GOP Primary Megathread!

[CountDeMoney]

One thing I've been thinking about in terms of the GOP is this entire Nordquist pledge insanity.

On the face of it, the basic idea is simply ridiculous - a politician pledging to NEVER raise taxes for any reason, period, everandeverandever? War? Famine? Asteroid strike? The idea is simply ludicrous that a politician should ever make such a blanket pledge.

I think the pledge is worded ambiguously enough to give some wiggle room, and I'd wager that most who have signed it would view it as having some flexibility (they *are* politicians, after all).  I know what the ATF's intent of the pledge is, but the pledge itself is pretty ambiguous.

In immediate terms, I like the pledge-- IMO spending needs to be curtailed first, then later we can talk about adding some possible tax increases to the deficit/debt reduction strategy.

Problem is, Mr. No Taxes makes every effort in calling out those who deviate from the faith, and spends a lot of time and effort to make sure the heretic suffers for his sins in a very public manner, to the point that there is no "wiggle room" for anybody.

So fuck you.  I wanna tax your dead fetus.

[derspiess]

What I find odd and dispiriting though is that everyone agrees with it.  The saddest moment in this campaign was in one of the debates when they were asked to raise their hands if they would agree to a deal eliminating the deficit if it was 90% cuts and 10% revenue.  No-one raised their hand, but what's worse is that the apparent moderates Huntsman and Romney were as staunch in rejecting it as Bachmann and Cain

You must find primaries odd and dispiriting in general, then.  It's an American political tradition to for candidates to promise things or go along with the flow during primaries and then ignore those pledges later on.

Obama has broken several of his pledges, for better or worse.

[The Minsky Moment]

At current tax levels, federal revenues are at about 15% of GDP.  If we are lucky, economic recovery will push that up to 16-18% or so within 3 years.  It sill leaves a big shortfall.  I have yet to see any vaguely realistic proposal that gets federal spending at or below 18% for any sustained period of time.

[Valmy]

What I find odd and dispiriting though is that everyone agrees with it.  The saddest moment in this campaign was in one of the debates when they were asked to raise their hands if they would agree to a deal eliminating the deficit if it was 90% cuts and 10% revenue.  No-one raised their hand, but what's worse is that the apparent moderates Huntsman and Romney were as staunch in rejecting it as Bachmann and Cain

You must find primaries odd and dispiriting in general, then.  It's an American political tradition to for candidates to promise things or go along with the flow during primaries and then ignore those pledges later on.

Obama has broken several of his pledges, for better or worse.

I know it is so weird we go through all these debates and so forth when the understanding from everybody participating is that everybody is lying to some extent, and that we are ok with that.

[derspiess]

Um surely we need to do both at the same time?  Granted I prefer it to the strategy of cutting taxes and then later promising (but doing the exact opposite) spending cuts strategy the Republicans usually love but um...wouldn't an actual real world solution have to be a package of both?  Just sounds like a strategy designed to create excuses for failure and inaction rather than one that will produce results this country needs.

I think spending is a bigger problem than revenue (and yes, I know that theoretically they are both equal parts of the equation).  And I don't trust the Democrats (nor do I trust some Republicans) not to get spend-happy with new, increased tax revenue. 

I'd be willing to go back to pre-Bush tax rates if we also went back to pre-Bush spending at the same time.

[MadImmortalMan]

I think that's the Andrew Sullivan line.  The Republican Party has ceased to be a political party but is now effectively a religious movement:
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/the-nausea-of-santorum.html
http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Soul-How-Lost-Back/dp/0060188774
He suggests that supply side economics, constant tax cuts, anti-environmentalism etc are now parts of the Republican credo and dogma.  They're closer to religious beliefs than political thoughts.  I'm not convinced personally.

A big cross-section of politics has become "religious", and it's not just the GOP, nor just the US. For many people, it's a substitute for actual religion.

[Valmy]

I think spending is a bigger problem than revenue (and yes, I know that theoretically they are both equal parts of the equation).  And I don't trust the Democrats (nor do I trust some Republicans) not to get spend-happy with new, increased tax revenue. 

I'd be willing to go back to pre-Bush tax rates if we also went back to pre-Bush spending at the same time.

If you were dictator I would take that into account.  Unfortunately it is the idiots in DC who have to solve this crisis and any solution is probably going to be a massive shit sandwich loaded with garbage they need to get it passed.  I am just not sure how demanding it be done in a pure and good way will result in anything less than it not happening at all...until the whole thing starts to bring us down.

[Sheilbh]

You must find primaries odd and dispiriting in general, then.  It's an American political tradition to for candidates to promise things or go along with the flow during primaries and then ignore those pledges later on.

