In these circumstances, conservatives must redouble their efforts to reform sloppy and incompetent government and resist government’s inherent expansionist tendencies and progressivism’s reflexive leveling proclivities. But to undertake to dismantle or even substantially roll back the welfare and regulatory state reflects a distinctly unconservative refusal to ground political goals in political realities.
Former Bush officials Bradley Belt and Philip Swagel join Jared Bernstein and William Gale in proposing a compromise on the “fiscal cliff.”
Our proposals are explicitly temporary. We propose a one- year, $200 billion tax refund to support household spending, with rebate checks of about $1,200 for a couple and an additional $600 a child sent out in the first half of 2013. As with a similar measure enacted with bipartisan support in 2008, the tax rebates would phase out for higher-income households, focusing the cash on low- and middle-income households.
We would add $50 billion for spending to rebuild roads, repair and modernize public schools, and fund scientific research. We see a need for a sustained increase in infrastructure spending, even in the face of the long-term fiscal adjustment. This amount is meant as a start, and in recognition that only so many high-quality projects can be initiated in 2013.
Thanks to Reihan Salam for the pointer.
While Berkowitz, Belt, and Swagel are all reasonable individuals, I reject their approach. I think that defeatism and appeasement are the wrong response to the election and to the Orwellian media environment, in which the definition of fiscal responsibility has been reversed from what I know it to mean.
I may be committed to being charitable to those with whom I disagree, but my disagreement with progressives is profound. I will articulate my views whether or not other people come around to them. I see nothing to be gained by pandering in order to win public support.
Defeatism and appeasement implies that conservatives and Republicans actually favor smaller govt, something the record does not show. Their record is one of sniping around the edges of big-govt progressive programs, then embracing significant sections of that liberal agenda once in power. As such, this isn’t appeasement, this is what Republicans always do.
Ajay, those are good points. Both Democrats and Republicans tend to overstate the extent to which Republicans actually enact free-market policies.
Both parties would best be described as ‘statist’. Their vehement disagreement is over which insider group gets to drive the agenda. On the mechanisms of power, they are in perfect agreement.
The federal government borrows 40 cents out of each dollar it spends, median household income is declining, there is no realistic proposal being discussed by the political establishment to reduce future budget deficits (or even reduce the rate of growth in spending), and many of our states and localities face bankruptcy. The solution: temporary tax rebates and spending on “high quality projects.” Both major political parties are intellectually bankrupt and can no longer be trusted.
“there is no realistic proposal being discussed by the political establishment to reduce future budget deficits (or even reduce the rate of growth in spending)”
Yes there is: economic growth as we bounce back from the recession. Between that and already enacted spending cuts the budget deficit is almost certainly going to shrink over the short-to-medium term. In fact, it *did* shrink by 200 billion dollars in fiscal year 2012.