Now that Bush has won reelection, Republicans have secured general legislative control for an additional two years, and knowing Congressional turnover probably four unless they screw up horribly.
Republicans, you need to learn a lesson that every ruling party must keep in mind if they want to avoid becoming an ossified wreck. You did not come to power for its own sake, nor ought your main job be to continue that power. You came to power to do things, and now that Republicans have been the majority party in the federal government for some time, you have a responsibility for how governmental processes turn out. I’m not going to tackle each of these areas comprehensively, but they are areas which need to see significant progress if Republican voters are going to bother keeping you in power.
1. Military Spending. We do need advanced weapons, but most importantly we need advanced soldiers. Despite scare tactics from the left, we could easily build up to Cold War levels without even considering the draft. We probably don’t need to go more than half way there. But that requires authorization, which is to say money. Defence of the country is one of the federal government’s prime responsibilities. Treat it that way.
2. Social Security. We need to take substantive steps to get that spending under control. The sooner we do it, the better. I favor means-testing, because I think having the large majority of the payments going to the rich and middle class is stupid for a system which is defended as a safety-net. But that terminology has become poisoned, so you will probably have to call it something else.
3. Free Trade. It has excellent pay-offs, but you can’t make lots of little exceptions because they tend to swallow the rule. Stick to it.
4. Education. Its good for the country and in a somewhat surprising alignment, one of the issues that makes it look like you care.
5. Abortion. Most of the US is not NARAL. If you pass fair late-term laws which allow for verifiable medical exceptions, the electorate is not going to punish for it. If you go crazy, well they probably will punish you. But most people really aren’t comfortable with late term abortions. Roe theoretically says that they can be banned in certain ways. You can act in that zone.
6. Tax simplification.
7. The deficit. We can grow our way out of some of it, but not all of it. Programs are going to have to be cut, or taxes raised. You make the call, you are responsible for it. I suggest you find ways to trim the budget. I also suggest that farm subsidies are the first to go. Best do it soon though, I don’t want to hear whining about the 2006 elections yet.
You can dodge responsibility and maybe even fool people about it. But it isn’t good for the country. So do your jobs.
i’m curious, do you really think they’ll start acting any differently than they have for the past 4 years ?
Fine list.
There’s nothing here that I haven’t held to be true for most of my adult life. I’d add something to the effect that buying the votes of your constituents by dipping into public funds ought to be discarded out of hand, and that the President ought to go heavy with the veto pen for just this reason, but then I’d have to push for the line-item veto again. Which I’m fully willing to do, BTW, but it’s kind of had its chance.
::nod of approval::
If they can stick to a program like yours, I wouldn’t mind them remaining in power to implement it. As long as they don’t do too many non-list items (extensive subsidies, Patriot Act expansions, etc.) in the process.
It’s a bit late to decide that you’d rather have had Kerry, Sebastian, but this is a fine list. Not a chance in hell you’ll get any of it from Bush, though.
You’re a little too old to be sulking, Jesurgislac.
Sebastian,
Health care? What about those 45 million uninsured?
Defense — bring back the BRAC.
Entitlements — Kerry’s idea of socializing the cost of the chronically ill was a good one for bringing down the cost of private insurance.
Environment — addressing ocean pollution and mercury in the air, and restructuring the Endangered Species Act are all legitimate goals with possible bi-partisan support.
Abortion — given that the conservative posters here generally prefer a narrow construction of the commerce clause, i’d love to know what the federal power is for banning late-term abortions.
Francis
“I also suggest that farm subsidies are the first to go.”
Theoretically correct, but Rural States/Areas have increased challenges in an expensive-oil era, and food independence not without national security justifications.
Rural Areas are also economic liabilities to an extent, and further impoverishment and isolation will further polarize the discourse. A useful change would be to make them energy-providers (they already are) with biomass/wind/solar substitutions for ag subsidies.
Bob, I hear you. But you’ve got to admit that there are certain abuses of tax dollars that merit the axe. Like sugar subsidies, for instance.
Sebastian, can I vote for you instead?
What’s wrong with a little sulking? (I mean other than that it suppresses your immune system) The reality-based community is going to have to entertain ourselves somehow for the next couple of years. We can laugh or we can cry, but our hands are tied… It’s kind of a relief in some ways.
Democrats, ABBs, social liberals, fiscal conservatives, foreign policy doves, multilateralists… all thoroughly renounced and condemned. After four years of the most radical foreign policy in living memory, staggering job losses, state-sanctioned torture, and the biggest federal deficit in history, the “new” GOP retains control of both chambers, the exec, and de facto the Supreme Court.
