Archive for the ‘Conservatism’ Category

GOP For Tax Breaks, Except When Democrats Are

Friday, January 29th, 2010

Obama had a lot of bad ideas in his State of the Union address. But one good one was tax credits for businesses that hire workers. This seems like the kind of smart governance we sorely need—a welcome break from the backwards thinking that tends to be the norm. Rhode Island, for example, has had such difficulty in keeping up with unemployment benefits, it has had to borrow about $127 million from the federal government. In order to avoid even more debt, however, the state is looking to raise unemployment taxes on businesses, which means even less money in the pot for hiring. In other words, state unemployment benefits could drive unemployment higher. A tax credit, however, could give businesses incentives to hire, reduce the amount they owe in taxes, and avoid higher spending.

So conservatives should be all over this one, right? Well, The Heritage Foundation isn’t. And check out this House Republican response which ignores the credit and just talks about all the other taxes Obama is cooking up. So what’s so bad about the tax credit? Well, all The Heritage Foundation says that it didn’t work because small businesses didn’t know about it. But isn’t that easy to fix? Heritage also predict that the credit will prolong unemployment because businesses will put off hiring until they can get the credit. But wait, I thought businesses wouldn’t know about it anyway? For another perspective, check out this New York Times story, which cites specific sources and a study that say the tax credit did and will work.

In truth, the tax credit is something that Republicans should at least welcome, if not embrace. How do I know this? Because Republicans already have. Back in Rhode Island, the Republican governor proposed a similar tax credit at the state level. And even Rep. Eric Cantor, the House Republican whip, praised the idea. But then he changed his mind after a ‘closed-door’ House GOP meeting.

Posted in Conservatism, Economic Stimulus, Free Market, Government, Obama | 2 Comments »

Conservatives Flip Flopped on Health Care

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

The National Review has not explicitly contradicted itself on health care, but there is a glaring inconsistency between how it talks about health care reform, depending upon whom is in power. As I mentioned below, when National Review endorsed Mitt Romney in 2007, the fact that he had backed a government overhaul of health care in Massachusetts did not seem to bother the editors. Here is how they talk about the issue in 2007:

His conservative accomplishments as governor showed that he can work with, and resist, a Demo­crat­ic legislature. He knows that not every feature of the health-care plan he enacted in Massachusetts should be replicated nationally, but he can also speak with more authority than any of the other Republican candidates about this pressing issue.

And here is just a sample of the typical way National Review now talks about health care reform under Obama in a not-so-subtly titled article, ‘Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Obamacare’:

At its core, what Obamacare really means is a loss of freedom. …

The motivation is to replace millions of private choices with a command-and-control model in which health-care decisions and health-care resources are centrally administered and allocated by the federal government — under the ultimate command, at least initially, of Barack Obama. The motivation is simple and can be reduced to one word: power. And it doubtless has the American Founders, who dedicated their lives to securing liberty, spinning in their graves.

Both plans increased costs, reduced freedom, and resulted in higher taxes (click here and here for more). And yet, there is a striking disparity in how National Review talks about them. The difference of course is that one was enacted under a Republican administration and the other is being advocated by a Democrat. It just goes to show how conservatives lost their critical distance from political power. For the record, I oppose both health care reform plans—and I wish National Review conservatives would too.

Posted in Conservatism, Health Care | 3 Comments »

The Tea Parties and King George

Friday, November 6th, 2009

The Tea Parties are widely and correctly seen as a conservative uprising against President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress. But beneath the surface there is an undercurrent of discontent toward President George Bush and Republicans as well, as this CNN story suggests.

At the first Tea Party in Rhode Island, for example, organizers displayed a banner with the headline: “The Biggest Spending Program In the History of Mankind.” Most of these programs were the infamous bailouts: $29.5 billion for Bear Stearns, $97.4 for the auto industry, $300 billion for homeowners, $700 billion for TARP—the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But domestic spending was not the only fiscal grievance. The Iraq War, at nearly $600 billion, made the cut too.

All this happened not under a Democratic presidency, but rather a Republican administration. In fact, there was only one Obama program on the list and it was at the bottom—the $787 billion economic stimulus bill.

To be sure, the Tea Partiers kept their power dry until Bush left office. So there is a partisan coloring to this movement, but at its core it is a non-partisan reaction to this brave new era of big government ushered in at the behest of both Republicans and Democrats. Unfortunately, until winner-take-all laws are changed, there will be no third-party outlet for all this populist furor.

Posted in Conservatism | No Comments »

Health Care: When Conservatives Don’t Like Markets

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

One of the overlooked aspects of health care reform is the proposal for a national health insurance exchange, where small businesses and individuals could choose from a broader selection of plans than is normally available in their states. Conservatives, especially those with libertarian leanings, are always talking about how much they love market competition and consumer choice. So they should be all over this proposal for a national health insurance market? Right?

Nope. In fact, their response mostly has been one of silence. In a search through the Web sites for National Review and The Weekly Standard—easily the two most influential conservative magazines—the exchanges were mentioned only in connection with worries that illegal immigrants would be able to participate in them. Of course, most conservative criticism has understandably harped on the projected $1 trillion cost and $400 billion in new taxes associated with health care reform. But one wishes conservatives would stop their sky-is-falling mantras long enough to admit there might be a few things in health care reform that they don’t find totally repugnant.

So far, however, only The Heritage Foundation seems to be taking this idea of health insurance exchanges seriously. This Heritage policy expert is correct in warning that the combination of a national insurance exchange and a heavily subsidized public option could be a scheme to drive out private insurance. But, until the details of how this exchange would work are hashed out, it is easy to imagine other scenarios as does this Washington Post writer and this study by the Urban Institute.

Posted in Conservatism, Free Market, Health Care | No Comments »