The Party You Can Afford

Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam's Grand New Party contemplates a future GOP coalition anchored around the working class. In the past, I've been a bit skeptical of this idea. But with #dontgo, Drill Now, and the current economic situation, I'm starting to think that activating such a coalition may be possible -- and in a way that doesn't require the Republican Party to expand government.

Those seeking a coherent narrative of the two parties can find it in something deceptively simple: the politics of price. Republicans want the things you pay for everyday to cost less. Democrats would make them cost more.

Want cheaper energy? Drill now, expand refinery capacity, go nuclear, and diversify into renewables. Republicans want energy sources that are cheap, reliable, and abundant. Democrats want higher prices to force us off fossil fuels to address environmental concerns first, and affordability concerns last.

Want cheaper consumer products? Fight protectionism and forced unionism.

Want cheaper food? Get rid of ethanol subsidies.

Want cheaper health insurance? Get rid of irrational regulations and frivolous lawsuits, and let people buy health insurance across state lines. The left scoffs at more affordable plans  that make sense for cost-conscious Gen Y Obama supporters.

Want cheaper government? Cut spending.

Want cheaper tax bills? This is self-explanatory.

Most of this is not new. However, Republicans have largely been unable to capitalize on wanting things to cost less because the country was relatively prosperous and inflation has not been a real concern for a generation. With the country now facing tangible inflation in the food and fuel sectors, an affordability agenda for the working class is now much more salient.

This recession is particularly prone to pro-Republican messaging. Just compare past recessions to this one. The 1980, 1982, and 1990-91 recessions were employment recessions. Unemployment rose to double digits, then 7.5% in 1992. (We are now at 5.5%, pretty close to the 5% "full employment" mark.) The "solution" in those recessions was protectionism to save the auto and steel industries, more unemployment benefits, and jobs programs. 2001-02 was weird because it coincided with shocks to the system like 9/11 and Enron. Economically, this led to policy monstrosities like steel tariffs and Sarbox (which precipitated a decline in U.S. public securities markets).

In 2008, the recession is all about consumers -- be they consumers at the pump, homeowners, or at the grocery store. The recession is hitting all of us a little (rather than just some of us a lot, through lost jobs). This makes it psychologically more damaging, but also more open to a free market populist agenda centered around lower prices for goods in the private economy.

If we can get out from under the dead weight that is 28% Presidential approval, the economic issue environment can be turned against the progressives. Liberalism is built around sacrificing lower prices for social goods like the environment, health care, or economic equality. (If this seems charitable, this is because this is how liberals themselves would describe it.) This is the underpinning of their hatred of low-cost Wal-Mart, their thinly-veiled sense of satisfaction with high energy prices, and their consistent opposition to lower taxes.

An gold-plated agenda that might seem semi-plausible in good times appears laughable in leaner ones, particularly with public attention to prices high as it is.

This is why the reaction to something like domestic oil drilling has been unexpectly strong. The public wants to do something, anything to bring down the price at the pump. This is also why every other ad on the Olympics is about hybrid cars or other kinds of green technology. It's not that the public is greener per se. It's that oil is getting to be so darned expensive that people are looking for alternatives. Hybrids or electric cars will take off once they are demonstrably cheaper than their CO2-spewing counterparts, not when the public has some altruistic environmental epiphany. Why do people buy CFL bulbs? Not because of the environmental benefits (which have always been there) but because of the advertised savings. The American people will not willingly pay for things that cost more.

4.666665
Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (3 votes)

Comments

It's about Quality

Nice post Patrick.  It is always nice to hear the perspective from the other side and this is well-thought out.  But I’ll reframe it for you from my liberal perspective. I’m sure you won’t agree with the framing but I hope you find it interesting.

 

That reframing is this is an election about quality.  Republicans don’t much care for quality while Democrats are all about Quality.   