Y’all (the reasonable righties) seem to think that some sort of coherent agenda is just around the corner. But the people in charge of the new GOP, all the DeLays and Roves and Norquists and Cheneys, are terribly exposed right now. They seized the moment, so they’re in considerable danger until they consolidate their power, sort out a stable pecking order, and pay off their biggest markers. This is not going to be easy, and they need to do it before 2006.
I (nutbar conspiracy theorist) think that they will be too busy protecting themselves to enage in the sort of wonkery that Sebastian is suggesting. Partly because I believe the DC paleocon/civil service alliance still has some pretty strong hole cards and very little left to lose.
The postwar geopolitical era of pax Americana ended, formally and irrevocably, this Tuesday. We have shown the world that W is not a temporary aberration. Whatever happens now, whether better or worse, will be profoundly different from what came before. And we shouldn’t be pretending otherwise…
Jes (approx): Good list, Kerryesque. Bush won’t deliver.
Slart: “You’re a little too old to be sulking, Jesurgislac.”
Seems perhaps a tad snarky to me, certainly not sulky. I think Kerry would have signed off on most or all of the list (well, on 7 he was going for some tax increases, and probably would have been forced to make some cuts, though how to cut farm subsidies and survive in office is unclear to me), including a reasonable late-term abortion ban (his views on this were apparently a source of some discomfort to pro-choicers concerned about slippery slopes or purity). If Bush does make real progress on the above I’ll be surprised and grateful.
That would be a Republican platform I could very happily live with.
I would be shocked if any national Democratic President could sign off on even the slightest restriction on abortion without getting (ahem) crucified. Of my suggestions, I suspect few national Democratic leaders could sign off on any except 1 (but much smaller than I envision) and 7.
Uhhh… “Education”? You think a Dem couldn’t do that?
Nope. I don’t think Democrats can make significant strides in education because they are completely beholden to the teacher’s unions on the subject. Teacher’s unions won’t allow testing or any form of success measurement which migh also reveal teacher failure. Therefore I believe that Democrats could spend lots of money on the issue, but I do not believe that Democrats would be likely to improve education.
Social Security. We need to take substantive steps to get that spending under control.
Social Security spending is in control, and will be for another 20 years under conservative assumptions. The changes needed then are minor. You are attempting to mask your ideological opposition to Social Security by stating that spending on it is out of control. That’s a dishonest argument.
As for the deficit, it boggles the mind that anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the history of the past 24 years would expect progress in this area to come in the next two years given the results of the election. It ain’t gonna happen.
Here’s what’s going to happen: increase in military spending, increase in other spending, tax cuts, and record deficits. You wanted something else? Voted for the wrong guy then, didn’t you? Eventually the financial markets will reach their breaking point and we will have the required, uh, “adjustment”.
I suspect few national Democratic leaders could sign off on any except 1 (but much smaller than I envision) and 7.
Number 4? Maybe not the plan you would like, but it’s unlikley a Democrat would fail to try to improve education.
Number 6? Easy for a Democrat to support, depending on the plan proposed. I don’t think this is likely in any event, because it is at least close to impossible, and because it will be used as a cover for more massive tax cuts.
Sebastian, if this administration and Congress come anywhere close to being that moderate, I will eat a live spider — a really hairy one. Many things on your list (though I don’t agree with all of it) represent the Republican Party for whom I used to vote occasionally. This group? No.
Sebastian, I’ll join in the chorus of “good list, wrong President.” I’d love to be wrong about that, but I’d be surprised as hell if I am.
On Social Security, though, I think you’re identifying the wrong problem. It’s not Social Security that’s the real retirement-related budget buster, it’s Medicare, and I don’t think that can be fixed without a major restructuring of health care for working-age folks as well. And even looking at Social Security in isolation, how do you means-test without creating a huge moral hazard problem? You’re basically telling people to save for their own retirements but promising to pay them if they don’t.
A bit OT, but here is a map along the lines that Bob McManus requested.
Also, in terms of possibilities for the next 4 years, what should Bush do if Arafat dies? What do you expect him to do? Are they the same?
“And even looking at Social Security in isolation, how do you means-test without creating a huge moral hazard problem? You’re basically telling people to save for their own retirements but promising to pay them if they don’t.”
You put the peg at the upper-lower class level with a minor sliding scale payment into the lower-middle class. Very few upper middle class and probably close to zero upper class people are going to fail to plan for their own retirement if relying on Social Security would involve a major lifestyle change.