Obama has broken several of his pledges, for better or worse.

I can't think of many he's broken.  As a rule politicians do actually try and follow through on what they promise - there's actually empirical research that demonstrates this and you can see it, in Obama's case, in that factcheck tally.

But I also can't think of any promise made by any of the candidates in 2008 that was similarly absolutist.  None of the candidates would support any revenue increases as part of deficit reduction.  What's the 2008 equivalent?

The pledge is pretty strong.  This is the House version:
'ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and
                       TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.'

I think spending is a bigger problem than revenue (and yes, I know that theoretically they are both equal parts of the equation).  And I don't trust the Democrats (nor do I trust some Republicans) not to get spend-happy with new, increased tax revenue. 

Which is absolutely fine, there's a good argument to be had about the right balance.  Our fiscal consolidation is around 25% revenue, 75% spending cuts.  The only other international examples of similar magnitude were about 20% revenue, 80% spending cuts (Canada and Scandis in the 90s).  Historically in Britain we generally have a 50-50 split, such as during the last Tory government in the 90s.  There is, to my knowledge, no example of a purely spending cut based deficit reduction of the magnitude needed in the US.

I would also point out that obviously Canada, the UK and Scandinavia have far more spending to cut than the US Federal government which is another problem that may require a greater emphasis on tax.  Personally I'd like to see Obama come out for Bowles-Simpson or Rivlin-Domenici (). 

Having said all that it is worth remembering that the US deficit has fallen quite significantly over the last few years.  I believe it's actually fallen faster than our deficit and we're the ones getting praised by the IMF and OECD for having a credible and ambitious plan.  But I think that's precisely the problem the US has is establishing deficit reduction that looks beyond the immediate budget and that seems to address the medium to long-term problems.  Again revenue has to be part of that.

[Barrister]

Obama has broken several of his pledges, for better or worse.

I can't think of many he's broken.  As a rule politicians do actually try and follow through on what they promise - there's actually empirical research that demonstrates this and you can see it, in Obama's case, in that factcheck tally.

Gitmo.

[Valmy]

Gitmo.

Or rolling back any of the Patriot Actesque stuff.  Rather he has just let it continue on its way.

Ah well.

[Admiral Yi]

I can't think of many he's broken.

Renegotiate NAFTA.

Not exceed federal spending limit on 08 campaign.

Not use Super Pacs for current campaign.

If he wins as expected against Romney he will have to break the promise about no tax increases on people earning less than 200 K.

Remains to be seen whether he will keep his promise to "prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons through forceful diplomacy."

[Sheilbh]

Gitmo.

Many, not any.   I've always said that civil libertarians are the one group who can justifiably feel betrayed by Obama.  The rest of his supporters who now find him insufficiently lefty just weren't paying attention during the election.

[CountDeMoney]

Obama has broken several of his pledges, for better or worse.

I can't think of many he's broken.  As a rule politicians do actually try and follow through on what they promise - there's actually empirical research that demonstrates this and you can see it, in Obama's case, in that factcheck tally.

Gitmo.

Oh yeah, that one's keeping everyone up nights.

[Sheilbh]

Renegotiate NAFTA.

Flesh this one out for me.

Not exceed federal spending limit on 08 campaign.

Not use Super Pacs for current campaign.

These are related to him as a candidate they're totally irrelevant.  They're totally different from saying I will, as President, close Gitmo and not doing it.  Or saying I will, as President, not sign any deficit reduction that increases revenues.

If he wins as expected against Romney he will have to break the promise about no tax increases on people earning less than 200 K.

Well first we'll need to see if he runs on that in 2012.

Remains to be seen whether he will keep his promise to "prevent Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons through forceful diplomacy."

True enough.  The forceful diplomacy's been working though.  Though again this is of a rather different nature.

Edit:  Anyway none of these really dispute my point that actually politicians don't routinely promise things in the heat of the primary and then ignore them.  Generally politicians try to enact their promises.  I've just looked up the study that found that 75% of promises made by Presidents from Wilson to Carter, as candidates, were kept or they tried to keep them.  They've found 'that presidents invariably attempt to carry out their promises; the main reason some pledges are not redeemed is congressional opposition, not presidential flip-flopping'. 

Similarly if you look at the Politifact thing they're tracking 500 promises Obama made, he's broken around 65.  He's kept around 170 and another 160 are 'in the works', 50 have been done as 'compromises' and around 70 are 'stalled' in Congress or whatever.

[CountDeMoney]

Not use Super Pacs for current campaign.

lol, nice try.  Like he's going to unilaterally disarm.

Too funny the right's actually bitching about that one.