« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Bartlett to Conservatives – Support Tax Increases and Embrace the Welfare State

By: Brian Darling (Diary)  |  January 26th, 2009 at 10:57 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Democrat-Light has another cheerleader and his name is Bruce Bartlett.  Bartlett, former Reagan and Bush 41 Treasury official, writes in the Politico today in a piece titled “Conservatives Must to Adapt to the Welfare State” that:

If conservatives refuse to participate in the debate over how revenues will be raised, then liberals will do it on their own, which will likely give us much higher tax rates and a tax system that is more harmful to growth than necessary to fund the government. Instead of opposing any tax hike, I think it makes more sense for conservatives to figure out how best to raise the additional revenue that will be raised in any event. 

Bartlett is wrong.   Conservatives should not cut and run from the core principles of the conservatism that we need to keep taxes low and fight expansions of the welfare state.  Bartlett makes the classic argument that Republicans need give up principle to be in the room when deals are cut.

Conservatives are against raising taxes because high levels of taxation destroy economic growth.  Why would a conservative give up the moral high ground so that he can be at the table when a deal is cut?  If conservative members of Congress agree to the idea that the welfare state is merely run inefficiently and higher taxes will buy the love of the voters, conservatives might as well just give up right now and declare defeat.  Democrat-Light is not a winning strategy for Republicans as a whole, although it may allow a few selfish members to save their seats for a few years.  

As for Bartlett’s argument that conservatives should find ways to efficiently tax the American public at a higher rate and support the bloated welfare state, Dan Mitchell of the Cato Insitute responds:

Taking away goodies from people who want to feed at the public trough is never easy, but GOP successes in ’80 and ’94 – elections that led to meaningful constraint in domestic spending in subsequent years – show that the American people will respond favorably to a message of less government and more freedom. The Eisenhower and Nixon years, by contrast, demonstrated that “me-tooism” is a recipe for permanent minority party status.

Bartlett is urging conservatives to give up on core principles — an action that will lead to some fun receptions at the Obama White House in the short term, but liberal rule for a long period of time.  If conservatives don’t give the American people a choice on tax policy, who will?

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • applycs

    Just another ploy to get us to where Libs/Democrats want us.

    However, there is an underlying point. What to do with the segment of any society that truly will not work or apply themselves.

    This is where conservatives need to bring education and vocation to the forefront. To many generations old Democratic handouts and welfare.

    Nothing will be easy, but accepting a welfare state will cement in the long term decline of our society like it has in Europe.

  • TxCon

    what are the differences between the two parties? Based on who speaks for the GOP, I can’t see that there are any.

  • 1stRichard

    Getting back to conservative values, from the welfare state of Massachusetts

    The United States of America was founded on opportunity for all who come. This opportunity has been redefined for many yeas as the land of welfare. Some time ago another government published a list of cities with the best welfare, and they published how and where to apply for welfare. I worked in one those cities that was at the top of the list and saw first hand the results. This city was Holyoke Massachusetts. It was one of the first planned industrial cities in the world. It was built by those seeking opportunity and destroyed by those seeking welfare. Back in the 70s when I worked in the mills of Holyoke I could see children running up and down the fire escapes, from apartment to apartment, changing their clothing before they entered. Yes, the welfare officers were there counting children. In contrast I looked out at the contribution of work by immigrants seeking opportunity, canals made by hand and the wonderful architecture. It was their work that gave me the opportunity to work and give my contribution. But soon the business I was working for was overwhelmed by taxes, taxes to pay for more welfare, bigger government and it closed and then I had to move on to the next and the next job always working. Holyoke Massachusetts is now a city of rot, decay and crime, and fighting hard to stop this.

    Now don?t get this wrong, this is not about race or color it is about the lies and deception. To change the mess we are in we need to bring back the land of opportunity for all who come. We must not be seen as a land of socialist welfare and entitlement, free food, free healthcare, free housing and such. The United States of America has some of the highest tax rates in the world to pay for all this free stuff and it has stifled our free markets for too long. Yes, we need jobs but this is being stolen from us by socialist welfare, bailouts and big government. With this new government this will get much worse?

    The fight is on to stop this cycle of rot and decay, so how do we stop this? Socialist liberals that want to give away my hard earned work, to people that are given the false prophecy from socialist liberal?s interpretation American Dream is a free lunch. It is NOT!

  • rocketeer

    That, bit by bit, we would be able to turn the monster aside?

  • mikefisk

    …Bartlett is going down the “take the high road” approach… which I don’t think pays any real dividends here. If he were advocating at least trying to keep a solid fiscal footing, then maybe I could get on board with it. Just because the Democrats, who now have a crushing majority, don’t want to play ball doesn’t mean that you don’t have the right to gum up the works for a while and shine a light on their inanity (to say nothing of the paucity of arguments in their favor).

    As far as his policy prescriptions are going, it seems as though Bartlett is going from the (probably mistaken) view that we are in a liquidity trap… he’s approaching the situation as if pumping tons of liquidity into the markets will get that to clear. It won’t; we’ve tried. The demand for money simply isn’t there at the moment. If anything, fiscal response should be more focused on cushioning the blow on the way down rather than trying to push that Temple Of Doom-style boulder back up the hill.

  • http://esdk.org/ mcshalom

    You Bail Them Out, We Opt Out. We Want Some TARP

    Dear, I should say Expensive Chairman Ben S. Bernanke,

    All of Our Economic Problems Find They Root in the Existence of Credit.

    Out of the $5,000,000,000,000 bail out money for the banks, that is $1,000 for every inhabitant of this planet, what is it exactly that WE, The People, got?

    If my bank doesn’t pay back its credits, how come I still must pay mines?

    If my bank gets 0% Loans, how come I don’t?

    At the same time, everyday, some of us are losing our home or even our jobs.

    Credit discriminates against people of lower economic classes, as such it is unconstitutional, isn’t it? It is an supra national stealth weapon of class struggle.

    Credit is a predatory practice. When the predator finishes up the preys he starves to death. What did you expect?

    Where are you exactly in that food chain?

    Credit gets in the way of All the Principles of Equal Opportunity and Free Market.

    Credit is a Stealth Weapon of Mass Destruction.

    Credit is Mathematically Inept, Morally Unacceptable.

    You Bail Them Out, We Opt Out

    President Bush Proposed the TARP, Senator Obama Voted It.

    We Want Some TARP.

    Opting Out Is Both Free and Strictly Anonymous.

    My Solution: The Credit Free, Free Market Economy.

    Is Both Dynamic on the Short Run & Stable on the Long Run, The Only Available Short Run Solution.

    I Am, Hence, Leading The Exit Out of Credit:

    Let me Outline for You my Proposed Strategy:

    ? My Prescription to Preserve Our Belongings.

    ? Our Property Title: Our Free, Strictly Anonymous Right to Opt Out of Credit.

    ? Our Credit Free Money: The Dinar-Shekel AKA The DaSh, Symbol: - .

    ? Asset Transfer – Our Right Grant Operation – Our Wealth Multiplier – Our Liquidity TARP.

    ? A Specific Application of Employment, Interest and Money.
    [A Tract Intended For my Fellows Economists].

    If Risk Free Interest Rates Are at 0.00% Doesn’t That Mean That Credit is Worthless Already?

    Since credit based currencies are managed by setting short-term interest rates, on which you have lost all control, can we still say that are managing?

    We Need, Hence, Cancel All Interest Bearing Debt and Abolish Interest Bearing Credit.

    In This Age of Turbulence The People Wants an Exit Out of Credit: An Adventure in a New World Economic Order.

    The only other option would be to wait till most of the productive assets of the economy get physically destroyed either by war or by rust.

    It will be either awfully deadly or dramatically long.

    A price none of us can afford to pay.

    ?The current crisis can be overcome only by developing a sense of common purpose. The alternative to a new international order is chaos.?

    - Henry A. Kissinger

    What Else?

    Until We Succeed the Economy Will Necessarily Keep Sinking Into a Deeper and Deeper Depression

    You Bail Them Out, Let’s Opt Out!

    Check Out How Many of Us Are Already on Their Way to Opt Out of Credit.

    If You Don’t Opt Out Now, Then When Will You?

    Let me provide you with a link to my press release for my open letter to you:

    Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, Quantitative [Ooops! I Meant Credit] Easing Can’t Work!

    I am, Mr Chairman, Yours Sincerely [As if I really had the choice.],

    Shalom P. Hamou AKA ‘MC-Shalom’
    Chief Economist – Master Conductor
    1 7 7 6 – Annuit C?ptis
    Tel: +972 54 441-7640
    Fax: +972 3 741-0824
    http://edsk.org/

  • The_Gadfly

    I think it is a liquidity trap, but the problem is how we got into the liquidity trap and as a result, just how frickin’ big the liquidity trap is. Pushing Fannie and Freddie into making bad loans pushed the banks into making the same bad loans. Then all those bad loans got sliced, diced, and sausagized with the good loans. The result is that right now all the sausage is regarded as bad. So the amount the capital markets need to recapitalize isn’t 10% of the real estate market, it’s more like 50%. And when we do come out the other side, if the sausage maker hasn’t been disabled, we will quickly find ourselves in the same mess again.

    But this analysis still leads to the same conclusion: You can’t clear the liquidity trap by raising taxes and buying the bad loans. You have to rework the fundamental reasons the bad loans were made in the first place. That means serious banking reform, where people who are bad risks are given bad risk rates regardless of color, sex, national origin, etc.; reforming mark to market rules so that things like MBSs aren’t completely wiped off you balance sheet if some other bank/brokerage has a fire sale; and probably creating some level of legal claim that owners of MBSs have against the companies that sell them. Doing all of that might actually reduce the amount of bad sausage out there, and then maybe you can buy it all up and clear the liquidity trap. But not before. And after you’ve made those reforms, you just might find the market clears the trap all by its lonesome.

  • owise1

    …is what’s best for the Republican Party. Frankly, I’m fed up with Republicans behaving like politicians. If the Democrat stimulus package will be a disaster for the country – and it will be – then fight it tooth and toenail. Make it clear to both the Democrat Party and to the American people that this thing – for good or ill – is owned entirely by the Democrats. That alone will likely be enough to give a lot of Democrats pause and result in a more moderate bill. But do not, under any circumstances, compromise only to produce a deal that will destroy the country in four years instead of two, and that will have your fingerprints all over it.

    Trust the American people. Believe it or not, most of us are grown-ups and know that we can’t spend our way out of debt. We know it won’t work in our personal budgets, and it won’t work in the state or federal govt either. Observe the first rule of holes: when you’re in one, stop digging. This country is in a deep hole that has been brought on by profligate govt spending (both parties) and corruption and cronyism (largely Democrats). We will not get out of this hole by continuing to do the very same things that got us here… only on a larger scale. Deep down, the American people know that, although at the present time fear has temporarily clouded their perception of reality. In time, however, they will wake up and when they do, they will hunt down with dogs those elected officials who have sold them a pig in a poke.

    If the Republicans will take a stand on principle and oppose the Democrat package with every fiber of their being, what’s the worst that could happen? The Democrats have the power now to pass it over the objections of the Republicans. If they pass it against all Republican objections, and in two years the economy is roaring again, does anyone think that would make any material difference in the Republican Party election prospects? Of course not! The Democrats will take all the credit since they had the absolute power to pass it with or without Republican support. On the other hand, if the economy goes down in flames as a result of this package (as I fully expect it to do) then the Republicans will be in a position to remind the American people, “We stood on principle and told you what you knew in your hearts to be true. The Democrats got everything they wanted over our vociferous objections. This monkey is on their backs. Now do your duty and elect adults to get our financial house in order again.”

    Opposing the Democrat “stimulus” is a low risk, high reward strategy. If I could find a stock with this kind of profile, I’d buy it in a heartbeat.

  • johnt

    is conceded is never enough, nor is it close.
    It took me until 1993 to realize that there are no boundaries to the liberal program, to the liberal appetite. They, I realized, want it all, as in everything. Don’t resist and you may, could, wind up a beggar being steamrolled by the machine falsely named hope, the latest incarnation of an ugly lie decades old.
    If Bartlett wants somebody to stomp on him and humiliate him I will offer my services on the condition that he leaves us alone and seeks some other method of self abnegation than the fedralguvmint.

  • JustLeaveMeAlone

    Enable, assimilate, and capitulate all you want. Change your middle name to Hussein. Pretend you are a Vichy Frenchman and the libs are the Germans.

    But don’t ask me to join you. I’ll die fighting in the Resistance first.

    Oh, and when the pendulum swings back my way, I hope you made yourself a whole passel of nice friends across the aisle, because there won’t be any over here.

    Buh-bye, now.

  • Hoover

    be “conservatives must adapt to being in the minority permanently”

    If you govern as a liberal, and give the voters the choice between the real liberal or a closet liberal the party will never be back in the majority.

    When in power from ’00 to ’06 they spent like drunken sailors, that lost them the majority along with the corruption.

    Look at the repub’s that lost in ’06 and ’08, many were rino or “moderates”. Lincoln chafee was a good embracer of the liberal agenda and even he lost. Think it will play in conservative states?

  • Hoover

    They don’t want republican’s to be part of it for some benevolent reason, they just want cover. If its a disaster and it will be one as currently talked about and it gets 30% of the republican to vote for it, the media will call it a bipartisan bill and hammer the repub’s.

    Vote no and start attracting voters again.

  • DerKrieger

    …would grow some spines, show some resistance, and just stand up and fight against the growth of government rather than squabbling to limit the size of the growth than losers like Bartlett might find their own spines stiffened.
    I don’t understand so-called Conservatives who don’t engage the Liberal enemy in a fight to the figurative death.
    I really think we need to strengthen our base at the state level and then tell the Fed to go to Hell using the 10th Amendment to protect us from the Liberal behemoth the Fed has become. Oklahoma is doing it.
    http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/07/16/oklahoma_rebellion