is in (code).
When any of these guys start talking about fixing what used to be a basic service of government- physical infrastructure (roads and bridges), social infrastructure (schools, income support/ health, safety) or national skeleton (defense, immigration, trade) the "fix" is to privatize.
Not that privatization is bad in all cases.
But privatization, badly done, is the worst world to be in. When privatization is done the way most US deals have been structured (as stop-gap financing for state or local government) for roads, water or solid waste, done in the back-room with no transparency, the only ones to win are the hucksters that propose the project, the politicians that claim a short term win, and the financiers. When the projects implode under their own weight even with heavy "user fee" and tax relief, the taxpayers are once again forced into even more debt to fix the situation.
Consider the audience that this "debate" was intended for. Do most of them use any of the services, public schools, SS or Medicare, or worry about job retraining or worker dislocation? Would they mind if there was a $5 or $10 "user fee" for a public park if it would keep out the undesirable public?
Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran
October 10, 2007 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly they’re stuck in a vice: they want voters to believe that they can have their tax-cuts and their desired services.
That's what credit cards are for. If the Democrats spend and tax, the Republicans spend and go into hock.
Democrats act like responsible adults, paying for what they buy. Republicans, meanwhile, keep racking up credit card charges and trying to pass the bills (with interest, no less) to their children and grandchildren. Family values, I guess.
Sad thing is that the Democrats haven't been able to turn Republican profligacy into a political advantage. I think that says something about the ineptness of Democratic leadership and the relative effectiveness of the Republicans. The Democratic Party has a long, long way to go.
October 10, 2007 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it might be worthwhile to examine the mindset of the candidates. Since we can't do that we can only guess. Some of mine:
1. They really believe the supply-side, Laffer curve economic theory. Given that three of them also don't believe in Darwinism, this is plausible. There are enough seemingly respectable economists around that they can point to for support.
2. They don't understand economics at all so that their positions are cobbled together out of a few catch phrases that have proven to resonate with listeners. Neither they, nor their audience, has any problem with the fact that some of the phrases contradict one another.
3. They understand perfectly well that they are promoting unrealistic policies, but have no intention of implementing them anyway, so it's all for attracting voters.
4. They are the captives of those who are funding their campaigns and say what their sponsors want to hear. This is also plausible since they need to attract money now, while they don't need to attract voters for another year. By then they can say something else, no one will remember the changes.
Psychologist Robert Altemeyer has studied what he calls the "right wing authoritarian" personality type and certainly Giuliani, McCain and Romney fall into this category. The relevant characteristic is their ability to hold mutually contradictory ideas simultaneously. They will say whatever they feel needs to be said to attract followers. The master of this is Bill O'Reilly who not only is contradictory, but can then deny his own statements.
Altemeyer has a free, online book summarizing his work in this field. It is worth reading for some insight into this type of person. You can read it at:
TheAuthoritarians.com
Even if you aren't really interested in psychology it is useful and helps explain, for example, why you can never win an argument with a Libertarian.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
October 11, 2007 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. It looks like a good read.
October 11, 2007 1:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check out this recent poll results showing that people do trust D's to be better fiscal stewards than R's now, by a wide margin:
http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
Here in the beltway, the D's certainly make a big deal about their post-06 introduction of PAYGO rules--basically, when you propose a tax cut, you've got to specify how you'll replace the lost revenue.
Not sure whether this resonates with voters, though.
October 11, 2007 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
If all these polls to which you link truthfully describe the same electorate, there is high disapproval of Bush-era deficits, greater trust in Democrats, and a desire to make tax cuts permanent, together with a large percentage saying they pay too much in taxes. Maybe the Republican candidates are just reflecting the populations from which they arise.
October 11, 2007 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's definitely some truth to that--'reflecting the populations from which they arise.'
But two points: First, part of that is because some politicians, and the supply-siders are the worst offenders, create this demand by pushing phony ideas. Second, leaders pander when they should lead.
October 11, 2007 2:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the deeper problem of double talking at debates is our entire system of campaigning.
We get into 'governing' mode for, like, the 'first 100 days' after an election, then we go right back into campaign mode where congress holds 'symbolic' votes and Presidential candidates like Billary have to 'walk a line' on torture and the like.
