When Good Politics And Good Policy Coincide
It would be nice to think that politicians always do the right thing, at least as they see it. It would also be dangerously naive. The first rule of politics is get yourself reelected. How fortunate we are, then, that the very things that would restore public faith in the GOP are also the right things to do for the good of America.
I’ve been talking about one item that should go front and center on the GOP’s 2006 agenda: making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, John Fund adds two more:
The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll offered respondents a menu of legislative action Congress could address before it goes home this year. Asked to choose which should be its top priority, a stunning 39% selected “prohibiting Members of Congress from directing federal funds to specific projects benefiting only certain constituents”–i.e., the pork-barrel spending at the heart of the Congressional earmark process. Immigration reform was in second place with 32%. It would be ironic if the big-spending strategy Tom DeLay thought was a key to shoring up incumbents and keeping GOP control of Congress winds up ending that control.
Reforming the appropriations process in Congress may not be sexy – but with 39% support as the number-one item in need of action, Congress will ignore it at its own risk.
Or what? Let’s go to the great Ken Mehlman:
Ken Mehlman is the unflappable efficiency expert who chairs the Republican National Committee. Because he’s not known for histrionics, his warning last week to GOP congressional staffers about this November’s elections caused many on Capitol Hill to bolt upright.
Mr. Mehlman traveled to Capitol Hill to warn the staffers that they risked a disaster at the polls if they didn’t pass meaningful legislation the conservative base cares about. Other GOP strategists go even further. “If the election were held today, I’d say the odds are 90% that we’d lose the House,” says GOP consultant Mike Murphy.
Other Republicans aren’t as gloomy, but they warn the GOP Congress has to act on a range of issues soon. “If we want to ensure voter turnout among conservatives doesn’t drop, we’ve got to perform,” says Rep. Jack Kingston, a Georgia Republican who dropped by The Wall Street Journal’s offices on Friday. He adds it is imperative that the bloated “emergency” spending bill passed by the Senate this week not become law and that some immigration bill clears Congress.
November is six months away. A lot can happen in six months. There is still time…to the mantra of ‘Tax Cuts = Jobs + Income’, add ‘Enforce The Law, At The Border And Inside It’ and ‘Quit Putting Lipstick On That Pig: No More Pork’ (I tell you, this stuff is sheer dynamite. Are you campaign wonks listening?)…
I just got back from a conference in Maui with a about 200 manufacturing executives. Among other speakers there were two experts who spoke specificly about the GOP’s chances of winning in 06 and 08. Both were conservatives speaking to a very pro business conservative crowd. Both predicted the Dems will win control of Congress and the Senate in 06 and Hillary to be the Democratic nominee in 08.
I will post some other interesting predictions, and information I heard tomorrow.
It ain’t over ’til its over, but it is stunning to realize how badly the GOP Congress has bungled its majority. And they can’t blame the President for the current poor showing. The confirmation of judges, the failure to pass any meaningful expansion of our domestic fuel capacity, Terry Schiavo, $100 gas credits, pork barrel spending, and the insipid action on immigration reform, have all contributed to the understanding by the electorate that they are a bumbling, unprincipled, and misguided group of near-do-wells.
There is time to fix this, but (can you tell?) I am lacking in optimism.
Comrades,
I am in complete agreement here. I have been a loyal member of the GOP for a very long time, and also derve on my city and county GOP comittees. However, the (in)actions as well as actions of this Congress have given me reservations about my trust in the Party leadership.
Specifically, three areas come to mind. 1.) is the lack of border security and the ostrich policy regarding illegals. 2.) the pork and 3.) the free-spending that is out of control.
My old party used to be the party of financial security, of personal responsibility, od complete dedication to ALL of the Bill of Rights, but no more.
These days I see a potential Presidential nominee questioning the need for the 1st Ammendment. I see GOP lawmakers willing to restrict 2nd Ammendment rights. I see questionable calls regarding the 4th Ammendment. The list goes on and on. Currently, there is no one potential candidate from the GOP ranks that i would guarentee my support to, with, perhaps, an exception for Condi Rice, but even that is predicated upon more research of her views.
I live on a fixed income. I pay my bills, take care of my family, and volunteer in my community. I’m trying to raise my kids to respect the law, their parents, and their fellow citizens, to pay their taxes and help out where they can. To be productive and responsible citizens of this great nation.
Yet from our elected leaders we get scandals and pork. Corrupt officials, back-stabbing administrative types, drunks and hysterical females and the Capitol Police turning a blind eye. I am disgusted by it all.
What happened to leadership by example? The only positive thing about them being in DC is that they are all in one place, and not here among us. The bad thing is they have our checkbooks and credit cards, and seem intent on maxing them out.
