What is Republican economic policy?

[bedstuy]

Republican economic policy has been in a weird place for a long time.  They seem to disavow George W. Bush, while basing their core message on naysaying and disagreeing with Obama.  I can help but think that Republicans don't actually have much of a philosophy at this point.  Rather, their position is to sabotage the economy and use a far right economic platform as a bargaining chip in budget fights.  That's more of a tactic rather than a philosophy. 

So, what is the mainstream Republican philosophy on the major economic issues?  Taxes?  Spending?  Is there any continued life to the Ron Paul economic philosophy of being anti-Federal reserve and cuckoo crazy?

Thoughts?

[bedstuy]

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.  

The fact is that the United States is not some loose confederation of countries.  We need to have some national strategy about how we can adapt and improve for the future.  We need to address these huge economic problems, inequality, crumbling infrastructure, the unemployment problem, the rising cost of education and healthcare.  If Republicans just look at those problems and shrug their shoulders, and say, "meh, federalism," that's pathetic.  If Republicans don't care about those problems, they should run for office.  

We just hear these two factions of the Republican party.  One group are blowhards who live in a fantastical reality of their own imagination like AD.  The other group are semi-reasonable people who just sort of sit on the sidelines and whine about Obama.  Both are totally useless to anything constructive.

I say all of this as a capitalist, someone who believes in markets and deregulating when appropriate.   There are good libertarian and market based approaches that we could be putting into practice.  But, the Republican Party is so addicted to pandering and their slash and burn politics that they bring nothing to the table.  We all follow politics and we have no idea what a major party actually believes beyond their spite for poor people and shilling for a few corporate interests.  How can any thinking person be a Republican in 2014?  I don't get it.

[bedstuy]

We just hear these two factions of the Republican party.  One group are blowhards who live in a fantastical reality of their own imagination like AD.

Clinton signed Welfare reform and founded the Third Way because of my imagination? Obama pushed fracking through the EPA and Republicans signed off on CAFE because of my imagination?

The things I say are real, you've not been trained to understand or identify them.

We disagree, but you definitely make up facts (example, "Obama pushed fracking through the EPA") and you're a blowhard.  I have no interest in discussing anything with you further because I find you distasteful on top of that. 

[bedstuy]

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.

I wasn't proposing anything.  I was saying that just saying, "federalism," doesn't cut it as an answer to these national problems.

The fact is that the United States is not some loose confederation of countries.  We need to have some national strategy about how we can adapt and improve for the future.  We need to address these huge economic problems, inequality, crumbling infrastructure, the unemployment problem, the rising cost of education and healthcare.  If Republicans just look at those problems and shrug their shoulders, and say, "meh, federalism," that's pathetic.  If Republicans don't care about those problems, they should run for office.

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.

These states don't have the fiscal flexibility or national scope to approach these national issues.  The Federal government can raise taxes on the rich nationwide without worrying about competing with other states or engaging in a race to the bottom.  The Federal government can put up large sums of money, even in a depressed economy and spark the economy.  A single state needs to carefully manage their budget year to year far more closely.  The Federal government can create national standards in a way that only California or Texas can even imagine.

We just hear these two factions of the Republican party.  One group are blowhards who live in a fantastical reality of their own imagination like AD.  The other group are semi-reasonable people who just sort of sit on the sidelines and whine about Obama.  Both are totally useless to anything constructive.

I say all of this as a capitalist, someone who believes in markets and deregulating when appropriate.   There are good libertarian and market based approaches that we could be putting into practice.  But, the Republican Party is so addicted to pandering and their slash and burn politics that they bring nothing to the table.  We all follow politics and we have no idea what a major party actually believes beyond their spite for poor people and shilling for a few corporate interests.  How can any thinking person be a Republican in 2014?  I don't get it.

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.

Yes, Republicans are much more civilized when they're not in power.  When they're in power they do things like SB1070 and approving textbooks that doubt evolution and say Ronald Reagan was the second coming of Christ.  And, that just goes back to my point, Illinois doesn't have the freedom to expand their vision.  They're worrying about competing with Iowa.  And, give me a break, you can't tell me that the Republican party is this moderate group worried about improving the business climate in the US.  The evidence of GOP radicalism is all over the news and has been for years. 