We need a Parliamentary style system with a defined, campaign period of just 60 days. That would not only mostly eliminate the dash for cash - and the idea, accepted even by Democrats now, that whoever raises the most money will win the election -
but it would also give us a government that governs instead of mostly just 'campaigns'
October 11, 2007 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, statistics, aren't they wonderful.
According to the ABC/WaPo poll, slightly more than half the people polled (52%) trust the Dems more than the Repubs on the budget.
Which, by the way, doesn't mean that they trust the Dems. In the two-party US system we have a zero-sum game where a loss for one side is automatically a gain for the other. The American people have no other choice, and they've made it clear that they're not happy with either of the two look-alike parties.
Oct 4, 2007: Public approval for President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress has hit new lows in The Associated Press-Ipsos poll . . . only 31 per cent of those surveyed said they approve of the job Bush is doing . . . Congress's performance was approved by just 22 per cent
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5h_i7hSjuxD2kp8CTpNEgrmnvEVBA
October 11, 2007 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was there ever a time when a candidate won by saying we're going to fix the schools or whatever and that you, the average voter, will have to pay for some of that extra spending.
Not that I can recall. No one wins by promising to raise taxes. Democrats are willing to say they'll raise taxes on the wealthy (i.e. people less likely to vote for them, less likely to be hearing their messages and not all that numerous in any case relative to the rest of the population) but that's about it.
Granted, that is more fiscally responsible than the GOP candidates, who are much more wedded to free-lunch politics. But neither party get too many points for true candor.
October 11, 2007 4:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Freedom is about authority"
Giuliani as authoritarian, March 20, 1994: "We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do. . . . We're going to find the answer when schools once again train citizens. Schools exist in America and have always existed to train responsible citizens of the United States of America."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A962958260
October 11, 2007 4:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
You completely missed the point. There is no need for the Democratic candidates (or the Republicans, for that matter) to talk about either tax cuts or hikes, because regardless of which party is in power, about 20% of the economy is spent on the federal government. The point then becomes what the people want the money spent on and how well the government can effectively and efficiently deliver it.
What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority. Molly Ivins
October 11, 2007 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
While it's certainly no silver bullet, waste would be my primary target if I were running for president. It is probably one of the few things which effects nearly all issues on all sides and it can realistically be tackled. Not defeated or eliminated mind you but certainly tackled. It's all about money right?
Some people are paying too much in taxes, some perhaps are not paying enough. Important and vital services of all kinds are either under funded or are being eliminated. The nation's deficit is growing at a frightening pace. We "can't afford" to be more environmentally conscious because of the impact it would have on our wallets and our economy. Well, it's my suggestion that if we were to cut by half all of the wasteful spending and pork spending in addition to eliminating the $12 billion a month in Iraq we could tackle all of those issues in a single president's term. Ok, we would likely neither eliminate all of the problems nor implement all of the fixes in that time but I bet we could at least pay for them. After all what good is a good idea in Washington if you can't pay for it?
For all of the talk to cutting and saving and fixing it seems the largest and most damaging problem, which is at the root of many of the things that so many people complain about, is waste. There certainly seems to be a lot of money in this country. Where exactly does it all go? And with the growing level of outright disgust and distrust that all politicians have rightfully earned, I'm still at a loss as to why at least one candidate doesn't try to grab this position and ride it all the way to the oval office. I think that this message would resonate with the voters and the electorate as much as any other pony the candidates are currently riding.
October 11, 2007 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was mindfull of this critique of my post and folks are within their rights to point out that the D's candidates' numbers--promises vs costs-- don't exactly add up.
But two points: First, they get closer and they actually talk in fairly detailed terms about how they're going to pay for their ideas. The numbers may not perfectly equate but the idea is: programs/services are necessary and we will try to raise the needed revenue. The R's typically wave hands, promise vague cuts, and cite supply side BS.
And second, I agree with seashell. If history is any guide, we'll spend ~20% of GDP on Fed gov't. The question is less level of spending than composition of spending. D priorities seem to be more in touch with most people than R priorities.
(BTW, it's possible universal hth care reform will entail a larger share of GDP spent by gov't, but the share of the economy--public and private--devoted to hth care will likely fall, as is the case in every other advanced economy.)
October 11, 2007 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the key points about government spending is that most people have mistaken ideas about how much is spent for various programs. For example most people think foreign aid is about 10% of the budget while it is really less than 1% of the GDP. Similar misconceptions exist about "welfare".