Want better, more efficient energy that doesn’t hurt the environment or cause wars or extremism, then go with the Dems who will work to make us more efficient users of energy and develop better, cleaner sources. 

Want better jobs with better benefits than vote for stronger unions and workplace protection along with a higher minimum wage which ripples up the wage structure.

 Want better healthier food that won’t make you sick.  Then vote Dem.  We’ll stop E Coli breakouts and promote healthier sustainable and local agriculture.  (And the ethanol subsidies aren’t much of a partisan issue.  It is “I am a Midwest farm state issue”.  You won’t find too many liberals supporting ethanol subsidies.)

 Want better health insurance that sticks with you even if you lose your job?  Then look to the Dems who want to insure everyone and are always looking to protect the consumer.  And your example of letting states compete is the perfect example of a race to the bottom and a complete loss of quality.  Read Jonathan Cohn’s book “Sick” for some incredible examples and numbers on how the loss of regulation causes havoc for many people while prices for everyone increase.

 Want better government?  This is obvious after the past 8 years.  I think FEMA is the perfect example of Republicans running a gov’t organization into the ground followed by a Democrat revitalizing it and then a Republican running it even further into the ground.  Quality matters.

 You got us on the taxes, at least in terms of rhetoric.  But I would be a bit nervous about the fact that Obama’s tax plan cuts taxes more for the bottom 90% or so than McCain’s plan.  If Obama can drive that home, it could neutralize this natural advantage you all have.  Also people realize that when you buy cheap shit you often get cheap shit so running on cheap doesn’t always work so well.

 

Dems care about reframing

and want to sell the same old socialistic cr*p in new packages. Republicans care about their country and doing things right. Hence the GOP opposition to tax hikes that hurt the economy, support for the troops in war, and support for profamily policies.

There is no 'quality control' in the Democrat party, or you wouldnt have let unqualified hacks like Pelosi and Obama lead them!  More Dem spin with zero substance.

" You got us on the taxes, at least in terms of rhetoric.  "
That's where you are wrong. It's philosophy not rhetoric. It's not 'quality' that is making the Cali Democrats demand billions mroe in taxes. It's a desperation for bigger govt. There is a substantive different between the higher taxes more govt and lower-taxes-less-govt parties. To pretend the downside of more govt just 'rhetoric' is pure intellectual arrogance/stupidity. but I guess it takes some degree of self-delusion to be a liberal democrat these days, despite the clear proof that lower taxes means a better economy.

Want better, more efficient energy that doesn’t hurt the environment or cause wars or extremism, then go with the Dems who will work to make us more efficient users of energy and develop better, cleaner sources.

Nuclear power is power that doesn’t hurt the environment or cause wars or extremism (and btw coal and nat gas also 'dont cause wars') yet the Dems oppose nuclear power.The Dems will "make us more efficient users of energy "  while they stop us from drilling, stop coal plants (eg veto in Kansas) even though coal is now very clean, stop nuclear, stop refineries, etc. Democrats are in hock to environmentalist extremists who think we need higher energy prices and less energy. It is anti-energy. Its a bankrupt flawed and outrageous policy that hurts all Americans. The Dems deserve to lose power because they really dont respect the American people and their ability to choose for themselves (eg how much energy to use).

Um, thanks for the response

I have to laugh at the fundamentalism inhereit in statements like "despite teh clear proof that lower taxes means a better economy".  I realize you believe this but you actually have no evidence of this.  It's taken for granted on the right but even a cursory look at our recent past illustrates that it is much more complicated than that.  The counter-examples are extensive and quite simple really.  The most common is the fact that the first Bush and then Clinton raised taxes in the early 90s and that decade was probably the best growth decade we've ever had.  Also Reagan cut taxes in 1981 and in December of 82 unemploment reached 11%.  He then enacted a series of tax increases and the economy soared for years.  Perhaps taxes were too high and he overshot in 81 and he and congress corrected appropriately.  Of course the other counter example is the simple fact that most developed nations have tax rates much higher than us yet manage to grow at comparable rates in terms of GDP.  How on earth do you explain that one away?