“Also, in terms of possibilities for the next 4 years, what should Bush do if Arafat dies? What do you expect him to do? Are they the same?”
I think Arafat has in fact died, and I have a response to Andrew Sullivan’s post on the subject slated in my head for tonight.
I generally expect it is unlikely we will get any meaningful progress on any of those issues, any more than we did the last four years.
I do think there will be a very strong move on Social Security. It will be a tough fight, but the President/House as usual will ask for 150% of what they want, and I expect they will get 75%.
“Roe theoretically says that they can be banned in certain ways. You can act in that zone.”
Sebastian knows I don’t like this, and consider it a matter of interpretation, as do judges, but I do expect another late-term abortion bill to be passed, and finally upheld by a new SCOTUS.
Which, incidentally, is not reassuring for we pro-choice types being told the overturn of Roe will return the issue to the states. The day Roe is overturned, a bill will be introduced into the US Congress.
Felix is correct on Social Security. There is no specific Social Security problem. We went around this track a few weeks ago.
The claim that SS is in trouble because the government will not be able to meet its obligations to the trust fund is, in fact, a claim that the government is in financial trouble. The latter claim is correct, and I join you, Sebastian, in hoping something is done about it soon. But I am not optimistic.
It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of Social Security to call it a safety-net program. It’s meant to be a substantial portion of retirement income for most people, including the middle class.
I agree that social security should be means-tested, but only for the relatively well-to-do on up.
I agree that social security should be means-tested, but only for the relatively well-to-do on up
At which point the well-to-do on up demonize SS as welfare and claim anyone who disagrees is engaging in “class warfare”. No thanks. Although I hope right wingers feel free to mess around with the third rail. What’s the worst that could happen?
Nope. I don’t think Democrats can make significant strides in education because they are completely beholden to the teacher’s unions on the subject.
Are you saying that the problems with NCLB are the fault of the teacher’s unions?
The problems of US schools predate NCLB. And the problems of accountability rise from the compromises made for the teacher’s unions.
And the problems of accountability rise from the compromises made for the teacher’s unions
No, the problems of accountability arise from federal education laws passed by Republicans with no intention of funding what the laws require.
In 2004, blaming problems on unions doesn’t pass the laugh test. What’s next, blaming problems in education on anarcho-syndicalists? Or, just as seriously, is it all Clinton’s fault?
It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of Social Security to call it a safety-net program. It’s meant to be a substantial portion of retirement income for most people, including the middle class.
Maybe today it’s the latter, but it was originally intended to be the former. The fact that it shifted from one to the other over the decades is a big part of the problem, because it created exactly the problem alluded to above: It became a disincentive to save or invest, because “I’ll always have Social Security.”
I still don’t understand why they don’t lift the cap on the amount of income taxed for SS and Medicare. Wouldn’t that pretty much fix the problem, like, forever?
Neatly removing the most equitable solution to the problem. If you had any support whatever for this, I’d think you had a point.
Having seen this administration at work for the last four years, we should all have a reasonanable idea as to what to expect.
In Foreign Policy, a “My way or the highway” attitude which will lead to more hatred of America and more Terrorism and more Wars. Whit out going out on a limb I expect at least one more war, two would not surprise me, it would be in keeping with Family tradition.
Fiscal policy, the last four years in spades.
Supreme Court, say Hello to chief Justice Scallia, say goodbye to Roe vs Wade and the fouth admendment. (it’ll be interesting to see what will happen once RoeVWade is overturned, will the Redstates accept that the Blue States keep Abortion legal or will they try to override state laws with a new Federal Ban on Abortion)
Environment, what’s a little mercury amonst friends?
Taxes, Time to make sure those lucky Duckies pay their fair share.
Education, who cares? create an appropriatly Orwellian sounding program and sell it to the rubes.
Tort Reform, lets make sure that GE can shaft whomever they damnb well please and never have to pay any consequenses.
Expect more Deindustrialization, more Union Busting, More Jails, More Crime and More Poverty. Fascism American Style!!!
You addressed this letter to all Republicans, but in context it seems like you mean “Republicans in Congress,” not “Republicans in state legislatures.”
Assuming that was your intent, Sebastian, can you tell me which clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution implies that Congress has the power to restrict abortions at all?
Or does “federalism” only apply to federal laws that conservatives don’t like?
The problem in SS is not the payments; it’s the collections. If you collected on those dollars above $85K (give or take a few hundred) that I make now, you wouldn’t begrudge me the money later, would you?
Hey, if you want to argue that abortion isn’t a federal question, I’m not going disagree. I’m all for letting it all get hashed out in the states. The only reason why the federal government might have to act at all is because your side nationalized the debate.
Any comment from those on the right about rumors Frist might revoke the 60-vote cloture rule?
Hey, if you want to argue that abortion isn’t a federal question, I’m not going disagree. I’m all for letting it all get hashed out in the states. The only reason why the federal government might have to act at all is because your side nationalized the debate.
Why shouldn’t the debate have been nationalized? After all, what you call “nationalizing the debate” is just claiming that a state law violates the Constitution. Is this now unreasonable?
I don’t get your “let the states decide” argument. If abortion is murder how can it be tolerated anywhere in the country? And if it is just a medical procedure, why should it be banned anywhere? So I suppose you think it’s somewhere in between. Does that mesh with your views on stem cell research?
“The only reason why the federal government might have to act at all is because your side nationalized the debate.”
Sebastian, whether an abortion law violates the federal constitution is a federal queston. The parameters of an abortion law which does NOT violate the federal constitution is a state question. That’s federalism for you!
“If abortion is murder how can it be tolerated anywhere in the country? And if it is just a medical procedure, why should it be banned anywhere?”
I think the point is that neither of those two are provable statements. It’s not a question of saying ‘well, we definitely think abortion is murder, but in Florida they can get away with murder if they like it’. It’s a question of saying ‘it’s up to Florida whether they think abortion is murder, and Oregon might differ’.
“So I suppose you think it’s somewhere in between. Does that mesh with your views on stem cell research?”
Yes, and they aren’t as closely related as you might think because there is no countervailing right of the mother’s body when you are talking about embryos for research or embryos to harvest for cures.
our side nationalized the debate? whaaaa?
Roe v. Wade was, for those who need reminding, a challenge to a STATE law based on the federal constitution.
Sebastian, who clearly knows better based on his earlier posts about the role of the judiciary, seems to be forgetting the difference between federal constitutional limits on STATE power (relatively narrow, based largely on the bill of rights and 14th amendment) and federal constitutional limits on federal power (significant, due to the structure of the constitution and renewed interest in the constitutional limits of the commerce clause).
So, for those who desire a most strict construction of the constitution, and Sebastian in particular, how can you possibly reconcile your “originalist” position on constitutional interpretation with your desire for a federal statutory prohibition on late-term abortion? Where in the Constitution does the power lie for a federal criminal law, especially of a matter — murder — so traditionally within the purview of STATE law?
hmmmm?
Francis
It’s a question of saying ‘it’s up to Florida whether they think abortion is murder, and Oregon might differ’.
But Bernard’s point is, I think, a valid one, and one which underlies much of the bitterness of the dispute: if one personally regards abortion as murder, it becomes very difficult to tolerate it anywhere; and, by a similar token, if one personally regards abortion as merely a medical procedure, it becomes very difficult to accept its banning anywhere. I don’t think there’s an analogous problem in any jurisprudence because the notion of “murder” is so viscerally abhorrent on such a wide scale that it allows a generalization that simply isn’t valid for other issues.
You are being intentionally dense on Social Security. Maybe you mean Medicare. But the regressive tax that working people pay to collectivize risk is paying for those expensive weapon systems you like. There is no Social Security problem. There is a Republican problem because you (personally and collectively – you need to start taking resposibility for your support of bad policy) increase spending while reducing the government’s ability to raise revenue. Then you want to get your greedy hands on SS by privitising it. This is attempted theft, Sebastion. You are abetting theft. And you can’t mitigate your personal responsiblity by pretending to act dumb about it.
And don’t make me laugh about wanting to simplify the tax system. Everybody knows that means flat tax. Are you so well off that this is going to help you personally? If so, then OK, I won’t try to dissuade you from your financial self-interest. Other than that, why would you want to eliminate the last bastian of progressive taxes? It’s bad economics, bad security and bad social justice. But it is a Republican talking point so I see why you bring it up.
Education – another opportunity for Republican theft. Let’s take funds available to public schools and give it to parents who don’t need the money to spend on schools that are owned by Republican donors. You guys got a real racket going.
Teacher’s unions won’t allow testing or any form of success measurement which migh also reveal teacher failure. Therefore I believe that Democrats could spend lots of money on the issue, but I do not believe that Democrats would be likely to improve education.
I’m all ears: how are things like this and this (registration required, but you can use bugmenot.com to bypass it) the fault of the unions again? Where, exactly, are the Democrats crossing the line on this one?