Referring things to the GDP is also a way to mislead. While military spending is about 4% of the GDP it is still larger than the rest of the world combined. Another trick has been to merge dedicated programs like Social Security into the overall budget. This was started by LBJ to hide the true cost of the Vietnam War, but has proved too useful for successive presidents to give up.
Spending by the federal government can have a very significant influence even if the absolute dollar amounts don't seem that great. Image what, say, $10 billion per year would do when directed at HIV prevention. That's about a month's worth of spending on the current wars.
There is a nice chart which shows where the federal budget really goes when stripped of all the trickery:
Federal Pie Chart
It's not only the absolute level of spending that's important, but how it alters our national priorities. Many of the best minds among recent science and technical graduates end up working on military projects instead of more socially useful tasks. How do you measure the loss to society from the research by a newly minted Ph.D. didn't do over his career towards finding a new energy source because he was developing weapons systems instead?
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
October 11, 2007 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Listen to Ron Paul.
October 11, 2007 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
First, thanks for taking on the listening burden...I don't know if I could have stood it myself. Something struck me through the summary you gave, and I thought I'd try the idea out just to see how crazy I am.
I'm going to propose an alternative to the blockquote I inserted above. Perhaps there are more voters who don't want something for nothing than the Republicans and the base to which they pander realize. Suppose that voters were given a forced choice option.
Which would they choose? I suspect more would choose option B: I know I would. I have some slight evidence of belief for this.
My guess is that if the Democratic Party reattached the product to the tax some how so that people would see what they're getting for their money, there would measurably less complaining about the taxes paid.
I once dreamed up a scheme whereby congress could appropriate no more than 80% of what it authorized, and the electorate would have the right to use a check-off system to allocate 20 per cent of their taxes to whatever public purpose they desired--similar to the little public finance write-off we have now. The check-off wouldn't change one's taxes or increase one's refund. IF the public agreed with Congress, their checkoffs would make up the 20 per cent between authorization and appropriation. If not, the government would have to tighten that particular belt. If the public wanted to spend more than congress had authorized...so be it. The public's money would be going where the public wanted it to go. The closer the final expenditure came to the authorization, the more congressional whim matches public will. Just a thought. :-)
aMike
October 11, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice dream, aMike. I like it.
October 11, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Mel Carnahan, the late govenor of Missouri,(you know , the one that beat John Ashcroft even though he was dead).
He ran on improving Missouri schools and part of the his plan included raising taxes.
Jack
October 11, 2007 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like it too, aMike. Of course, if the choice wasn't forced, folks would say A AND B, right?
I happen to be in New Orleans and took a tour today to learn more about Katrina's impact. The tour guide, a native, was deeply hostile to gov't, understandably, given the way this has come down. The villian, to many of the folks I've spoken with, is a) the Army Corps of Engineers, who (they say) knew the levee system was vulnerable, and b) the Feds, who never would spend the $ needed to fix known vulnerabilities.
Obviously, it's a special case down here, but step 1 has to be: restore competency in public service.
October 11, 2007 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
For example:
Carnival Corp., the world's biggest cruise operator, ordered a new Queen Elizabeth ship after selling the iconic Queen Elizabeth 2 to the Dubai government. (It will become a floating hotel in Dubai.) The company will pay $705 million for the new ship from Fincantieri, based in Trieste, Italy.
The United States has one percent of the commercial shipbuilding market. The US shipbuilding industry is almost entirely dependent on Navy contracts,
ecotourism
WeGoEco.com
October 11, 2007 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course! That's the glory of this particular forced choice question...no free lunch. I'd probably put my 20% to education, health care, and infrastructure repair/maintenance (35w, collapsed about three -4 miles from where I grew up). Nola folks could put all of theirs toward levee strengthening if they so wished, or toward whatever would make them feel safer and more satisfied with their lives in the Big Easy.
I wouldn't put it into cotton subsidies which wreak havoc on third world agriculture. Another year, I might toss some of toward the National Endowment for the Humanities... if they made the case. The idea is that the congressional establishment and the agencies would have to woo me, not just listen to the lobbyists. I'm sure the cotton farmers would put their cash toward the cotton subsidy. Each of us would have some sense of empowerment and connection with what government actually does with this kind of system.
aMike
October 12, 2007 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
For that matter a large majority of foreign aid is spent on weapons purchases from US companies and most of the rest of it is spent on US agricultural commodities. Since my state makes lots of airplanes and grows lots of wheat for export you could just as well call it 'Washington State Aid'. For the most part few 'Foreign Aid' dollars ever actually leave the country.
October 12, 2007 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't like it, then why not demand democratic candidates actually discuss the seriously bad economy, the long term unemployment and underemployment problems American citizens are facing, as well as the threat of homelessness, hunger and privation that go right along with it for, again American citizens. With the exception of John Edwards, the others just can't be bothered.
The democratic party are silent about the problems brought about by the globalization they have bought into, the manipulative, fascistic trade deals that more democrats cuddle up to all the time. Their refusal to have to admit that their immigration policies are exploitative and tied to their own dirty corporate coziness. Face it, dems have done it to themselves, helped by idiots like Russ Feingold and the Clintons.
These policies do not serve to end the status quo in Latin America or elsewhere, only to rationalize it and help it continue to create more crushing poverty.
Very few Americans are wealthy, the majority of the rest are suffering. They aren't the ones who exploit resources and perpetuate global poverty, but they sure are the ones the far right and far left demand be made to suffer.
People are leaving the democratic party, becoming independents. They aren't going to vote libertarian or for the despotic leftist third parties that rationalized a Bush presidency and the problems that everyone knew he would bring about. We will end up with a republican president, and no matter what the MSM and the idiotic nut roots say, a republican majority again in congress, and the democratic party will have no one to blame but itself.
If Edwards doesn't win the primary, I will do something I have never done in my life, I'll vote republican, to teach my party a lesson for taking the votes of good and decent American citizens for granted.
The 12 long years of Reagan Bush I were bad for the poor, but I have a feeling that whatever a new republican administration/congress would bring, the majority of any pain brought about by it, would be felt by the flakey far left who have been every bit as cruel and oppressive as any right winger ever has been. Those of us suffering aren't the ones who have very far to fall, so the pain won't be the worst for us. I can handle that kind of suffering, I've been there and done that. Those of you who haven't.. well, I think you'll learn the true meaning of the survival of the fittest..
Make sure you clutch on to your single issues tightly, though they won't be much comfort for you on the way down.
October 12, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting data, Jared. I think it supports the idea that the majority of Americans want efficient and effective government. This means government that provides high-quality basic services at a reasonable cost. People are more comfortable financing those services with current income (i.e., taxes) than debt, but still want taxes to be as low as possible.
The recent failures of the Republicans to manage the government effectively (Katrina and Iraq) have hurt their image among Americans. To a lesser degree, the continued increase in government spending and debt under Republican government has alienated a segment of the population.
The Republicans, though, have managed over the past few decades to simplify (oversimplify) their economic position and make it abundantly clear--they are, as every voter knows, the party that believes in small government and lower taxes. The Republicans have also just as effectively managed to label the Democrats as the "tax and spend" party.
The Democrats haven't been good at creating alternatives to the Republican labels. "Paygo" is a policy--but it isn't an economic vision. The Democrats need a stronger "tagline" for ther economic vision--and a stronger label for the Republican alternative. They also need to repeat their tagline (and the label for the Republicans) over and over, just like the Republicans do.
I'd suggest the Democrats start talking relentlessly about Republican incompetence and high debt. That will resonate after the clear failures of Republican leadership in New Orleans and Iraq. Democrats, on the other hand, need to be positioning themselves as the party of good government and low debt. Democrats should embrace the idea of low taxes, but with the qualification that low taxes shouldn't be achieved through failed government and high debt.
The problem, I see, though, is that the Democrats don't have a consensus economic vision. I've heard a number argue in favor of deficits (as a counter to Republicans using deficits as an excuse to cut essential services). This undermines the Democratic push for "paygo." The Democrats need to prioritize what they are for. I'd say the first priority should be good (but streamlined) government--i.e., government that effectively and efficently delivers essential services at reasonable costs. Second, the Democrats should be for low taxes--we need to embrace low taxes to demonstrate our belief in efficient government. And finally, we must be against high debt. Some debt may be acceptable, but lowering taxes to the point that deficits grow out of control and threaten our future is unacceptable to Democrats. Supporting paygo unambiguously (and loudly) will help demonstrate our commitment to the low debt ideal.
October 14, 2007 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink