What is Republican economic policy?

[muon2]

Much of this thread is seems to concentrate on the question as a national issue. Another basic principle of GOP policy has been to let the states deal with policy questions when they can, and in terms of business and labor policy, there has been a historical tendency to let the states act on their own.

So to discern GOP economic policy one has to go to the 50 separate state parties and see what is driving their economic policy. My sense is that there are some general similarities, but also real differences depending on the state's economic assets. It's like asking what is the economic policy of the European conservative parties (perhaps like EPP), where there are commonalities but also differences between member countries MPs.

[muon2]

Much of this thread is seems to concentrate on the question as a national issue. Another basic principle of GOP policy has been to let the states deal with policy questions when they can, and in terms of business and labor policy, there has been a historical tendency to let the states act on their own.

So to discern GOP economic policy one has to go to the 50 separate state parties and see what is driving their economic policy. My sense is that there are some general similarities, but also real differences depending on the state's economic assets. It's like asking what is the economic policy of the European conservative parties (perhaps like EPP), where there are commonalities but also differences between member countries MPs.

There is, of course, Federalism but the Republican Party still has to have a national platform and when they are in power, they don't necessarily advance the cause of Federalism. It definitely feels like Republicans support state's rights right now because they are doing well down ballot and not so hot at the top.

Federalism was very popular among Pubs during W's administration, too. Much of it was masked by the nationalism, patriotism and exceptionalism of his first term after the 9/11 attacks. It showed up again in his second term, as for instance conservative talk radio was prone to bust W's chops as well as the DC Pubs over any number of statist initiatives.

[muon2]

Much of this thread is seems to concentrate on the question as a national issue. Another basic principle of GOP policy has been to let the states deal with policy questions when they can, and in terms of business and labor policy, there has been a historical tendency to let the states act on their own.

So to discern GOP economic policy one has to go to the 50 separate state parties and see what is driving their economic policy. My sense is that there are some general similarities, but also real differences depending on the state's economic assets. It's like asking what is the economic policy of the European conservative parties (perhaps like EPP), where there are commonalities but also differences between member countries MPs.

I don't buy that at all.  First off, so much state level economic policy consists of a race to the bottom.  You have states giving away tax incentives to corporations trying to lure them from one state to another.  Maybe you could argue that such competition might spur the over-regulated states like California and New York to get their act together.  But, it doesn't really amount to any type of a philosophy.

This sounds like you are proposing that the Feds intervene in state tax incentives for business. There's no question that some excess use of those incentives can be counterproductive. However, incentives are used as frequently by Dem states as by Pub ones. That's not a particularly partisan issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Historically many of these issues have been the province of the states, and today there are Dem states that still expect to have the major say in how to resolve some of these problems. How a state tackles the issue can expose the partisan rift in that state. For example in IL, the GOP has argued against the Dem policy of siphoning some of the gas taxes to pay for other programs rather than for the infrastructure for which it is intended.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I look at the party differences in IL, the GOP notes that IL has become uncompetitive with other states in part because the total package of rates for regulations and business taxes are higher than in neighboring states. As a party it doesn't seek to eliminate them, but to bring them in line with regional and to a lesser extent national norms. Whining about Obama takes a back seat for most Pubs here to whining about Chicago and all the special laws designed for its benefit.

[muon2]

So, I reject your whole framing.  Democrats are far from perfect themselves, but the Republicans are actively dismantling the American dream.  Even the best Republicans act like they're a bought and paid for subsidiary of big business.  Politicians need to remember who they work for, and by the way, it's not just corporations deciding between locating in Illinois and Iowa.

Feel free to reject my framing. You posed the question, and I assumed you wanted an answer that corresponded to what GOP politicians talked about concerning the economy with their constituents in neighborhoods around the US. I gave you that. And it is often about a federalist approach and the differences among states. I don't expect you to agree with it as a way to govern, otherwise you might be a Pub. But given your OP, I would hope that you would be curious to know what average Pubs do support.

[muon2]

So, I reject your whole framing.  Democrats are far from perfect themselves, but the Republicans are actively dismantling the American dream.  Even the best Republicans act like they're a bought and paid for subsidiary of big business.  Politicians need to remember who they work for, and by the way, it's not just corporations deciding between locating in Illinois and Iowa.

Feel free to reject my framing. You posed the question, and I assumed you wanted an answer that corresponded to what GOP politicians talked about concerning the economy with their constituents in neighborhoods around the US. I gave you that. And it is often about a federalist approach and the differences among states. I don't expect you to agree with it as a way to govern, otherwise you might be a Pub. But given your OP, I would hope that you would be curious to know what average Pubs do support.

To me, that's just doesn't cut it as an answer.  There's no idea that those ideas are correlated to anything positive for the American economy, that's my point.  You're not saying, more federalism equals a better economy or low taxes equals a better economy.  You're saying, we're not interested in national macroeconomic performance, national competitiveness or economic inequality and the stagnation of the middle class.  That's the telling point.  You can't tell a story where your policies actually get the economy on a positive track.

