Posted on 02/19/2015 5:42:00 AM PST by reaganaut1
Having spent the last six years in the political wilderness, it is understandable that conservatives are eager to reclaim the reins of power. It's also understandable that they want to play to their strengths—and Democratic weakness—in tailoring an agenda to their core constituency: middle-class Americans.
What is less understandable is why many conservatives have ended up with a mix of old and new liberal ideas that thoroughly scale back the right's long-running commitment to free markets and limited government. But that is exactly what reform conservatism—a hot new movement powered by about 50 of the brainiest young conservatives—does.
Reformicons, as they are called, deny that of course. But if one looks at reform conservatives' economic proposals—some of them laid out in National Affairs' editor Yuval Levin's edited volume Room to Grow and fleshed out by National Review's Reihan Salam, The New York Times' Ross Douthat, and some analysts at the American Enterprise Institute—it is hard to escape the conclusion that these are liberal policy prescriptions. Although reform conservatives start from very different philosophical premises than entitlement liberals, when it comes to specific programs, they land at an almost identical spot.
Middle-class Americans are very focused on the economy, and politicians of all stripes are increasingly focused on middle-class Americans. Republicans had an 11-point edge in the midterms with voters earning between $50,000 and $100,000. Democrats want to cut into that lead. But their talk about income inequality doesn't have much traction. According to a January CBS/New York Times poll, only 3 percent of Americans cite the income gap as a top concern, well below the 18 percent who stress the economy and jobs. Likewise, 74 percent of respondents to a Reason-Rupe poll last August wanted Congress to prioritize growth compared with the 20 percent who wanted to reduce income inequality.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Any one who advocates expanding the welfare system through use of the IRS/Tax system is a liberal. I don’t care what else they want to call themselves.
Reformicons are con men attempting another Dem-lite approach. This is the GOPe trying to abandon conservatism, again.
Reform icons?
(Autocorrect did that).
Liberaltarians never make any sense.
It appears he is confusing Republicans with Conservatives.
We won’t successfully get rid of the welfare state until we first regain a firm understanding of the principle of the rule of law.
I’ve got another name for them — commie-cons.
Exactly. I remember Reagan himself playing up the fact that he took millions of people off the tax rolls. In retrospect, that was a huge mistake. It allows the bottom two-thirds of the population to continually vote themselves a larger share of the income of the top 10%. Its a death spiral. Everyone should pay tax -- everyone. Reform conservatives like Huckabee are just Christian Socialists.
Personally I believe equal protection under the law should apply to tax law as it does to criminal law.
Everyone should have the same tax rate regardless of income.
If that was true welfare would soon be a thing of the past. Everyone needs to have “Skin in the Game” as the Liberals love to say. If everyone pays, if everyone feels the pain of taxes, everyone will be unwilling to pay more.
Its just one wing of the uniparty generating a false debate over what the uniparty already agrees should be policy.
Kabuki theatre for the masses.
I don’t think that was Reagan’s true philosophy but Reagan playing politics as all presidents must
We here commenting anonymously on the internet can be purist. Presidents must bow to public opinion and perception.
Reagan was constantly under attack as being mean, selfish and a tool of the rich. So he had to make compromises to the political winds that he tacked against quite successfully on the whole.
“The way to start is to begin at the beginning.”
The way to end Social Security and Medicare is to stop enrolling any new members, or at least to allow people to opt out and not join the system in the first place. No membership, no FICA taxation.
This will work because all the money flowing into the system just amounts to a doubling of the income tax, in that it is spent immediately, not saved. Congress just appropriates enough to spend for the current month of benefits and calls the system solvent. So the end result of ending new memberships is the strong, gradual decline of the amount of tax money going to Washington to be wasted.
It doesn’t hurt those getting benefits in the slightest, nor those who expect to be getting benefits. But it does effectively *double* the income of people who never enter the system. And they can spend it or save it in a retirement and health care plan as they choose.
Cutting back on Social Security is cutting back on a full QUARTER of the US federal budget.
What’s not to like, especially the loss of federal control over the people?
This, and eliminate payroll deduction. Make everyone have to write in a check every quarter, and see how soon people start wanting a more parsimonious government.
I totally agree with getting rid of FICA however I don’t at all believe for a moment that the Federal budget would shrink as a result.
Remember that Porkulus was enacted with absolutely no corresponding taxes to fund the outlay of that $800 billion dollars of spending.
So why would the Congress feel compelled to cut spending simply because income had been curtailed?
No I surmise that they would continue to spend as though nothing had changed. After all the Fed can supply the government with all of the funds they need to keep the welfare gravy train on schedule. Inflation will suck the money out of the sheeple necessary to fund the socialist machine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.