Maya MacGuineas is a fine lady who shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near Washington.

And these are all fair ideas, even if not as bold as many would expect. The higher education funding reform, in particular, is very interesting.

The tax reform is more difficult, given the prevalence of many different rules and all that could be construed as loopholes, especially in the corporate code, and how this would interact with the taxation of pass-through businesses, which have a higher individual tax rate now, and would probably continue to have, to compensate for their owners not paying capital gains tax. We could always add a few of the Democrats’ favorite tax avoidance strawmans, like the treatment of some income as capital gains and the silly little scapegoated deduction for moving operations overseas.

The tax code already favors many married couples and families, including those with one stay-home spouse, with the joint filing status, and expanding like the Child Tax Credit or personal exemptions may limit the scope for tax rate reductions, which provide the greatest bang for the buck.

And I’m not sure an anti-Washington, outsider image should be prioritized over a pro-people, pro-opportunity, pro-freedom tone. For people, for a change, like Bill Clinton used to run on, a positive message rather than a reactionary, negative, angry one. It’s after all not no government that we want, but small, limited, and responsible government that works for ordinary people, promotes equal opportunity, and respects freedom. Not necessarily the party of “outsiders”, as much as the party of fair treatment wherever you belong, even though especially so for the little guy. Not sure I’d used “anti-anything” or “populist” to describe it, though, that’s for sure, since that reminds me more of radicals like William J. Bryan. Although probably popular, and definitely reformist.

And, definitely, our Governors have some very good contributions to make from outside the Beltway, although that doesn’t mean Washington Republicans should all just be chucked and dissed.

By the way, Erick, you’re sounding a little like W. Just a little. And I think he does have something to teach us when it comes to our message, focusing relentlessly on the lives of everyday folk, creating a contrast with many in D.C. at that time, without being nasty about it.

But you still haven’t said anything about youths, women and minorities.

And I disagree with you, again, on this specific vote, and its use as a litmus test, because I don’t believe that we should trade keeping tax rates as low as possible for changing the subject with even larger tax hikes on more people and with not much more in spending restraint, and I think, in any case, that, to quote you, we shouldn’t “pretend that we can’t disagree”, which should apply to low-tax Republicans in Washington too. But, of course, you can’t have it both ways either by berating Republicans for raising taxes when you wanted them to raise it even more. You can berate them for raising taxes, or you can berate them for not allowing the subject to be changed by not raising taxes enough, but you can’t attack them for both.

Something that I’d really like to see the Republican party promote is market competition. They always say that they’re for free markets, but free markets mean nothing when customers don’t have a choice. In order to have real competition (and thus, innovation) in a market, there must be 3 or more viable competitors. In many areas, we don’t have that. Cable TV companies are one example. All they have is token competition from phone companies for internet access and Dish/DirectTV for TV coverage. They can charge customers out the wazoo for tons of TV channels that nobody cares about and offer the barest of customer support, yet what alternatives do the customers have?

Um, that’s hardly Washington’s place to interfere in except by removing red tape that hinders fresh competition?

Two things –
1. Not everything from the 20th Century should be discarded. Your essay could be summed up nicely in my favorite 60s slogan “Power to the People!” I liked it then and I like it now.
2. The problem with tuition is the same as the problem with health care — someone else is (or seems to be) paying the bill so there is no incentive to shop for the best deal or economize.Tuition inflation has risen at double the rate of health care over the years because of this. The answer is not (is never) price controls.

Obama’s greatest legacy for Democrats may be perfecting the further entrenchment of the entitlement class. With more and more ‘takers’ who are perfectly happy to vote for penalizing the ‘givers’ in every election, we are guaranteed to be in trouble for 2014 and 2016. It doesn’t seem that the Democrats can go wrong by counting on voters to be ignorant of economic facts.

