Argh. Posters here have a reflexive hatred of essentially everything.
If conservatives want to be empowered to govern, they must make an affirmative case for ... well ... something. It is not enough to be against everything. I can go so far as to respect those who say that they cannot vote for, say, Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush. It makes me said, because I think it sets back the conservative cause. Once true conservative opt out, why should anyone be surprised to be ignored or even maligned? It becomes a vicious circle. But ... at least I can respect the decision and agree to disagree on how to respond to politicians who are not sufficiently conservative.
But when folks say that they can discern no difference between Charles Krauthammer and, let’s say, Van Jones, well then I can’t take that person seriously. Surely you don’t believe that there is no difference.
I have a question ... Suppose I were to take Charles Krauthammer’s position as a reasonable starting point but adapted it as follows:
1. First, don’t lead with our chins. It is the Democrats that are all in for a carbon tax. Republicans favor a tax on the international petro dollars that fuel and fund much of the world’s evil; but there are other ways to tackle this evil. We should instead ask Dems, if you want $1/gallon tax on gasoline, what are you prepared to give up? And revenue neutrality is not nearly enough.
2. If Republicans agree to such a tax, then ALL gas tax revenues must go toward infrastructure improvements (and not just the incremental taxes raised). For too long the trust funds that have been set aside and cordoned off for gas tax revenue and infrastructure improvements have been raided for entirely unrelated purposes. A non-negotiable position is that the gas taxes all go toward infrastructure, as the law says they must. Enforce the law!
3. We insist upon SPENDING neutrality. Because the gas tax revenues will be spent on infrastructure improvements, the only way to keep the size of government from rising is to reduce other expenditures $1 for $1.
Instead of the reflexive reaction “CK is a Marxist,” I am asking if there could be some more affirmative response. I am not saying that my adaptations would make this 100% acceptable to those who post on Free Republic. But what I do want to suggest is that CK is on the right track in principle — let’s raise the tax on foreign petro dollars — and that I can adapt his positions and advocate for the idea but with my own adaptations in place of his not-so-appealing details.
Would that hold any appeal to anyone here?