As for nuclear power, I have nothing against it.  I just don't think we should give out government welfare to power companies to pay for it when better options exist.  But if a power company wants to build one, its superior to coal or natural gas.  Here's a guy from the Cato Institute on Nuclear Power explaining how expensive and risky it is:

The reason we hear politicians like John McCain talk so much about the need for the federal government to promote nuclear power is because investors in the private sector take one look at the economics and run screaming for the hills. Investment banks tell utilities who want to borrow money to build these things that not one red cent will be coming their way unless and until the federal taxpayer guarrantees that the entire loan will be repaid in case of default. If nuclear power were such a good economic bet, those taxpayer guarantees would not be necessary.

I don't really think many liberals are against Nuclear, but we aren't really for it when we'd rather explore renewables and conservation.  You might call that anti-choice but I think it is about better options.  Certainly we'd all be better off right now if we had implemented higher CAFE standards earlier this decade and our new cars were getting 3-5 more miles to the gallon.  That's what I mean by being more efficient users of energy.  It doesn't happen unless we all decide to make it happen. 

 

if the subject is "quality"

Could you point to a Democratic adminstration offering this elusive product?

David Paterson?

Rod Blagolovich?

Jennifer Granholm?

Deval Patrick?

I'm also not quite sure people associate stronger unions with quality... Even in "price is no object" nabes like Marin County and Nantucket where this argument might have salience.

 

It is quality

I'm not really interested in playing a partisan game of failed governors as my list would be as long as yours.  I don't think Jesus himself could have done much with Michigan's economy.

As for the union comment.  I'm pretty certain all the people in unions who have higher wages and better benefits compared to their non-unionized peers would disagree quite vigorously with you.  Here's the bureau of Labor Statistics on it.  Hard to argue with the quality of those higher paychecks.

Union vs. Nonunion: Wages (2004)

<!-- end .header -->

Union v. Non-Union: Median Weekly Earnings in 2004
 
Union
Non-union
Dollar
Difference
Percent
Difference
All
$781
$612
$169
28%
Private
$739
$604
$135
22%
Public
$832
$683
$149
22%
Male
$829
$685
$144
21%
Female
$723
$541
$182
34%
Construction
$893
$588
$305
52%
Manufacturing
$694
$654
$40
6%
Transportation and Warehousing
$819
$619
$200
32%
Utilities
$979
$948
$31
3%
Healthcare and Social Assistance
$656
$588
$68
12%
Wholesale Trade
$722
$674
$48
7%
Retail Trade
$567
$507
$60
12%
Service Occupations
$655
$389
$266
68%

 

 

Those are useless statistics

There are fawer and fewer unionized industries and they simply are not growing.  The realities are companies don't like unions and are fleeing those regions of the country that protect union corruption.  Look here:

www.nilrr.org/files/Job-Growth Advantage -- 1997-2007 Fact Sheet.pdf

 

This is especially true of Right-to-Work states which as the above report shows have had a lot more job growth than non-right-to-work states.

Consider the fact that the Michigan Big 3 auto industry that is under the thrall of the UAW is currently in it's deaththroes.  Meanwhile right-to-work Tennessee has a growing auto industry.  The first Nissan of America plant opened there in the early '80s and just last year Nissan moved all of its operation to Nashville from socialist California.  Just recently VW is planning not only to build its first US plant in 20 years (when it closed its Pennsylvania plant, a non right-to-Work state) but also to locate its entire North American operations there.  The state is becoming a regional industrial hub to service the BMW plant in Alabama, the Toyota plant in Mississippi, the Kia plant in South Carolina and the Ford, GM and Toyota plants in my home state of Kentucky (a non right-to-work state that has really started to suffer in competition with its southern neighbor).

