Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Republican FDR
The American Spectator ^ | 11/15/2004 | Ralph R. Reiland

Posted on 11/14/2004 11:57:01 PM PST by Remember_Salamis

The Republican FDR By Ralph R. Reiland Published 11/15/2004 12:08:05 AM

During a campaign stop in West Palm Beach, President George W. Bush wasted no words in explaining his vision of an ownership society: "No one ever washes a rental car. When you own something, you care about it."

And so, the theory behind the "ownership society," whether we're talking about health care, tax cuts or Social Security, is quite simple. When it comes to retirement planning, it says we'll care more, and therefore be more efficient, if we own our own retirement accounts and are in charge of moving our money around between various mutual funds in order to maximize our returns, just like the rich guys.

With the plan for the partial privatization of Social Security, first proposed by candidate George W. Bush in 1999, younger workers would be permitted to invest 2 percent or so of their paychecks into private, individually-owned accounts. Economically, based on the long run performance of the market, that's probably a better bet than the currently projected skimpy returns in the Social Security system for those just entering the workforce. And politically, it creates a whole new class of stock-owning investors -- the type of people who are more likely to be red than blue.

As it now stands, only 22 percent of American households have savings invested directly in the market. Expand this investor class, argue some Republican strategists, and it'll automatically produce an electorate that's more likely to vote for the kind of free market-oriented, pro-business economic policies associated with GOP administrations.

That rosy scenario for Republicans is supported by the findings in a Washington Post poll last year that examined the attitudes and political leanings of Americans with money invested in the financial markets: "The Post survey found that Americans who have bought individual stocks -- 'direct investors' -- are more optimistic about the economy, more likely to identify themselves as Republicans, have a more favorable view of the GOP and are more inclined to support Bush's reelection than are non-investors of comparable income."

The Post poll found, for example, that "40 percent of direct investors with incomes of more than $50,000 identify themselves as Republicans, compared with 22 percent of non-investors" in the same income grouping, while "among those with incomes below $50,000, 34 percent of investors identified themselves as Republicans, compared with 23 percent of non-investors." As a bonus for the GOP, investors are also more likely to vote than non-investors of the same income level.

As with the privatization of retirement, Mr. Bush is expected to push the idea of health savings accounts as a way to expand individual ownership of health insurance through tax-free savings, expand competition among health care providers and insurers, and establish a market force of millions of self-interested consumers who will shop around for the best deals in medical care. The theory? No one washes a rental car and no one cares about a $100 aspirin when the cost is being shifted to a third party payer.

On taxes, Bush will push to make his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, many of which are set to expire, and for tax simplification. Again, the idea is that people in an "ownership society" should be allowed to own more of the money they earn and they shouldn't be spending hundreds of billions of dollars each year to figure out how to comply with the tortuous and convoluted rules of the tax code.

In addition, empowered by his own reelection and wider GOP majorities in both houses of Congress, Mr. Bush might well now call for an economic program that aims for tax cuts that are even more ambitious than the ones he signed in his first term and for an overhaul of the income tax system that cuts even further the level of taxation on investment income.

Currently, the top fifth of American households are picking up over four-fifths of the federal income tax tab, and a third of those taxpayers are small-business owners, the nation's chief job creators. Along with tax relief, Mr. Bush's "ownership society" agenda in the second term for this sector of entrepreneurs and small-business owners seeks to remove obstacles to growth and job creation by way of reining in the costs of over-regulation and over-litigation.

Overall, it's a big agenda. As Michael D. Tanner at the Cato Institute sums it up, "Bush wants to be the Republican FDR."

Ralph R. Reiland is the B. Kenneth Simon Professor of Free Enterprise at Robert Morris University and a columnist with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; reform; tax; taxes; term

1 posted on 11/14/2004 11:57:01 PM PST by Remember_Salamis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

If he wants to be the Republican FDR he will cancel all price supports, corporate subsidies, shut down several federal departments, PBS, NPR and...well you know..


2 posted on 11/14/2004 11:59:39 PM PST by GeronL (http://images7.fotki.com/v125/photos/2/215708/780411/reow-vi.jpg?1100155138)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

If he's the Republican FDR, then our era of activism could be decades away. From the time of FDR's death (1945) to the period that Democrats passed anything they damn well pleased (1965) was roughly 20 years. Now, it's possible that the Dems experienced a setback because of they wave of staunch anti-communist republicans that arrived on the scene in 1948. So we may see the period sooner (I don't forsee a young generation of Democrats arriving on the scene to demand a much stronger response to Islamofascism anytime soon).


3 posted on 11/15/2004 12:07:10 AM PST by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

Maybe Reagan was our FDR and we are now getting to our era of dominance??


4 posted on 11/15/2004 12:09:29 AM PST by GeronL (http://images7.fotki.com/v125/photos/2/215708/780411/reow-vi.jpg?1100155138)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Possibly, but Reagan never controlled the House like FDR did.


5 posted on 11/15/2004 12:11:36 AM PST by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

Well I really like the idea of an "ownership society". But my dear Mr. President better make sure that "society" EXCLUDES ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS who have been stealing a big bite out of my potential ownership of my slice of American society.


