Let Governors Lead the Way for the GOP

Bill Kristol has mostly the right idea here:

That's why one has to be careful about what one wishes for. Republicans, newly liberated, need to resist calls to shackle themselves to prematurely announced agendas and already anointed leaders. This is the time for a thousand Republicans to bloom. Congressmen used to looking to the White House for guidance or approval--or fearing disapprobation--should show some healthy ambition and unleash their inner policy entrepreneur. Backbenchers need to come forward with heterodox ideas. There should be vigorous debate. Disharmonious disarray is in the short term much less of a danger than a false and stultifying unity.

When I floated the idea of an "ideas czar" several of my fellow contributors were disapproving, arguing that we needed exactly this sort of freelancing from the backbench. I would add a modifier to this line of thinking: don't look to backbench Congressmen for leadership. Look to sitting Republican governors who are already managing state budgets in the tens of billions of dollars and can actually enact some new ideas. Look to Tim Pawlenty, who wants to cut state business taxes, or to Bobby Jindal, or to Charlie Crist and Republicans in the Florida legislature who are refusing tax increases of any kind, or to Mark Sanford.

Republican governors in 22 states means 22 opportunities to show we can govern better than Obama, prudently cutting back on spending and cutting taxes, rather than massively increasing spending and creating a deficit a third the size of the entire Federal budget.

4
Your rating: None Average: 4 (1 vote)

Comments

Indiana

Would be remiss to forget Indiana's Mitch Daniels:

1.  Capped property taxes for all 2,300 local municipal entities causing sustantial budget cuts statewide

2.  Now proposing consolidation of small schools, reorganization of county level government to eliminate far too many elected officials and add efficiency

3.  In a year of run-away bailouts ... he is proposing to cut $1 Billion from the budget instead of digging into the rainy day funds of the state.

 

 

  "Republican governors in 22

 

"Republican governors in 22 states means 22 opportunities to show we can govern better than Obama, prudently cutting back on spending and cutting taxes, rather than massively increasing spending and creating a deficit a third the size of the entire Federal budget."

For campaign rhetoric's sake it may work. But that is a fallacious comparison.

A better comparison would be between the Republican and Demcoratic governors in 50 states, and a comparison between Obama's 4 year term with Bush's terms when it comes to fiscal responsibility.

Do not count on tax cuts

Backbenchers need to come forward with heterodox ideas.

But will they be branded RINOs and given the McCain treatment by the "base"?

Don't count on tax cuts this year, at least not from a competent governor.  All 50 states are trying to figure out how to provide the same services with less revenue. 

 

Actually, no.

The state of Nebraska is in remarkably good shape.  Why?  Because when times were good, they didn't bust the budget by increasing spending through the roof.  Now, when times are bad, things aren't so dire.  See, lookeehere - fiscal conservatism works, when it's actually tried!  In fact the Governor wants to continue the tax cuts that were enacted in previous years.  Take that, New York and California.

"Fiscal conservatives?" You've got to be kidding.

 

Why should anyone believe in the GOP's devotion to  "fiscal conservatism" after 8 years of run-away spending and monstrous deficits? Did Bush veto even one spending bill? Do you really think your party has any credibility left in the economic realm? It's not enough to say you stand for something; you have to prove it with DEEDS and that you have failed to do miserably.  Get real and propose something concrete like specific programs you would advance to solve the financial crisis. When you start espousing regulation of the markets, tax breaks for the middle class and reform of the health system to get costs under control, then you might get someone's attention. In case you missed it, let me remind you that by giving Obama a solid mandate, the country has rejected the GOP's ideological gobbledygook.  People are fed up with talk and no action and if the "party of no" doesn't grasp that, it will become even more irrelevant than it alreay is.

 

So the voters rejected 12 digit deficits.....

and that was a resounding mandate for 13 digit deficits?

Got it.

 

Proof we have a communications problem...

...not a substance problem.  undoctored wrote:

When you start espousing regulation of the markets, tax breaks for the middle class and reform of the health system to get costs under control, then you might get someone's attention.

George W. Bush regularly advocated all three:

1) Fannie and Freddie Regulation.

2) Tax Breaks for the Middle Class.

3) Medical Care Reform.

For all his heroism in the War on Terror, it's a shame he couldn't communicate this stuff better.

 

What good are the tax breaks

What good are the tax breaks as the middle class jobs go overseas? What good is anything if it is all you do is create deficits and debt and do not solve the problems? 

If you can explain what Bush said "free trade is good" as factories close.

and , pray tell, is Obama suggesting a balanced budget?

I'm sure the hundreds of millions for contraceptives are going to keep American manufacturing jobs right here in America! 

It always comes out the same.

It always comes out the same. You guys never have an answer. Just some smart remark and ignorance of the past 8 years.   

What was so bad about the last 8 years?!?

For what it's worth, I have a lot more money now than I did then.

It was what was done to this

It was what was done to this country. You talk of having more money. I don't know of anyone around me having more money. The tax cuts went to the rich as middle class jobs went overseas. Our money went to Iraq. We have had deficits and debt. A country that ran on borrowed money. Cities and states are going broke. People losing jobs, lower wages, less healthcare, and less pensions. At least that is the way it is in the Midwest. And that is exactly why the republicans lost the election. The middle class was abandoned. Hence, the party for the rich. And now we are in this mess with hardly a way out. 

So?

You mention Iraq; I invested a bunch of money in the military industrial complex, I'm pround to tell you that I've made many thousands of dollars on this war.

Cities and states going broke brought it on themselves.

Noone in this country has lost an economically productive job.  The only thing that has happened these past few months is a bunch of capitalist creative destrustion.  Who cares about the losers, be a winner!!!

Nothing to argue here.

Nothing to argue here. Arrogance and selfishness at its best.  

THEY WILL

unless obama nationalizes the banks, and we're talking "in the next week" sort of timeframe....

Factories will close, our jobs will liquidate, and we will NEVER get them back.

Goodbye places like Polartec, that make the best fabric in the world...

And goodbye your place of employment too, most probably.

When the bullshit economy destroys the Economy of Things, it is NEVER good.

an opposing viewpoint

Reports of the death of U.S. manufacturing have been greatly exaggerated. Since the depth of the manufacturing recession in 2002, the sector as a whole has experienced robust and sustained output, revenue, and profit growth. The year 2006 was a record year for output, revenues, profits, profit rates, and return on investment in the manufacturing sector. And despite all the stories about the erosion of U.S. manufacturing primacy, the United States remains the world's most prolific manufacturer--producing two and a half times more output than those vaunted Chinese factories in 2006.

http://www.freetrade.org/node/737  Mind you, this is from the Free Trade lobby, but clearly we are not in the nuclear winter you mordidly suggest. Now I wish we had more manufacturing in this country, but it all didn;t close shop. Maybe you live in some company town where the mill closed and locally things are dismal. Well, this is bad, but it's happened under every President.

Now , IB, I did suggest that IF our President was really serious about creating private sector jobs that he wouldn't support litmus test job destroying liberal policies.  

You know not one liberal claimed I was wrong? I suppose that is really "An Inconvenient Truth"

http://www.finfacts.com/irela

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/printer_1000article_... http://www.toledoblade.com/assets/pdf/TO51488727.PDF

 

I would not believe anything from the free trade lobby. All I have seen from Bush is that "free trade is good" and we see factories close.

If there was so much profit growth, then why are factories closing. The simple fact is that we cannot compete with third world labor. Why pay middle class wages, healthcare, pensions, social security, and put up with OSHA when you can have cheap labor. Just the fact that China and other countries have entered the capitalistic and globalization arena has put pressure on jobs and wages. As long as we have this pressure of globalization, expect more jobs to leave. No one has come up with a plan to deal with this.

Many cities and states rely on manufacturing and they are going broke as they lose their tax base.

You obviously still do not understand why you lost the electoral vote. It had to do with the economy. The trickle down did not trickle down. The republicans left the middle class. 

With globalization, you have to approach this that all manufacturing and other areas are subject to leaving the country. And we have not done anything to counter this trend. 

Three major factories closed in my home town of 15,000. In the town I live in Cooper tire was given millions of dollars from the city and the state to stay here. We are paying off companies to stay here. And that is your tax money.

McDonalds has been working on a drive thru call box in which you talk to someone in India to order a hamburger.

China has 1 billion people. India has 1 billion people, Eastern Europe has opened up. These people want our jobs at third world labor. Can't blame them, but we have to prepare for the future and we have done nothing.

What I am saying is globalization is real, tax cuts do not offer anything to people who lose their jobs, trickle down did not trickle down, there are no projects to fight globalization, and we are sending our money to Iraq. All we have done for 8 years is to support a failed ideology, and when things go bad we just bail out people. Then we turn around and borrow more money and create deficits and debt. 

 

we are in a nuclear winter

at least if you talk to the shipping people, who are using their plans for that case.

My last package came via the Erie Canal. Didn't even know that was still in use! (seen a HUGE uptick in traffic lately, not just me)

Obama will be no Bush

Why are you so interested in balancing the budget now (one week into Obama's term) and jumping to conclusions that our new president just might turn out to be as incompetent and clueless as his Republican predecessor? Where were you wizards when Bush was waging a war with no increase in revenues (a.k.a. tax hike or surtax) to do it  thus creating the hugh deficits you seem so concerned about now? As Hoover proved, you don't try to balance a budget during a recession (which he helped turn into a depression with his cockeyed ideas).

 

That's right. They spent like

That's right. They spent like drunken sailors when times were good. Trickle down did not trickle down. And now they are screaming on deficits in which we are trying to get out of this mess. Go figure. 

I recall reading recently that Nebraska will lose one seat

I recall reading recently in the WSJ that Nebraska is most likely to lose one congressional seat after the next census becasue of the rate at which it is depopulating. I've posted this before, but I'll say it again: you've got to look at population densities when making comparisions. The cost of providing services goes up in high populuation areas. The old idea that population growth pays for itself has been shown to be untrue.

"fiscal conservatives?" You've got to be kidding.

 

Why should anyone believe in the GOP's devotion to  "fiscal conservatism" after 8 years of run-away spending and monstrous deficits? Did Bush veto even one spending bill? Do you really think your party has any credibility left in the economic realm? It's not enough to say you stand for something; you have to prove it with DEEDS and that you have failed to do miserably.  Get real and propose something concrete like specific programs you would advance to solve the financial crisis. When you start espousing regulation of the markets in general and hedge funds in particuar, tax breaks for the middle class and reform of the health system to get costs under control, then you might get someone's attention. In case you missed it, let me remind you that by giving Obama a solid mandate, the country has rejected the GOP's ideological gobbledygook.  People are fed up with talk and no action and if the "party of no" doesn't grasp that, it will become even more irrelevant than it already is.

  

Repeating the same lame talking points

doesn;t make them anymore persuasive the second time around 

glad you're so attentive

 The repetition of my post was due to a problem with the reply function.  I accept responsibility for that.  Instead of dismissing my comments as "lame talking points." let me invite you once again to explain WITH SPECIFICS just how the GOP would handle the present financial crisis.  Let's see if you can answer that challenge with something other than talking points. I'm not holding my breath.

fiscal conservatism and nebraska

 The cost of providing services goes up in high populuation areas.

Umm, what?  For some things yes, for other things no.  Urban areas have that whole 'economies of scale' thing going on.  It's much easier to deliver water and electricity to people when they live in a 100-sq. mi. area instead of a 10,000-sq. mi. area.  And actually Nebraska is at a bit of a disadvantage as it has more counties than its similarly sized neighbors, so the administrative overhead for things like county clerks, county assessors, etc. are higher.  I'm telling you, though, people in Nebraska are very prudent with their money and that is why the government is fiscally conservative.  It is what the people demand.  In fact there are ads here on the radio imploring people to buy things because the Nebraska economy isn't as bad as what you hear about in the national news.

I really think this is a lesson that we conservatives could learn when grappling with the idea of fiscal conservatism.  It can't really be imposed on a free-spending people.  Ever try to help write a budget for someone who couldn't even find the time to balance a checkbook?  It's impossible.  Fiscal conservatism is really more of a cultural phenomenon.  If we the people live below our means then we will naturally expect it of our government.

Cost and population density

The relationship between density and capital outlays, and capital spending and public safety, is U shaped with the trough at 500 people/sq mile and increases in spending with populations greater than the trough. Population surges have the greatest effect on capital outlays, not the current account budget. The implications are that, for counties with densities between 250-1250 people/sq mile, density increases costs of providing public services. Differences with prior engineering research reflect the distinctions made between current and capital costs or final and direct outputs. Development does not pay its way. The surge effects of population growth force residents of moderately populated counties to pay higher costs with reduced service, and subsidize future residents by paying more in taxes than used in capital services.

 

Don't Forget Sarahcuda!!!

n/t

Sarahcuda may have difficulty

Alaska gets about 90% of the government revenue from oil tax, and a whole lot more from federal funding.  Oil prices have plummeted and the fed is practically bankrupt; “Sarahcuda” is pretty much set up for failure in the coming years.  Alaskans understand the underlying causes, but the outside media is going to blame it on Palin. (I am from Alaska- thus the clever name)

State of the State

News from Alaska

 

Fairbanks Daily News Jan 23. Legislators this week frequently questioned the viability of Gov. Sarah Palin’s budget proposal based on $74 per barrel oil.

The House Finance Committee on Thursday delved into the state Department of Revenue process behind oil revenue forecasting — which, this fall, fell far short of the real-world picture.

The state has been nearly as wrong in other forecasts, Commissioner Pat Galvin noted, although no one complained much when forecasts underestimated the dollars flowing into state coffers.

About 89 percent of the state's unrestricted revenue comes from oil revenues.

I supposed by today's standards....

...we should all be thankful for every Republican who is willing to at least act like a Republican. But I am really not impressed until we find a Republican leader who can actually cut government spending when the economy itself is in recession.

These governors' actions are great, don't get me wrong. But in reality, they know their states are going to get part of Obama's federal stimulus money. This is what Obama's stimulus proposal is all about, feeding the state and federal unionized employee oligarchy during economic bad times. They are the only ones who have the power to demand our elected leaders take out huge loans against our future rather than cutting government spending in times of economic hardship.

Congress should pass a law that automatically cuts federal wages and benefits when the economy goes into a recession. Without such a law, Congress will not have the power to go against the federal employees' union oligarchy that actually rules this country. The true new Republican leader will be the person who sponsors such a bill?

 

ex animo

davidfarrar

Hey, In Between, guess what...

Free trade ***is*** good. Protectionism kinda, ya know, helped cause the depression. Maybe you didn't learn this in, oh, the ninth grade, but the rest of us most certainly did. You can't regulate your way out of the global economy; Europe's been trying that for the past twenty years and, as a near direct result, is getting rocked worse than we are by the financial crisis. You're right, we can't compete with third-world labor and we need a strategy to deal with it. But "close-the-borders, close-the-markets" protectionism will kill us faster than anything else I can possibly think of. Investing in new technologies, math and science education, work-force redevelopment, and reinvigorating our stagnant space program and industry (all things Bush, McCain and Obama have each tried to move the ball on) might help if we can actually do it and if we don't follow the policies you've been espousing. If you can't grasp this relatively basic point of economics, understood by hard-core Republicans like, oh, Bill Clinton for example, do yourself a favor and pipe down.

Oh, one more thing: the amount we spent in Iraq is insignificant beside our balooning domestic deficits, which your man OBama intends to baloon even more.

FIRE means nothing to you does it?

schlemiel, your soup is in your lap. you keep on claiming it does not burn, as the shreds of your flesh continue to shrivel and curl up.

Perhaps you might want to get your skin checked? It would appear you are out of touch.

When you can actually provide some informative analysis, I will listen to your policy prescriptions. until then, you go on my proscribed list.

 Well, you have totally

 Well, you have totally misunderstood me. I have not said one word about protectionism.

