The left doesn't appreciate Bush
Goldberg:
This is why hating Bush because you're a liberal is so stupid. He's on your side on the most important issue of all - expanding government power. Increase government power and you've created the mechanism by which you can implement all your leftist dreams. All that remains is to win elections so that you can steer the ship where you want (an impossibly difficult task for some Dems, I know, but you get the point). Bush and the Republicans of the last few years have done the dirty work.
Update: Cone links to Frum writing on the same topic:
As for the idea of paying for what's coming with a VAT, it doesn't matter. It's going to be impossible to pay for what we've committed to. Any tax program sufficient to cover Social Security and Medicare, in their present forms, will be crushing and will halt growth. End of story. There's no clever way out of this mess.
Bush is certainly to the right of Nixon on many issues. But at the philosophical level, he shares the Nixonians' supreme confidence in the power of the state. Bush rejects limited government and many of the philosophical assumptions that underlie that position. He favors instead strong government. He believes, as he said in 2003, that when "somebody hurts, government has got to move." His compassionate conservatism shares with Nixon's moderate Republicanism a core faith that not only can the government love you, but it should spend money to prove its love. Beyond that, there seems to be no core set of principles that define Bush's approach, and therefore, much like Nixon, no clearly communicable message that explains why he does things other than political calculation and expediency.
This is why hating Bush because you're a liberal is so stupid. He's on your side on the most important issue of all - expanding government power. Increase government power and you've created the mechanism by which you can implement all your leftist dreams. All that remains is to win elections so that you can steer the ship where you want (an impossibly difficult task for some Dems, I know, but you get the point). Bush and the Republicans of the last few years have done the dirty work.
Update: Cone links to Frum writing on the same topic:
The state is growing again—and it is preprogrammed to carry on growing. Health spending will rise, pension spending will rise, and taxes will rise.
Now I still continue to hope that the Republican party will lean against these trends. But there’s a big difference between being the party of less government and a party of small government. It’s one thing to try to slow down opponents as they try to enact their vision of society into law. It’s a very different thing to have a vision of one’s own.
As for the idea of paying for what's coming with a VAT, it doesn't matter. It's going to be impossible to pay for what we've committed to. Any tax program sufficient to cover Social Security and Medicare, in their present forms, will be crushing and will halt growth. End of story. There's no clever way out of this mess.
Posted by David on
May 3, 2006
Gee David, do you really think "exanding government power," is what makes a liberal? That sounds more like a Rush stereotype than a thoughtful understanding.
Ask a liberal what they want of government and among the top answers, I'm sure, will be limited government interferance with private, personal and family matters. Beyond that, you'd probably hear things that generally fall into the category of a government on the side of the individual instead of aligned with corporate interests. None of those suggest a desire for expanded government power, in fact, most argue against it. (Single-payer health care an exception.)
If my "liberal" motivations were the expansion of governent powers, Bush would be my hero. He's not and very much because of his successful efforts to expand governmental powers.
When I use 'the left' or 'liberal' as a pejorative, I'm talking mainly about those folks who want to expand government programs in an effort to seize power themselves while cloaked in the guise of helping individuals. You help individuals by creating a level playing field under the law, thus incentivizing them to use their creative talents and take risks. You don't help individuals (or society) by making folks more and more dependent on government. The only people this helps in the end are bureaucrats and their masters.
And is healthcare paid for by government the only example you can think of of liberals wanting expanded government power? Welfare, minimum wage, social security, prescription drugs, the public education monopoly, protectionism, diminished private property rights, higher taxes and on and on.
Now, to be fair, plenty of Republicans have supported these types of plans and programs and they even created a new descriptor for it - 'compassionate conservatism.' That's why I call them on it so often. They're more loathsome even than present-day liberals because they attempt to confuse the issue and have it both ways - spend and expand the reach of government while being seen by their base as fiscally responsible and for limited government.
I don't know, David, I think you're resorting to some old stereotypes again. Who is calling for expanding welfare? It shrunk under Clinton and many "liberals" were fine with that. Minimum wage? It already exists. To increase it is not an expansion of government. Public education monopoly? Huh? Where's the liberal call for expanded government powers in education? The latest reach (no child left behind) was Bush's doing. Protectionism? What? Where? Diminished private property rights? Again, show me that that is a uniquely or even predominately "liberal" cause. Higher taxes? That's too broad to have any usefull meaning and cannot be discussed without tying it to the larger fiscal picture. Higher taxes sounds condemnable, put it in the context of reducing the federal debt burden on our children and it doesn't sound so odious.
Overall though, the point you make is one with which I agree, that the lables conservative and liberal have little value beyond pushing buttons. Conservatives and liberals are not vile people nor do they exist as some monolithic thing and "liberals this" and "conservatives that" have as their starting place alienation.
Sure minimum wage already exists, but when the government forces businesses to spend in a certain way, it's an exercise and expansion of power. Same thing with taxes. Raising taxes now, to pay for prior government spending, in order to ease the burden on the children, is not noble. It was a deceitful transaction to begin with because the folks in charge knew the bill would come due sooner or later and the future us would have no choice but to foot the bill. Everytime the government spends, especially when they borrow to spend, they consolidate and expand their power.
Regarding the public education monopoly, where's the allowance for the expansion of charter schools or teacher accountability like with merit or subject based pay. The union is protecting their turf there. They don't have to expand power. They've got it all. They're in protection mode.