But if voters in an area believe that what they want most is to be able to pursue their economic goals independently from a broad policy that fixes things far from their experience, then wouldn't they be prone to elect representatives to local, state, and national government who will carry that message? I've not been saying in this thread that this is a national policy, but I do claim that it is a philosophy supported by a significant segment of the population, not just CEOs of corporations. That's why you will see many state GOP platforms, whether the state is run by Pubs or Dems, stress job creation through the private sector. It is a reflection of the people they represent.

[muon2]

So, I reject your whole framing.  Democrats are far from perfect themselves, but the Republicans are actively dismantling the American dream.  Even the best Republicans act like they're a bought and paid for subsidiary of big business.  Politicians need to remember who they work for, and by the way, it's not just corporations deciding between locating in Illinois and Iowa.

Feel free to reject my framing. You posed the question, and I assumed you wanted an answer that corresponded to what GOP politicians talked about concerning the economy with their constituents in neighborhoods around the US. I gave you that. And it is often about a federalist approach and the differences among states. I don't expect you to agree with it as a way to govern, otherwise you might be a Pub. But given your OP, I would hope that you would be curious to know what average Pubs do support.

To me, that's just doesn't cut it as an answer.  There's no idea that those ideas are correlated to anything positive for the American economy, that's my point.  You're not saying, more federalism equals a better economy or low taxes equals a better economy.  You're saying, we're not interested in national macroeconomic performance, national competitiveness or economic inequality and the stagnation of the middle class.  That's the telling point.  You can't tell a story where your policies actually get the economy on a positive track.

But if voters in an area believe that what they want most is to be able to pursue their economic goals independently from a broad policy that fixes things far from their experience, then wouldn't they be prone to elect representatives to local, state, and national government who will carry that message? I've not been saying in this thread that this is a national policy, but I do claim that it is a philosophy supported by a significant segment of the population, not just CEOs of corporations. That's why you will see many state GOP platforms, whether the state is run by Pubs or Dems, stress job creation through the private sector. It is a reflection of the people they represent.

I don't think that's what politics ought to be about, no.

I think good politics requires a vision that includes some idea of the common good.  That we are part of a political community of equals who care about each other and the good of the country.  I think politics requires some intellectual foundation where you believe you're working for the common good. 

And, is the Republican Party just listening to the voters?  Of course not.  They're constantly pumping out propaganda to create this false consciousness and political divide.  They scapegoat people, try to make people hate poor people, black people, immigrants and gay people.  It's divide, demoralize and then just say, "oh well, the best we can do is accommodate the job creators."   

And, that's the problem, the Republican Party is so infatuated with power and hatred for the marginalized people in society that they forgot what their job is. 

And here's the rub. I agree with you on your second paragraph, as to what politics should be. I find little to agree with in your final two paragraphs as it pertains to real voters in my area. I would welcome you to visit my community and talk to my neighbors. I think you would find a very different story than the national media portrays.

[muon2]

Intrastate tensions are very interesting, with Illinois and NY perhaps being rather unique, since their respective major cities are so dominant, while having a substantial out state non major city population, but not enough to really have that much political power. Thus you have policies that work for the dominating cities, but don't work for the hinterlands. In NY, that has tended to result in upstate NY being an economic basket case. It just can't economically compete with a very robust social safety net, and high taxes, while having no high paying economic sectors that can afford to pay for it all. Now the end game, is to just live off government transfer payments, with a very anemic middle class. That is why in part, "states rights" sometimes don't work very well, because within some states, what is on the ground is just so different.

"Basket case" overstates things. At a minimum, there's more economic opportunity in Upstate NY than, say, the High Plains or Appalachia. The politics of this state are toxic and dysfunctional, and the property tax burden is heavy (although it helps that housing is inexpensive in most locales not within commuting distance of NYC), but, in terms of median income, life expectancy, and educational attainment, Upstate NY is better off than most of the country.

Then again, it's more a matter of how you choose your comparisons and how much unfulfilled potential you perceive. What most distinguishes Upstate NY, in my experience, is pessimism born out of the sheer duration of its relative decline. I have been hearing the same conversations since I was old enough to understand them. The main effect of the 2008 recession was to put the rest of the country on the same wavelength. The region has been in a malaise since the '70s.

However, I don't see much indication that there's an unusual degree of dependence on transfer payments in Upstate NY (or downstate IL, for that matter), although maybe your definition differs from my own.

It looks like the map is only federal transfer payments. State transfer payments may not exactly mirror federal transfers.

There are indirect transfer payments as well. For example, in IL schools are funded by a complicated formula based on local property taxes and state payments. The state share is based in large part on the property tax base for a district but comes from the general revenue. It's not unusual for a downstate district to get 75% of school costs from the state while suburban districts get 25% or less. That creates much higher property tax rates in the suburbs compared to downstate. Effectively that acts as a transfer payment.