Is it too early to start drinking?
respects,
Gwedd
Gwedd,
If you think Condi Rice isn’t going to further the constitutional misgivings of the current administration, I think you’re fooling yourself.
Also, just curious here, but could you please explain what actions the GOP has performed that “restrict 2nd amendment rights”? Actually, what does that phrase even mean? In my view, you either have or do not have the right to keep and bear arms. Do you think the average citizen should be allowed to own a nuke (that is the most extreme case I can think of)? Where should the line be drawn? ICBMs? Rocket launchers? Or does the 2nd amendment specifically relate to guns and all guns?
Mark,
I am in favor of making the tax cuts permanent if necessary program (or pork) cuts are made to balance the budget as well as pay down the debt (in a given number of years), but, once again, lower taxes for the sake of lower taxes is fiscally foolish. Like another commenter mentioned, we don’t know which side of the Laffer curve we’re on…
Mike B. (mike b dot)
P.S. My god, y’all post very early in the morning (TUA and TMS), oh, by the way Mark, you might want to change your hyperlink to The Real Ugly American on your links page (it still goes to the “blogspot” page).
The time posted must be the server time because that listed for my post is an hour earlier than the actual (EDT) time of my post. My wife thinks I’m crazy for getting up so early everyday, but the world is nice and quiet then.
Spending is the biggest problem in the Federal budget. The process is broken, particularly by allowing “earmarks” which, driven by a Congressional culture of reciprocity, lead to broad growth in spending. Good luck getting the Congress to simultaneously make the tax cuts permanent AND reduce spending.
Thanks, Mike, I’ll get that link fixed…
mikebdot,
My concerns come from watching this president urge Congress to continue the ‘assault weapons ban”, and so many Congressmen and Senators willing to support the ’95/’96 ammendments to the 1968 gun-control act. That ammendment, offered by Lautenburg, made it illegal for anyone ever convicted of a domestic-violence crime to own any firearm or ammunition for one. It doesn’t matter if it was a class-D misdemeanor, or when it occured. If it’s on your record, you cannot own a gun. Any gun. Ever. There is no grandfather clause, and no means for appeal.
I have a close friend who was a decorated police officer, and he lost his job and a rather extensive firearms collection due to this law. He had an altercation with his wife more than 20 years ago, before he was even a cop. He pleaded guilty to a class-D misdemeanor charge and got a year’s probation. 20 years later, because of this law, the DA was forced to have him let go, despite his otherwise exemplary character.
The US Military lost thousands of good men and even woman because of this law, and Congress has yet to see fit to change it. This law repunishes someone, without any right to appeal, for a crime that was otherwise paid for. It violates the ex post facto clause of the Constitution, as it is retroactive. It violates the double-jeopardy clause, because it convicts you without trial of a NEW crime (many of those affected were convicted of simple assault charges, years before they were expanded to become ‘domestic violence” cases), and punishes the offender by denying him his rights under the second ammendment. In short, you lose a Constitutional right for what is usually a mis-demeanor charge, you have no right to appeal, and possesion of a firearm and/or ammunition by you will nowbe a felony. In short, you are a second-class citizen.
Despite many letters of protest, this law still remains on the books, and no one has stepped up tp challenge it because of the “domestic violence” agenda machinery. No one wants to be seen supporting reforms for those convicted, regardless of the draconian and unconstitutional means applied.
I personally favor a complete repeal of the 1968 gun control act. I should be allowed to purchase any firearm I so choose, and to be held fully accountable for my actions regarding that weapon. How come, on any other social issue from Drunk Driving to Sex Ed to Diversity, etc, the answer is “education” but with firearm’s it’s always “confiscation?”
Respects,
Gwedd
I honestly don’t understand this “earmark” thing. I can’t believe it is legal. I guess it always comes back to “Who is going to oversee the overseers?” If absolute power corrupts absolutely, does peripheral power corrupt on the periphery or could it too corrupt absolutely? You know, like a rectangle is sometimes a square but a square is always a rectangle?
Gwedd,
I hear that. I wasn’t sure of the laws preventing from someone owning a firearm. Should there be a law preventing people who have used guns in a crime from owning guns when they get out of prison? It seems this would still cause you to lose your rights upon committing a crime. I can see where some law like this is necessary, but the line needs to be moved it sounds like. The retroactive aspect of the law sounds very ridiculous (unless you’ve committed assault with a deadly weapon). Forgive my ignorance in this area, but was genuinely curious. I do not own any firearms as I’m a non-violent person. My protection is my supremely awesome karma.