It is you that wants to hang on to the trickle down theory that did not trickle down as we lost middle class jobs. It is you, who lost the electoral vote as you lost the middle class.

On free trade, only an imbecile like Bush can say "free trade is good" as factories close. If the factories close, if we are losing the middle class, then you need to take action. And action to deal with globalization. I have said many times, you need infrastructural spending, energy independence, mandatory vocational training, embryonic stem cell research, science, innovation, and research and development. You invest in your country and people as other countries have. We cannot compete with third world labor. We have 700,000 patents still to be dealt with. We may (thinking outside the box) need alliances with government and business. We are falling behind in many areas. China will bring in a car that gets 63 miles to a charge. Singapore is taking our scientists for embryonic stem cell research and subsidizing the industry. But know you would rather do nothing. Have the tax cuts and laissez-faire, and do away with science. Really nutty isn't it. 

The tax cuts are for just the here and now. Nothing has been done for the future. All you did is create deficits and debt.

As far as Iraq. Spending at least 120 billion a year is not chicken feed. Not when we have a lot of problems right here at home. 

I will post what I have said

I will post what I have said on another thread. And by the way. Bush didn't do anything for the past 8 years. It was tax cuts and laissez-faire.

.............................

 

Things are going to get rough. I agree with much of what SteveB and NextRight Nando says. Just watched the first 15 minutes of 60 minutes and they showed DHL closing down most of their operations in Wilmington, Ohio. A town of 12,000. The state unemployment insurance fund went broke last week and the State of Ohio received emergency money from the government.

We have for years ignored many things. We are doing crazy things. The war has been a drain on the economy as money flows out. We send our jobs overseas, the cities and states are going broke, people losing their jobs, lower wages, less in healthcare coverage, and less pensions. And what has been the answer for all these years? Just tax cuts. Tax cuts for 8 years and a stimulus package a year ago. And then we have had a president that says "free trade is good" as factories close. And then we just go back with more borrowing for tax cuts and create more deficits and debt. 

On the short term, I don't know what the answer is. I have heard from almost all analysts on CNBC the past few days is that we have to flood the economy with money. That would the government as that is the last resort. I don't like some of the pork in the Obama package, but then again there seems no answer for the short term.

The problem with tax cuts is that it has been done for 8 years. It has ignored globalization. We are back into a recession. It means that tax cuts are ineffective. And add the fed, with their lowest of interest rates, and they can do no more. The government is the last resort. So this is where we are with banks not lending, a surplus of housing, an auto industry in shambles, cities and states going broke, people losing jobs as they go overseas, healthcare, and pensions. And we are sending our money to Iraq. This is the biggest of all messes in my lifetime. 

I will maintain what I have said all along. This is long term, but it is the only answer. Infrastructure spending, energy independence, mandatory vocational training, embryonic stem cell research, science, innovation, research and development. There may have to be alliances with government and industry for creating new industry. We have to find a way to create jobs that will stay in this country. We have to compete with other countries, but we cannot do it with just tax cuts and laissez-faire. We have to meet the free markets head on with education and new jobs. We also have a backlog of 700,000 potential patents. 

 

You need greatness. You need a president that says we are going to put a man on the moon and mean it. Everything I have said is long term and the results won't happen for 10 or 20 years. We are racing against time and money. I hope someone gets it in Washington. The middle class has been abandoned. The republicans still do not see it. It always ends up with a party for the rich. 8 years of tax cuts for the rich and it did not trickle down as the middle class jobs leave the country. 

This is an opportunity for introspection.

I think an important question for the Republican Party to ask itself, if it wants to become relevant again, is "Where have our principles been for the past eight years as we were supporting President Bush and the Republican Congress?". If Republicans truly believe in small government, individual liberty, fiscal restraint, why is that important now with a Democratic President, while Bush was allowed to run roughshod over the Constitution and run up the biggest deficits in our history?

Republicans were given complete control of the government, and the world, not just the country, is a shambles as a result. (It's possible you don't believe that; if so, good luck to you.) The GOP needs, perhaps foremost, to convince the electorate that something important has changed, that the party can be trusted with power again.