6 posted on 11/15/2004 12:33:10 AM PST by Californiajones ("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

Democrat solution? Keeping us poor.


7 posted on 11/15/2004 12:57:13 AM PST by endthematrix (CRUSH ISLAMOFACISM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Californiajones

An excellent, politically safe way to curb illegal immigration is through tax reform. Tax Reform? Yes, the two are related. There is legislation pending in Congress to replace the entire tax code with a 23% across-the-board national sales tax (NRST), called the FairTax Act. ALL legal US residents would recieve a "prebate" (Called a Basic Consumption allowance, or BCA) that pays for the NRST up to the poverty line. However, illegals would get no such prebate. The illegal worker would not receive a monthly BCA because he has no Social Security number, making life in America much harder. As a result, there is a much larger incentive to migrate here legally and a large tax burden for migrating to the US illegally.


Also, it is extremely lucrative to currently employ illegal immigrants because they essentially work tax-free and are paid under the table. Under current law, an illegal being paid $10/hour in cash is equivalent to a legal worker being paid anywhere from $12-14/hour (15.3% in payroll taxes plus whatever the marginal tax rate is). Under the FairTax, it won’t matter; both workers would make the same because there are no taxes. And since there are penalties for hiring illegal immigrants, employers would naturally choose legal workers if there is no price difference.

We must enact the NRST, called the FairTax. The bill in Cognress is called HR 25 and S 1493 in the Senate. To learn more, go to:

http://www.fairtax.org
or

http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org


8 posted on 11/15/2004 1:58:42 AM PST by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Californiajones

An excellent, politically safe way to curb illegal immigration is through tax reform. Tax Reform? Yes, the two are related. There is legislation pending in Congress to replace the entire tax code with a 23% across-the-board national sales tax (NRST), called the FairTax Act. ALL legal US residents would recieve a "prebate" (Called a Basic Consumption allowance, or BCA) that pays for the NRST up to the poverty line. However, illegals would get no such prebate. The illegal worker would not receive a monthly BCA because he has no Social Security number, making life in America much harder. As a result, there is a much larger incentive to migrate here legally and a large tax burden for migrating to the US illegally.


Also, it is extremely lucrative to currently employ illegal immigrants because they essentially work tax-free and are paid under the table. Under current law, an illegal being paid $10/hour in cash is equivalent to a legal worker being paid anywhere from $12-14/hour (15.3% in payroll taxes plus whatever the marginal tax rate is). Under the FairTax, it won’t matter; both workers would make the same because there are no taxes. And since there are penalties for hiring illegal immigrants, employers would naturally choose legal workers if there is no price difference.

We must enact the NRST, called the FairTax. The bill in Cognress is called HR 25 and S 1493 in the Senate. To learn more, go to:

http://www.fairtax.org
or

http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org


9 posted on 11/15/2004 2:06:20 AM PST by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

You are right on target, R_S.

The NRST is the right thing to do, for a whole host of reasons.


10 posted on 11/15/2004 2:10:36 AM PST by clee1 (Islam is a deadly plague; liberalism is the AIDS virus that prevents us from defending ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Bumb for reading later.


11 posted on 11/15/2004 2:22:15 AM PST by dread78645 (Truth is always the right answer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis
Social Security privatization is the real trojan horse here. It will change society like FDR did - but for the better. See an earlier article on this at LFOspot.com
12 posted on 11/15/2004 5:07:27 AM PST by trenton1776
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

23 percent? Is this plus or minus state taxes? how about fifteen percent and call it a day?


13 posted on 11/15/2004 8:52:53 AM PST by Californiajones ("The apprehension of beauty is the cure for apathy" - Thomas Aquinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Remember_Salamis

bttt


14 posted on 11/15/2004 11:07:54 AM PST by happygrl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Didn't want you to miss this.

OTOH, a Limbaugh caller today compared the President to the other Roosevelt...Teddy...

Not in Teddy's big business attacks but the way TR thought the U.S. would/should lead the world for "progressive" causes.

Not sure if I understood/agreed with all his points....

15 posted on 11/15/2004 1:15:05 PM PST by Molly Pitcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher

progressive causes...?

Oh no !!!


16 posted on 11/15/2004 2:27:52 PM PST by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
HA! That was my reaction to that dread word, also.

Supposedly, the caller meant "progressive" to mean "reform" as in reform Soc.Sec....the tax system, etc. Does that sound a little better??;^)

17 posted on 11/15/2004 2:35:28 PM PST by Molly Pitcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Molly Pitcher

that's anti-progressive reform. The word is privatization.

The Dems were on the radio on my way home....talking about the RISK of fooling with SS.

The problem they have is that the RISK is SS. Not enough people to pay for it - so benefits WILL be reduced or retirement age increased.

They just pass a law.....and it's the same thing as a market crash.


18 posted on 11/15/2004 4:13:54 PM PST by The Raven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Californiajones

Nobody actually pays 23%. Why? Because you subract your "Prebate" for one, which makes it progressive. Secondly, you only pay taxes on itrems you consume. So the less you spend as a percentage of your income, the lower your tax burden is. As a result, peopel in effect control their own tax rate!


19 posted on 11/15/2004 6:25:30 PM PST by Remember_Salamis (Freedom is Not Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson