The Trouble with Taxes and Cuts

Bartlett and Bainbridge go at it over the federal defict and how it will inevitably impact defense spending or lead to a tax hike of some sort.   I think both make excellent points to one another, from two similar but different ideological positions .   Here are the two key points.

Bartlett:

Republicans primarily concerned about national security ought to be in the forefront of efforts to raise revenues to reduce deficits, free up domestic saving for domestic investment, and reduce the importation of foreign saving and the trade deficit. But so far they are not. They remain loyal to the Republican obsession with tax cuts and a refusal to raise taxes in any way for any reason. However, I think my national security-minded friends are soon going to discover that massive defense budget cuts will necessarily be a big part of the price that will be paid for not raising revenues.

Bainbridge:

Given a choice between spending $100 billion on defense [or] shoring up public sector union pension funds, what does Bartlett think his Democratic buddies would do? Given a choice between spending $100 billion on the troops and $100 billion on an unnecessary war of choice, what does Bartlett think the neoconservatives would do?

It's sort of like the old joke about an economist stranded on a desert island, whose punch line "assume a can opener." Bartlett's critique of his old friends would have a lot more traction if he could explain why we should assume a sudden outbreak of good government.

Until I see proof the beast has reformed, I say starve the [expletive deleted].

Can't realy argue with Bainbridge there.  New boss, same as old boss.   Personally I prefer any heavy spending be done domestically and not on American Imperialism ventures.  That aside, something needs to be done about the deficit.   Bainbridge does well to wrap up after a short back-and-forth with Bartlett and gets more to the heart of the matter:

To be clear, however, my point is not that deficit reduction and other sensible budgetary policies can be achieved only through cutting spending. (Just as Bartlett presumably thinks we need spending cuts as well as tax increases.)

On a bipartisan basis, our rulers have spent us into a position in which taxes probably will have to go up at least for a while. But agreeing to tax increases ought to be done only in return for a package of fundamental reforms. We need entitlement reforms (including raising the retirement age), budgetary reforms (bans on ear marks, a line item veto, and a balanced budget amendment), political reforms (real restrictions on gerrymandering), and the like. Letting the powers that be have higher taxes without those other reforms will not solve the problem. All it does is make for a bigger candy store to which we've given the keys to the children.

Put simply, absent real reforms, I don't want anybody in Washington or Sacramento getting their grubby hands on any more of my money because I don't trust them to spend it wisely. My guess is that a lot of Bartlett's new friends on the left, for example, would be quite content to raise taxes and massively cut defense. So the either/or he presents strikes me as a false choice.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid we probably need to wait until things get bad enough that politicians on all sides will be forced to agree to fundamental reforms to avoid going the way of Greece.

Bartlett on Epistemic Closure of the GOP

Bartlett rounds up some examples of the conservative establishment's ostracizing of anyone harboring a dissenting voice. 

Another example of how social pressure is brought to bear against dissident conservatives occurred shortly after this incident and also involved Heritage. Ryan Sager, then a columnist for the conservative New York Post, published a book in 2006 called The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party. His argument, similar to the one I made in my Impostor book, was that the Bush White House had abandoned the historical libertarian position of the Republican Party on many issues in pursuit of votes among anti-libertarian evangelicals.

Sager had been invited to talk to a group called the Prosperity Caucus, a loose-knit private group that meets about once a month in Washington to discuss economics and politics over pizza and beer. Usually, the group borrows a room on Capitol Hill or at a conservative think tank. As it had done often before, this particular month the Prosperity Caucus had booked a room at Heritage.

Even though Sager’s criticism of Bush was far milder than mine, he was deemed radioactive by Heritage, which canceled the Prosperity Caucus’s reservation and booted them out of the building when it came to its attention that Sager was speaking.

I have friends who chide me for "going liberal" in recent times.  It's something I love and hate all at the same time.   I love it because those who do are simply proving the point that the modern day GOP has only power-grabbing and obstructionism in mind and are mentally allergic to pragmatism.  I hate it because it's an indication that the battle for power in the GOP between the Libertarians and the Bible Thumpers is being controlled by the latter. 

I'm no liberal, this much I can assure you.  But I'm left only with a choice between these:

a) Cut taxes and spend heavily on Defense and Medicare while working to restrict Civil Rights
and
b) Leave middle class taxes alone, spend domestically on much-needed reform and be mindful of individual rights

Is there even a question which way I'd choose?

Frum, ctd.

Bartlett with a rather telling anecdote re: the Frum firing. 

I don't know all the details, but I presume that his Waterloo post on Sunday condemning Republicans for failing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform was the final straw.

Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.

Purity tests at their ugliest...  

(via Sullivan)

Bartlett on Tom Scully's Op-Ed

Whenever discussing the "tremendous cost" of the Health Care bill, if you dare mention the $1 trillion unfunded Medicare Part D program to a Republican, they respond by putting fingers in both ears and start screaming la-la-la-la-la-la-la over you.  

Bruce Bartlett explains:

This morning's paper carries an op-ed criticizing health care reform primarily on the grounds that it will cost too much. It urges that the plan be sharply scaled back so that it will get bipartisan support.

If this op-ed were written by a Republican member of Congress it would be unremarkable; not even worth publishing. But this particular op-ed was authored by someone who appears to have meaningful expertise on the subject. The writer, Tom Scully, is identified as the former administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and a White House official during the George H.W. Bush administration.

Given this resume, one might think that Scully was a career health professional, an expert that those on both sides of an issue might look to for counsel and guidance. In fact, Scully is a rank Republican political hack who was responsible for one of the most reprehensible episodes in recent American political history. It was Scully who helped ram through Congress the totally unfunded Medicare Part D program that will cost taxpayers roughly $1 trillion over the next decade--that's $1 trillion more than Obama's plan, which is fully paid for according to the Congressional Budget Office.

 Worth the read.   Included within, he also reposts his November '09 detailing of Scully's hypocrisy with a great lead-in:

Rather than go through the whole sorry story again, I am reprinting below my Forbes column from last year in which I discussed Scully's duplicitous behavior. Included are hyperlinks documenting his culpability for saddling taxpayers with trillions of dollars of debt just so his party could buy the votes of seniors and win the 2004 election.