Its not just the auto industry that is prospering Union-free, but conside the western coal mining industry in places like right-to-work Wyoming compared to the Appalachian coal mining industry under the thumb of the United Mine Workers.  In fact the most heavily unionized industries such the old landline telephone, steel and airline industries have all gone down the shi**er in the last 20 years.  Hell here in my own area the Wal-Marts are hell of a lot cheaper to shop at then the Kroger and Meijer stores that are represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers.

The only unionized "industry" that is growing is government workers and public  school teachers.  That is because they are outside the free-market and have nothing but contempt for it. They believe that if government actually spent less than the previous fiscal year then somehow we would all be reduced to being naked savages roaming the country-side.  That is why unions have become nothing more than cheerleaders for bigger and more intrusive government.

Unions, if they are to compete, will have to reform.  That means they can not act like friends of organized crime and emulate their organizing tactics off those same criminal organizations.  They will have to respect the wishes of non-Democrat members not to spend their dues on political candidates they don't support and in fact stop trying to be the fundraising arm of the Democrat party. They must recognize that the National Labor Relations Act needs to be completely revised, if not altogther scrapped, in order to recognize the realities of today's workplace which as significatly changed over the last 70 years. And most importantly allow people the right to choose weather or not to join a union if they take a job in a unionized frim and certainly not to try to take away the secret ballot when a company's workforce chooses to join a union.

How can you hate unions?

First off the NILRR is about the least reliable source on pretty much anything outside of Sean Hannity or Larry Kudlow.  Union growth actually increased in 2007 with big gains in construction and private health care fields.  And right to unionize states tend to be much more economically developped than their counterparts with much higher wages and better benefits.  It's not suprising that businesses would race to the wage bottom to cut costs and not having to deal with organized labor makes it easy to underpay your employees.  I could easily fashion all your evidence into an argument for why we need more labor unions just by concentrating on the wage issue.

And that's why I don't understand the hatred on the Right for unions.  Philosophically, we should all be for unions.  You and your fellow workers banding together to negotiate a higher share of the pie.  These organizations are inherently messy but it's a stretch to assume they are more corrupt than the ownership they are fighting.  They both take part in dispicable behavior at times and should be punished for it.  And as it stands it is difficult to unionize because employers routinely threaten termination for anyone who takes part in organizing especially if they look like they might be successful.  Management knows that less of the profit made will go to their salaries and stockholders and more to the workers if unionization is successful.  I prefer the worker get more in most cases and think that for the past 30 years or so wage growth for the middle class has undeperformed..  In fact I would think that Conservatives could get behind unions for the simple reason that it is a market based approach to increased wages and overall economic equality without redistributing income through tax policy. 

I can actually agree with some of your last paragraph but you need to realize that the employers aren't angels here.  Do you have a counter-proposal to ensure a living wage and health benefits for workers?  How do you stop aggressive efforts by employers to stop unionization.  Wal-Mart is especially bad at this and their punishment when caught is ludicrous (See here for an example).  If you hate card-check because it tips the scale too much in favor of unions then perhaps you can at least be for 10 fold increases in punishment and fines so there isn't an incentive to break the law by employers like there is now. 

My chart above is far from useless.  Higher wages are real and conservatives ignore them at their own peril as they seek out cheaper this and cheaper that.  You get the nation you pay for just like with anything.

There are more consumers than unionized workers

Don't higher prices or higher taxes have to be charged to offset the higher wages? Hello?

I would also suggest if the Democrat want to campaign on the great efficiency of the unionized workforce they are going to be met with guffaws 

As for Michigan's economy, I think this guy is bit too fat to walk on water, but he did better than Jenny(put the economy up) on the block. 

 http://www.michigan.gov/formergovernors/0,1607,7-212-31303-2273--,00.html

Engler's economic policies have helped to create more than 800,000 jobs in Michigan, cutting the state's unemployment rate from over 9 percent the year he took office to 3.4 percent in 2000 - the lowest annual level ever recorded.

 

To reverse it

Uh, hello, don't lower prices need to be offset by lower wages?  Trading one for the other is hardly a win-win situation.  Quality jobs have decent wages, no?

And I'm sure Engler sent Clinton a thank-you note for the superb American economy his state was part of. 

"the good of the many"

a few people get the higher wages. Everyone gets the higher prices.

Checked out how the UAW is doing of late, and what the Big Three's market share is?

Democratic Philosophy

As a resident of CA all anyone has to do is look at the mess this state is in....the spending never stops no matter how much revenue increases then throw in all the nanny state laws and all the union backed legislation....this is what the Democratic Party is really about nationally but it outdoes itself in CA....and if you do NOT toe their party line they don't just move you to a closet for your office they move you out of the Capitol itself....the current Speaker in the CA Assembly had a Dem Assemblymember moved after she refused to vote for the Dem budget plan which included more spending and a hefty tax increase....she was disloyal so was punished....so as much as you believe what you wrote about "quality" and the Democratic Party it just doesn't give most warm fuzzy feelings about "quality" government....and after Speaker Pelosi closed the House for summer recess to go on her book tour the Republicans stayed and beat up the entire Democratic Party on energy costs and drilling....that worked very well for the Dems didn't it?  So as much as you think the Democratic Party=Quality the reality is it equals hypocrisy and do what I say not as I do.

Patrick shows his international, big business roots

Of course, Parick in bowing to his big business, insdie the beltway masters, ignores cheaper housing.  If you want cheaper housing, if you want public schools to improve, if you want to making commuting cheaper, and if you want to lower the costs of crime and insurance, then the Republicans have to support much lower immigration and controlling the borders,

 

Of course controlling the borders would also make energy cheaper and would make health care cheaper but I doubt that Patrick's future employers in the irrevelant Republican Party are willing to give up cheap dry wall and low paid restaurant workers in order to get it.

support education for children, not 'public schools'

" if you want public schools to improve"

That's a liberal way to state it.

As a parent, I know the CORRECT way to state it is: "If you want to improve education for children ...

... support school choice, higher standards in schools, bring back Washington's birthday as a holiday celebrated in schools and study more of the Founding Fathers, increase emphasis on math and science, etc.

And BTW, last I checked the Republicans overall are much much better at controlling borders and immigration than the Democrats. If you want to send that particular message, support Lou Barletta for Congress (PA 11th I believe), and re-elect Bilbray (CA).

 

 

The New GOP

 All good points.  Just a few comments:

 

Want cheaper government? Cut spending.  AND REDUCE GOVERNMENT

Want cheaper tax bills? This is self-explanatory.  YES, REDUCE GOVERNMENT

(as we are about to find out---ultimately you cannot continue to reduce or hold the line on taxes unless you reduce or limit government).

Oh, and by the way:  Stay out of peoples personal lives and quit trying to supervise their relationship to God.

See folks, this New GOP would really look like the GOP envisioned by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan (as opposed to the disaster created by Bush & Rove)  

 

 

Price vs. costs

The disconnect between what Patrick wrote and what KJ wrote, has to do with the fact that with hidden subsidies and unaccounted externalities, the price of an item may be artificially depressed below its true equilibrium market price.  It may even be depressed below cost.

The oil and nuclear power industries have been the recipient of numerous direct and indirect subsidies that keep the prices of those energy sources below what they should otherwise be.  And consumers have gotten used to those artificially subsidized low prices.  That's not a conservative free-market approach.

The Price-Anderson Act limited the financial liability of nuclear power companies in case of an accident, and provided cheap no-fault Government-backed insurance.  I can't begin to list all the tax breaks that the oil industry has gotten from Congress.  The U.S. Navy is paid to keep the sea lanes open in the Persian Gulf, without which supertankers couldn't transit safely there and oil couldn't be shipped cheaply from there.  When the smog from your polluting SUV gives a child down the street an asthma attack, you're not required to pay for his medical treatment.  And so on.

If the GOP is going to promote low prices by promoting abundance (in accordance with the law of supply and demand), then I'm all for it.  But if the goal is to lower apparent prices to the consumer by giving tax breaks and subsidies to oil and coal and nuclear energy producers, and blithely ignoring the externalities like the negative health effects of pollution or the consequences to the planet from global warming, then I'm against it.  

That means the Price-Anderson Act and all other special tax breaks and subsidies to the oil and nuclear industries should be repealed.  Nuclear power should be required to stand on its own as a cost-effective energy source, without these indirect Government subsidies.  If nuclear power is as safe as its proponents say it is, it doesn't need Government legal  protections anymore, not after 60 years of experience.  The oil companies that drill in the Middle East should be required to pay a higher tax specifically to protect the sea lanes in the Persian Gulf, or else stop drilling in the Middle East.

 

 

Govt does not subsidize oil and nuclear

The oil and nuclear power industries have been the recipient of numerous direct and indirect subsidies that keep the prices of those energy sources below what they should otherwise be.

1. Oil is the most heavily TAXED commodities out there. The majority of the money you pay for oil goes to one Government or another. " I can't begin to list all the tax breaks that the oil industry has gotten from Congress." Of course you can't because any attempt would be swallowed up by the hundreds of billions paid in gas and oil taxes. the 'subsidies' are the usual and necessary depletion allowances that stop a producer for paying tax on an illusory gain.

"When the smog from your polluting SUV gives a child down the street an asthma attack, you're not required to pay for his medical treatment. "  98% reduction in emissions in the past 20 years, SUV buyers already pay for that reduction by paying extra money for regulated low emissions vehicles. such scaremongering is wrong. 

2.  "The Price-Anderson Act limited the financial liability of nuclear power companies in case of an accident, and provided cheap no-fault Government-backed insurance." A completely bogus talking point. The US Government  does not subsidize this at all, but instead requires payments from the nuclear power industry to support this forced-pooled-insurance scheme. Here's more on te facts from NEI:

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/safetyandsecurity/factsheets/priceandersona...

The Price-Anderson Act provides no-fault insurance to benefit the public in the event of a nuclear power plant accident the Nuclear Regulatory Commission deems to be an “extraordinary nuclear occurrence.” The costs of this insurance, like all the costs of nuclear-generated electricity, are borne by the industry, unlike the corresponding costs of some other power sources. Risks from hydropower mishaps (dam failure and resultant flooding), for example, are borne directly by the public. The 1977 failure of the Teton Dam in Idaho caused $500 million in property damage, but the only compensation provided to those affected was about $200 million in low-cost government loans.

Under the Price-Anderson framework, the public has paid nothing, while insurance pools have paid roughly $200 million in claims and the nuclear power industry has paid $21 million to the federal government in indemnity fees. The act has proven so successful that Congress has used it as a model for legislation to protect the public against potential losses or harm from other hazards, including faulty vaccinations, medical malpractice and toxic waste.

Current Coverage Exceeds $10 Billion
Congress passed the Price-Anderson legislation in 1957 as an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act. President Eisenhower signed the measure into law shortly thereafter. It requires nuclear power plants to show evidence of financial protection. Licensees must provide a total of more than $10 billion in insurance coverage to compensate the public in the event of a nuclear accident. No portion is borne by taxpayers or the federal government.

This protection consists of two tiers. The primary level provides $300 million in liability insurance. This first-level coverage consists of the liability insurance provided by two private insurance pools. The pools are groups of insurance companies pledging assets that enable them to provide substantially higher coverage than an individual company could offer. If this amount is not sufficient to cover claims arising from an accident, secondary financial protection applies.

For this second level, each nuclear plant must pay a retrospective premium equal to its proportionate share of the excess loss, up to a maximum of $100.6 million per reactor per accident. This includes a $95.8 million premium and a 5 percent surcharge that may be applied, if needed, to legal costs. Currently, all 104 operating nuclear reactors are participating in the secondary financial protection program.

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/safetyandsecurity/factsheets/priceandersona...

http://www.nei.org/keyissues/safetyandsecurity/factsheets/priceandersona...

Unlike for example FDIC, where the Government is backing something gratis, the nuclear power industry is required to bear the cost of the insurance by an assessment on every nuclear reactor. The Government has ALSO required a fee for nuclear waste, and collected more billions from that fee than they spent on their (not yet opened)  facility. The Government has been making money off the nuclear power industry. When you add to that the significant property taxes, utilities taxes and corporate income taxes (eg Excelon), the Government is raking in billions from nuclear power.

"That means the Price-Anderson Act and all other special tax breaks and subsidies to the oil and nuclear industries should be repealed." -

No, it means you have no clue what the real purpose and benefit of Price-Anderson Act is, you have no clue of the real economics of energy, and are spouting bogus talking points fed to you by the liberal special interest anti-energy eco-extremists.

We can reduce energy costs by decreasing the price we are paying for energy, if we stop bogus subsidies and stop the anti-energy policies. Such policies, like no drilling offshore and in ANWR, like no refineries and no LNG facilities, is the cost of environmental stupidity. Like the $10 trillion America gives up in oil resources? Will environmentalists pay the rest of us the $10 trillion they are taking from us?  What about the billions wasted on ethanol and bio-fuels boondoggles? What about the billions on hybrid subsidies, billions on solar, billions on other alternative energy research and subsidies that hasnt panned out?

All of these costs are loaded on us by the eco-extremists, the anti-energy fools and the left-liberals.

Reduce costs AND improve quality

Conservative ideals are common sense and American ingenuity is legendary. The limiting mindset of simply moving wealth around rather than growing ourselves into new opportunities is a sure path to mediocrity. I would love for the Conservative movement to regain its voice for smaller government, fewer taxes, decreased deficits and unabashed free market practices to foster new creative ideas that also improve the quality side of the coin. I am convinced this is possible if we return to our roots in philosophy and apply to our current era. This is not just about technique; this is about principle. As one commentator/political figure (Gov. Jindal?) said, "Republicans should not just be a cheaper version of Democrats."

Democrats Want High Prices So They Can Be Our Savior

What Democrats do (intentionally in my opinion) is make things so expensive that there is a public outcry for the government to either take over or get involved. 

Take health care, for instance.  With all the litigation involved, health care has become unaffordable for more and more Americans.  Instead of attacking the main problem of the increased costs, wrangling in litigation by trial lawyers (who are, not surprisingly, the biggest fundraisers for the Democrat Party) the Democats only encourage it so health care will become more expensive, so they can push for socialized medicine.

Another example, look at energy costs.  The Democrats have made the cost of oil prohibitively expensive by not allowing more domestic production.  That high costs have more people needing public transportation, people demanding heating oil subsidies, and many Democrats want to even nationalize sectors of the oil industry.  This "problem" could easily be solved by simply allowing more oil production in the U.S., but the Democrats would rather have the solution come from government, earning them more dependent constituents.

There are many examples of this, liberals want to engineer for the private sector to fail, so they can take over and call the shots in as many areas of our lives as possible.

Liberals want all solutions to come from the government, and if there isn't a problem, they'll make one up so the government can solve it. (like global warming) This cause and effect needs to be pointed out to those Americans that get pinched the hardest by these Democrat schemes.  I think the jig is up for Democrats on energy solutions.  Americans instinctively understand that environmental nonsense is really hurting their way of life.  Republicans really have a winning issue, and should look for more ways that Democrats "tax" the American way of life.

Amen!

Preach it brother, preach it!