Let me bash conservatives for a minute here to be fair. You wrote earlier of liberals being for individuals over corporations. I like corporations. Corporations do wonderful things. However, they play games too and attempt to use the government and sometimes they abuse their customers and others, especially companies that have a monopoly. I am completely against corporate welfare. But, I don't think coporations should be taxed. It becomes a cost that they pass on, or that they get a break on from Congress and thus are able to compete unfairly. Government ought to regulate business as little as possible and ought to not pass laws that give one business an advantage. They also ought to ensure competition by preventing monopolies. The best thing for individuals is healthy and vigorous competition.
Really, the term has come to define individuals who do not support the agenda of the Bush administration or the religious right. Our actual political beliefs are a lot more nuanced and diverse, and a lot more traditionally conservative or libertarian, than our 1960's ancestors.
From whom? Does any of the legislation under consideration propose expansion of welfare for illegal immigrants? I'm pretty sure not, but I'm open to being corrected. And where are these other calls to expand welfare. I'm unfamiliar with them as well.
We've been through the spending versus taxes issue before. When Clinton left office, there was a budget surplus. Bush's tax cuts and war spending have sent us way into the red. Now we must deal with reality, David. Here is where we are. You argue the theoretical about how we shouldn't have spent so much in the first place, but we did. Policies that you supported are responsible. Now what? Are you going to stubbornly argue the hypotheticals and be responsible for putting the cost of bad policies on your children or do we deal with reality and start paying what we owe?
I agree with you an what you wrote about public education.
"But, I don't think coporations should be taxed."
Again, we must get real. Unless you want to talk about a value added tax, increasing the capital gains tax or national sales tax, what you are left with is shifting more of the tax burden onto earned income. Not very worker friendly.
Breaking up monopolies is not limited government, although I agree that is sometimes appropriate. I also mostly agree with you about government not favoring one business over another (incentives -- ugh!), but to foster innovation that has a wide-reaching common benefit, such as in developing alternative energy sources, those are times when I think the government may have a role.
Keep it up David and you'll be single-handidly responsible for Bush becoming known as a liberal.
Here's a call for expanded benefits for illegals.
As for taxes on corporations, you pay the taxes there already. Taxes on corporations are a cost that they pass on to their customers. Getting rid of taxes on corporations, makes business more competitive and reduces the gamesmanship of tax benefits for corporations politicians like. Face it, people are the only ones who pay taxes. The question is how best to take from them. I'm willing to try a sales tax. It's better than taxing income and far better than penalizing capital movement through dividend and capital gains taxes.
Regarding incentives. If the government wants to invest in alternative energy or whatever, let them write a check to whoever instead of monkeying with the tax system. Writing a check is far more transparent and will presumably be reviewed every year.
And back to the budget surplus. What killed the surplus was increased spending. I did not support increased spending. I did support the war, but the cost there wasn't supposed to be what it is. Oil revenue was supposed to take care of most of the cost. That we're spending so much now is a problem. However, the real problem is the looming social security and Medicare payments that no one wants to do anything about.
But lets turn to the supposed golden boys, industry. There we find that virtually no American business leader has had enough of the American spirit to invest enough to raise the level of productivity to the point that the minimum wage has no impact.
Liberals would prefer to solve poverty (and eliminate the minimum wage) by the creation of jobs that were productive enough to pay enough.
sounds like your faith in America is rather weak.
I'd like to raise a word of caution here, America is not as rich as is commonly thought. To remain the dominant superpower demands continuous expediture on everthing. Given the threat of China we have no time and no money to waste. The country that will win will have the cleanest environment, free university education to all qualified, the complete absence of cronyism and corruption, a public that votes in all elections, companies that are the most productive the world, the lowest taxes, the most transparent government, and 2 years of public service in either the army or the police, with no exceptions.
America no longer has the money or, it seems, the will to fight for the future.
Ann Rynd has a lot to answer for.
"It is the purpose of capitalism to earn as great a return as possible for the longest time possible."
any argument with the last 5 words?
Sure, David. Of course. But only when we patronize those corporations. As one who advocates allowing people to control more of their money, shouldn't income taxes be the last resort. Abolish the corporate tax and you effectivelt assure that people will be keeping less of the money they earn. It comes down to where you prefer the tax burden, on the earnings side or on the consumption side?
The precedent for activist government, transforming the U.S. from a limited republic into a nationalist democracy, was set under Franklin Roosevelt, at his behest. He knew full well that the Constitution and civil liberties would be shredded in the process, but like most of his generation was intoxicated by "progressive" ideas that ultimately human nature itself could be transformed through government social engineering.
Bush is simply the latest in a long line of politicians since Roosevelt who have not thought too deeply, if at all, about the consequences of FDR's coup d'etat, and who see the presence size and scope of government at all levels as simply part of the landscape.
Likely, some catastrophic event or event-series will be needed before there is any dramatic change. We baby boomers collecting Social Security and Medicare, given our numbers, may well be that event in the minds of the hitherto politically apostate young.
I was thinking about our conservative/liberal label discussion yesterday. You and I, Roch, have way more in common than I have with Pat Robertson, yet there you go.
All I know is that someone needs to come up with a label for me to use that describes someone who prefers government solutions to free-market solutions that can be used in a derogatory manner.
This is why hating Bush because you're a liberal is so stupid. He's on your side on the most important issue of all - expanding government power.