The GOP has merrily played along with many aspects of this, causing us to be painted into a corner:
- You want tax cuts? Okay, let’s have a payroll tax ‘holiday’? It puts money in people’s pockets now, but it doesn’t reduce the future spending it’s supposed to cover. In fact it increases future spending because it means more borrowing via that ‘Bank of China credit card’ to replace what we took out of the ‘lockbox’.
- You want even more tax cuts? Let’s increase EITC and various other tax credits so that low income and no income people can get welfare in the form of tax refunds greater than the taxes they paid (if any). This adds to the entitlement kitty without it coming from an entitlement ‘bucket’, but it becomes just as entrenched.

We are on the way to becoming another California if not another Greece, and I’m having a harder time than ever seeing how we break out of this. As long as we have a majority of voters who feel they can vote themselves unlimited amounts of ‘free’ money, we are hosed.

Two things I would like to add.

Build a network of local activists advancing these principles, and privately funded NGOs to implement them. This effort needs to be part of a national network of NGO’s that embrace family and free market principles. Recognize that the services the NGO’s provide in the big blue cites and blue states is not the same as in Red States, but we have the same Ultimate goal. Liberty.

Second, embrace Federalism. We can all have common national interests, a common belief that local solutions are best, without having to agree on what the solutions look like, what they do, or how they are implemented, as long as we agree they are not driven, dictated, managed or funded by Washington.

We do need to establish a new identity. I’m just no longer certain it can be done within the GOP.

One of the first things on the agenda is to convince people, like myself, that the Republican party hasn’t thrown in the towel and given up to Obama and his lackeys. It looks like they have and done so by throwing conservatives under the bus. Even Paul Ryan decided that he wanted to scuttle his 2016 ambitions in exchange for that cocktail party pat on the head.

The big winner in this is Obama. He has accomplished his fiscal cliff mission of splitting the Republican party by getting about half of them in the House and all but a handful in the Senate to vote for a tax increase.

One thing we can be sure about- if we had gone over the cliff, with all the tax hikes kicking in, yes, more people would have paid more taxes, feeling the burden of government. On the other hand, the economy would also have turned sour, more people would have lost their jobs, more people would have become dependent on government, and that means an even bigger entitlement class that will ultimately feel very little of the increased taxes and very much of the increased largesse promised by the Democrats.

It was not a benefit to the public on principle, but it definitely was far preferable to the alternative in reality. Mostly because boldness doesn’t mean giving the Democrats even more tax hikes than they asked for, with no a dime more in spending cuts, and thus destroying the economy to expand the entitlement class.

And, for heavens’ sake, Rubio can’t be the default national leader because everyone knows he’s just a voter, who checks all the right boxes but has never actually led on the issues that matter, in contrast to Ryan with at least his “go slow” approach, or even better, Tom Coburn with his $9 trillion in cuts. Many people like those two have done a lot better than Rubio’s “no approach”.

Social Conservatism, standing up for enduring, transcendental values, has nothing to do with theocracy and everything to do with society. We stand for life because it is a fundamental right, and securing human dignity and rights is definitely a core responsibility of civil society and governments.

As much as I admire and respect Erick , in a very few lines you show a side he didn’t seem to address and are to be congratulated.
Sen. Tom Coburn has repeatedly illustrated that there is Massive Waste and Duplication that should be worked on [...and I do not mean paper shuffling and much 'Harumphing'] that can be addressed, in this session of Congress.
Could not agree more that single parent families need similar help, especially when the parent is Working and paying ‘real’ taxes, just as Two-Parent families do.
Not all 1-Parent families are there by choice [See : Divorce, Death in Family, and so on] and if initiative is demonstrated by any kind of earnings statement, then Erick’s idea needs adding-on and some mods.
Here’s to you, Lisa…….Hoo-Rahhh!!

There are three things that I believe need immediate reform:

1) Political contribution limits

2) Term limits (and a reduction in Senate terms from 6 years)

3) Senators, Representatives and their staffs being paid by the US Treasury – their compensation should come from the state and/or districts they allegedly represent

The time is now for House Republicans to put all this behind them and put forward a serious budget alternative, built on the basic foundations of the Ryan budget, but also incorporating many bolder reforms to achieve balance before the end of the decade. If they do so, and so reaffirm their commitment to fiscal responsibility and economic growth, and actually stick by that, they’ll be a lot more popular. Ryan himself would surely know what I mean. Rightly or wrongly, people are angry now, and no amount of spin or reasoning will change that.

Well, I was assuming Erick’s ideal scenario in which tax rates would be cut back again and the thresholds in this latest bill you mention wouldn’t apply. So calm down.

It’s definitely an advantage for those earning below that amount though, but never mind, they’re two people with one income after all, so they naturally get an advantage, and deservedly so. Assuming a return to pre-yesterday policies, and then further rate cuts and tax reforms, then the advantage would exist with the old double thresholds, which is what I was referring to.

Of course, if we do adopt pro-marriage policies, it’d be easier to do that through credits than thresholds or deductions.

Political contributions are already limited. We could, of course, pursue greater disclosure, but it’ll be difficult.

Term limits need an amendment, no?

It’s ridiculous to ask state and local people to pay for federal offices when they already pay federal taxes.

I don’t think that Conservatives can succeed by uniting with these principles or any others under the GOP brand. The Republican Party is sullied beyond redemption as they refuse to purge themselves of the progressive and big government minded individuals. Your stated objectives make absolute sense,and it truly begins with standing up for the basics of Conservatism and those things that have always made America great, but we are so ham strung by the MSM that delivery of the message is quite challenging. To prevail, there must be a sea change in the social and cultural thinking and behavior and Conservatives have ceded that to the left. I don’t have much hope for America at this point and the idea of succession is starting to look better all the time.

Well, I wrote it as a response to a hypothetical as I interpreted it, and it appears I interpreted the specific comment wrongly, so I beg your pardon. The thing is, when he mentions ‘deductions’, he does seem to be advocating adding on to “Married Filing Jointly” status, which does complicate things compared to just restoring the previous thresholds. But, I’m sorry to you both then.

Erick,
Lets run with this new agenda. It will be shot down within 48 hours by Stephanoupolos, Lauer, Willams, Sawyer, and Rose.
Our taxpayer dollars will be spent shooting it down on PBS and NPR. AP, Yahoo, and NYT will se to it that the second and third tier newspapers pick up the agenda as bad for them and puppies.
Speaking of puppies, I heard an XM dee jay STILL talking about Romney and the dog-on-roof story just before Christmas.
ABC, NBC, and CBS have O&O’s — Owned and Operated stations in dozens of markets. Plus local affiliates pick up the national news. If you calculate these numbers it is nearly 100 million watching local/national news labeling Conservatsm as evil rich dudes ( Larry Page, Sergey Brin, George Clooney, Warren Bufffet—- this list is too long—are exempt). while Leftism is the answer. The media has taken their agenda so far left, even the middle is now rabid right wing!
We first need to cut some arms off of this Octopus that trickles down to John and Jane McMuffin— now called low info voter— who hear about Seamus the dog and never anything else because of the massive tentacles of control the media has.
Breitbart?
Newsbusters?
Ha!
Media Mash on Hannity worked so well for 2012 didn’t it? Your guest in 2009 at RS Gathering estimated $3 Bilion in free PR for Obama in 2008. In 2012 media bias swung 15-18% in Dems favor. John Ziegler, remember him?
Benghazi/9/11, 32 embassies burning—- a couple days later each and every newscast led off with Romneys 47% comment and two networks didn’t bother to mention Benghazi at all that night.
It was bash Romney for a week and bury Benghazi.
Without a Crisis Management team of hundreds if not thousands of Sununu spokespeople fighting back Gingrich-style, we are doomed.
A new agenda?
Already DOA. The media will see to it.

Maybe Rubio projects “presence”, whatever that is, but one thing we can be sure about is that Coburn and Ryan have accomplished more than the Junior Senator from Florida probably ever will, and that they haven’t accomplished much ought not count against their common-sense real, courageous and substantive leadership, but against the whole of Washington’s honesty, sincerity, and listening abilities. The difference between Rubio and Ryan, basically, is that the former “projects” presence, while the latter isn’t interested in “projecting” anything and actually wants to deal with the issues, in a way that many will disagree with on both sides, but which most should respect anyway. I don’t think Paul Ryan is a RINO or a dog for the leadership, but I don’t think he’s one of the staunch Conservatives either. We might consider that the Congressman from Wisconsin does whatever he does to, you know, actually move towards the goal of common-sense Conservative principles, of growth and responsibility, instead of just checking off boxes on a list blindly? We wouldn’t have been in this situation at all if the Senate GOP hadn’t passed this awful deal, or if some members hadn’t blocked the inclusion of spending cuts, because they are so pure. But those two things happened, and we cannot let our principles get in the way of our priorities, which, once those things had happened, became to keep tax rates as low as possible. Or do the Rubio-ites think that our priority should have been to raise taxes on as many people as possible, to wreck the economy and get more people on the government tit? There was a principled argument against that bill, though, and Rubio was in no position to try making it, having done nothing to lead and everything to grandstand.

I’m not in any Social Conservative network, just happen to think that we/they have a point.

I am a party-left me Democrat, voting for Republicans with a held nose for 40 years now. No Longer, if this that you propose as an Agenda should be taken up by the party of my Father, the party of Peace, the party of Freedom.
My Mother and my Father both went under fire for our country in the last great war. I did not have opportunity to do the same, which I regret.
I would never have become a Democrat ever, but for the disputes of the era of reasonably full Black emancipation, now rather long past.
Nowadays I fear the idea that possible majorities can and ought to seek to impose their views on everyone. Education, health care, division of responsibilities in marriage – the folks in power do not seem to favor anyone else having any choices at all, and seem to seek to spread that evil attitude to all matters, from the environment through business to what words people may use in conversation.
I am hoping that a newer generation may reverse these trends. Perhaps a newly rededicated Republican Party will lead the way.

Have fun arguing what normal means with someone else. I tired of that years ago.
Try this one on for size and I’ll let it go at that:
Does “acceptable” equate to “normal”?

I don’t think so.

Of course, “normal” could mean “common” if that’s what you actually meant, in which case I apologize, but I didn’t believe that it “serves to establish a standard”, especially in the context of needs and history.

Family? A biologic classification between “order” and “genus”. That, I agree with.
I’ll stop there to preserve my serenity.

Have a nice . . . whatever.
That is as sincere as a bellhop at a Niagara Falls Hotel ; )

Any purge needs to begin at the primary level. Unless we challenge and defeat the insiders in ever greater numbers, we’ll continue to remain irrelevant.

this is a great post, Erick. Lots of good ideas to think about.

What do you think about a VAT tax as a way to lower income taxes across the board? I found this piece on it which calls it “the ideal conservative tax”

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/04/value-added-tax-opinions-columnists-bartlett.html

(plus, it’s in Forbes, so that counts for something )

From what I’ve read, spending increased while he was governor because the economy was strong and attracting people from other states who moved to Utah for jobs. So, increased spending on schools and roads was needed. His state was still ranked best managed during Huntsman’s tenure. And Huntsman was opposed to the bank bailout, etc. No one is perfect, but I think his record compares very favorably against those of congressional Republicans, Paul Ryan and other conservatives included, who voted huge spending increases for the prescription drug legislation, two wars, etc.
Huntsman said his tax reform proposal (to reduce rates and broaden the base by eliminating all deductions) would be his position going in to negotiations. Naturally, a compromise would have to be reached with those on the other side. He got a flat tax done in Utah that eliminated some, but not all, deductions. because he didn’t get — and no one gets — everything he/they want. The point is, you have to start from a principled position and then negotiate in order to achieve some of what you want. He did that and it’s something the Congressional GOP needs to do better.
In any event, on all of the issues that Erick identifies in the article, Jon Huntsman has already led. Erick mentions the names of some politicians who are identified with one or two of the issues. Huntsman isn’t mentioned in the article but he has already spoken to all of these issues and charted a path forward for the GOP. Whether it’s opposing crony capitalism, breaking up the big banks, instituting term limits, or advocating school choice and tax reform, conservatives would do well to look to Jon Huntsman’s policy proposals, which didn’t get enough attention in the 2012 primary campaign. It’s time to dust them off and look at them anew.

My agenda is the Constitution.. This, coupled with Reagan’s words about government being the problem, summarize the only useful sort of Conservatism for me.

But this approach will never be championed in DC.. Because there’s no money in the Constitution. It helps keep main street free, but it can’t cut you a TARP check and it can’t subsidize your milk.

Establishment Republicans pay it lip service, but they’re terrified of it.. It’s a paper manacle on the Federal government.. and they know that. So do the people who donate to them.

This is sad, because it’s the perfect agenda.. The simple wording of the Constitution would solve many of the problems we face.. I don’t think it could even pass the Republican House today.. (Let alone the Senate or the President’s desk.)

No, I didn’t “attack” Ryan or anyone. I just responded to your post about spending. Your last paragraph contradicts your first. Yes, there were reasons for going to war, but that’s a different issue than the funding of the wars.

I like Paul Ryan and agree with him on a lot of issues. But his voting record on spending can be criticized just as many other conservatives’ spending records can be. George W. Bush (whom I voted for twice) and Congressional Republicans didn’t show a lot of fiscal restraint when it came to funding 2 wars and Medicare expansion.

One of the things I like about Ryan is his willingness to put forward a serious proposal to tackle entitlement spending. Ryan won’t get everything he proposed, but he gave us a good starting point. And I’d note that Gov. Huntsman was the only candidate who supported the Ryan plan early and strongly in the 2012 primaries.

Excellent post Erick! Some additional thoughts:

Totally agree with you on reforming (or simply abolish?) many of the federal regulations on the books. Both of our small businesses deal with the receiving end of regulations from EPA, FEMA, ADA, Patriot Act, ObamaCare and several others – they cost us, and they cost our clients. While some regulation is necessary, I think our Congressmen have no idea how one seemingly “fair” law that they pass can (1) generate reams and reams of so-called “policies” from a federal agency which, in turn, generates huge amounts of federal spending to enact and enforce and (2) have unintended consequences that those elected officials never, ever hear about. We must remember that these federal agencies are in the business to stay in business and keep their jobs. Anything they can do to create more work for themselves guarantees their perpetual employment. Think any government agency/employee has any incentive to become more efficient? No way. The only way to change a “bad policy” issued by a government agency is for Congress to pass another law to restrict the authority to implement, and/or further define, the original law. They do NOT have the time to do that with millions of these regulations already on the books.

While I strongly support conservative issues like pro-life, Biblical definition of marriage, etc, I think throwing controversial social issues back to the states, at least for now, would help us get down the road on the massive economic problems we face. As long as Republicans continue to be demonized by liberals (and the media) on social issues, the economic messages are never heard. Conservatives are having a hard time with young and single voters because of this “messaging blackout”. And those demographics are increasing – check this excellent article by Gary D. Halbert , “US Birthrate Hits New Low – A Nation of Singles”, http://forecastsandtrends.com/article.php/828/. The statistics he outlines really surprised me. Republicans need to pay attention. Reforms to the tax code, Social Security and many other programs will need to address these changing demographics or we are doomed. Concentrating on social issues will further alienate these voters and, as a result, we lose the opportunity to educate them with Constitutionally-sound, conservative economic principles that they are NOT getting in the liberally-slanted public education system.

Agree with gwalt upthread 100% – we must deal with the liberal media problem – and soon. I don’t know what the answer is, but we cannot ignore the problem – it’s getting worse, not better. Maybe Jim DeMint and the Heritage Foundation should get a task force working on a viable solution as number one priority?