But, even if that wasn't true, I hate that our state governments would look at their job like that.  Legislatures spend so much time catering to business, trying to fix regulations for business, giving them tax breaks and coddling business.  They're constantly worrying about angering the business Gods and causing the jobs creators to rain down fire and brimstone on their state for their evil, liberal, inefficient ways. 

What about the climate for human beings in America?  For non-rich people?  I'll tell you, the American norm for non-rich people is getting a lot worse.  Middle class and working class people have lost a ton of ground in America.  Forget startup companies, being a startup person in America and your state is harder and harder.  Just take student loan debt and health care.  Republicans see both of those things as a privilege.  Maybe you'll get lucky enough to become educated and maybe you'll earn the ability to have health insurance.  And, your party across America refuses to expand Medicaid and is constantly attacking public education.  There is no neutral position on those issues.

But, I'm sure you are right about some regulations obviously.  There are plenty of silly rules that find their way into our laws.  But, to act like competing with other states in this race to please big corporations is an answer, is just ridiculous.  Moderate Republicans are just distracting the average Americans with this fan dance about small business and red tape, while their Republican buddies hollow out this country like its one of Mitt Romney's corporate takeovers.  That's how your party acts, like a barbarian at the gate, like T Boone Pickens or any other corporate raider who sees the average person's quality of life as a great place to cut costs.   

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.

[bedstuy]

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.

[bedstuy]

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. 

[bedstuy]

1) Let's all acknowledge that this thread was never meant to be anything other than a red avatar (and our favorite "blue" one, King) love fest, and any genuine response from a non-Democrat/liberal poster will be met with less-than-tasteful mockery.

2) In the most general terms, despite the narrative of how *crazy* the GOP has become, Republican economic policy has largely remained unchanged for several decades.  In a few overly basic points:

- Social welfare programs are at best too wasteful and sometimes abused while at worst create dependency, stagnate upper mobility and need to be rolled back.
- Environments that allow business to thrive will have a better overall effect on the economy.  Encouraging business and profits is more effective than playing economic nanny, reducing private sector profits and stagnating growth and innovation.
- Unions are generally a strain on the above point.
- It's generally a better long term strategy to reduce the tax burden and cut spending than the other way around.
- The private sector is generally more efficient than the public sector - not always, but most of the time.
- All demonizing the rich, Wall Street, investment success, etc. does is create class animosity and provide less incentive for upward mobility.

I'm not looking for some retort on the logic behind these beliefs; we already know where the Dems of this forum stand.  But the OP asked, and I did my best to respond.

That's a good attempt.  Here's my problem.  You are confusing philosophy with policy.  Policy actually requires that you look a the facts on the ground rather than just spout these fundamental precepts.

Let's say you have a world where the US has no old age pension system at all.  Creating one would be a social welfare program, which you assert is wasteful and creates dependency.  Yet, Republicans support social security.  So, to say their policy is that social welfare is generally bad, that's just not true. 

Rather if you look at documents like the Ryan budget, Republican policy is to keep those entitlements in place, but make them less efficient and more expensive by allowing corporate America to profit off our entitlements.  Republicans love programs like Medicare advantage which costs taxpayers more money, but funnels profits to private corporations.

That's generally what I'm missing here.  The problem-solving idea in government policy.  If we have different problems than we had 30 years ago, perhaps different solutions are called for.  If the top tax rate is 35% or 39%, maybe you care less about tax cuts than if the top tax rate is 70% like it was during the golden age of the American middle class.  If we just had a giant financial crisis caused by out of control speculation by banks, maybe you need to regulate Wall Street, even if you hurt their feelings.  If there is low inflation and high unemployment, maybe your policies are going to be different than a situation with high inflation and low unemployment.

But, that's actually how Republicans have become crazy in my eyes.  It's not their general philosophy, which seems pretty common-sense and moderate as you describe it.  Republicans live in their own world where facts are whatever you want them to be.

[bedstuy]

I find this whole intramural discussion over labels to be extremely pointless.