I disagree with you on the payroll tax issue – we should have never messed with this. The “payroll tax” is made up of two parts – deductions which are contributions to social security and medicare, both of which the employer also matches. (In the case of self-employed individuals, they pay the individual portion PLUS an additional, slightly smaller, percentage since there is no “employer”.) These are contributions (albeit, mandatory) to federal “insurance” systems for retirement and old-age healthcare. Most people assume they will someday benefit from their “investment” in this insurance. You may disagree with these programs in general, how they are set up, how they are regulated or how the benefits are distributed but, right now, they are law and there are millions of people receiving benefits that cannot just be cut-off. “Reducing the payroll tax” just makes these programs run at a higher deficit than they already are. This is NOT the place to “cut taxes” – at least not until these programs are reformed (which is most definitely needed). The place to cut taxes is at the income tax level. Reduce rates and reform deductions that unfairly benefit or distort certain groups or behavior. Don’t screw with contributions to a system that should be (and could be, with proper reforms) self-supporting by making it one more entitlement that the rest of the tax system has to support.

This article gives me a glimmer of hope for the future – more than I have seen in a long time. My husband is convinced that this country has to completely hit bottom in order to recover because we have too many low-information voters that continue to vote for policies that allow them to take from the system while continually reducing the number that are contributing to it. I sincerely hope, for my children’s sake, that Republicans can make a comeback. Best comment today (thanks, commonsenseobserver!!): “It’s after all, not “no government” that we want, but small, limited, and responsible government that works for ordinary people, promotes equal opportunity, and respects freedom.” I have become an ardent supporter of the Mitch Daniels “Yellow Pages test – if something is in the Yellow Pages, then government shouldn’t be doing it.” Think about it. It might work.

this is fine except for the well-meaning but potentially de-focusing addition of “family”, which I’m all for, but it’s going to be seen as a bow to the Santorum types and de-focuses our limited government message right now. Plus it provides a keyword for the lefties to claim we’re all about social issues, etc. We need to do one thing really well and that one thing is standing for limited government, period. Lower taxes, lower spending, lower regulation.

BTW – lost in all this is the idea of national security, which the D’s are shrieking for joy they are able to whack. This is traditionally our area of strength and if we can find a way to continue to own this without breaking the bank, we can win.

Erick Erickson lives in Georgia.

Thanks, CSO & avgjo,
Yes, I do have libertarian strain, but not tending to licentiousness as I would see it.
The litmus test approach is precisely what I’m concerned about and calling “theocracy”, because that is what the single women who are fiscally conservative repeatedly told me as to why they granted Obama their vote. They believed his economic lies, blamed the GOP for the problems because they refused to compromise, and saw the GOP as anti-woman. I’m not saying it is true, but only that it is the perception!
I agree that Rubio doesn’t have much of a resume, but it is far stronger than Obama’s before his coronation. And Rubio speaks the conservative message in a way that is perceived as non-threatening.
On the fiscal cliff, I’ve long said that the GOP should have negotiated the best possible deal, then voted “present” allowing Democrat votes alone to pass it. And thereby allowing the Dems to own the result. By making it a bipartisan program, we own it as much as Reid & Obama. BAD MOVE!!!
I see us in a Greater Depression that began at the end of 2008, and persists, and will gradually worsen. I don’t think we’re near the bottom yet, and much destruction is yet to come from the Bernanke false Keynesian program of Dollar value destruction. That is precisely what the Dems want, to cement the entitlement nanny state, so anything the GOP does in participation just allows them to be blamed by the media.

… they manage to offend everyone in the country because it has become The Thing for everyone in the country to be offended, for every statement to be offensive to someone, and any statement an offendable one.

adair,
well said. I think you got the larger sense of my point. “freemkts” must think I’m running for something rather than putting out a discussion item. Thx.

Go vote third party instead of putting in the effort to change the party numnuts and let us know how that works out. Ton of third parties already out there, many have been around for quite some time, and none have a bit of say in how things are done and none have any power to change a thing.

Get back with us on how things work out.

Time for Erickson to begin promoting such things like the Stein Plan for Pro-Family Tax Reform. Do it nao!

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/taxes-and-the-family