The Republican governors got together in some god-forsaken place called Lost Pines, Texas, to discuss their collective futures and the prospects for winning more state houses in the November 2010 elections. Adam Nagourney was there, and he wrote about it. AdNags was most impressed by the lack of emphasis on social issues. These governors were focused on the health care bill, budget deficits, and kitchen-table issues facing voters in a down economy. Gods, gays, and guns didn’t enter into the discussion, and neither did birth certificates.
Part of this may well be a recognition that social issues are no longer a political winner in the fight for the hearts of independents. But the larger explanation is that governors have to govern. They can’t do that by obsessing over fantasies like death panels and gay indoctrination. Still, the Republican rhetoric about smaller state-based government doesn’t suit governors any better than it does candidates for federal office. At least, it doesn’t suit them in a down economy. Every state but Vermont has a constitutional duty to balance their budget. When revenues plummet at the same time that the number of people seeking government assistance spikes, governors are reliant on the federal government to make up some of the shortfall. Raising taxes in a down economy can be counterproductive, and there is a limit to how much they can slash programs without getting voted out of office.
The Republican governors are going to need federal assistance, but they are going to run on the evils of the federal government. When Obama sends them large checks, the won’t thank him. They’ll complain about the strings that are attached, and the national budget deficit. It’s just politics. Times change, but the Republicans’ ideology does not.
As for Congressional Republicans, their hypocrisy knows no bounds. They created this deficit and the accompanying economic catastrophe. They have always opposed Medicare. But, now, they are bemoaning the deficit and accusing the Democrats of making deep cuts to Medicare.
Seeing through the emptiness of Republican rhetoric is the key to understanding our national debate. If they came back to power, they would do the exact same thing they did under Reagan and Bush. They would explode our deficits and loot the treasury. The Democrats aren’t perfect, but when they waste money, they waste it on things like health care and education. Something to remember.
What Obama should do – or more precisely the Congress, as I don’t think this should come from TARP or stimulus money, and therefore will have to be specifically allocated – is force Republican Governors to declare a financial emergency and ask for assistance. I know some people don’t like to punish red states for being stupid, because there are still some virtuous people is Sodom, but we all have to live with the bad decisions of the majorities within which we are embedded, and forcing Republicans to either betray their ideology or visibly screw their constituents helps their constituents in the long run by getting rid of Republicans.
One thing Obama hinted to California is that any assistance would come with painful demands for deep spending cuts – which is exactly what the Republicans are trying to achieve by bankrupting the state. The strings attached should be revenue enhancement. The feds will give the money, but the states have to show that they can balance their budgets over time, and, as spending cuts are more contractionary than most tax increases, that’s where the shortfall must be made up.
Any help to any state with the Proposition 13 type of restriction on raising taxes should require the repeal of those restrictions.
The sad fact is that under conservative tutelage a lot of states squandered substantial “rainy day funds” in unnecessary but politically expedient tax cuts, especially cuts to businesses and high-income individuals.
Any help should require that repayment be made to nonrevocable rainy day funds in lieu of repayment to the federal government, with some protective mechanism on when a “rainy day” can be declared.
Prop 13 was a constitutional amendment. It would be hard to repeal. But I think making them raise taxes and fight among themselves on how would be sufficient. It would be sufficient in California.
The citizens of California have a gun to their head fiscally and they can’t figure out that it might be because of Prop 13? And folks talk about Southern dementia! What happened to all those wonderful special referenda?
From Earl Warren and Pat Brown to “dah Gubernator”. From the best schools in the nation to – what – no schools? No healthcare?
NC raised tobacco taxes this year. North Carolina. Cigarette taxes. It was weeks of hell and posturing, but it got done.
Part of the problem in CA is the same as the problem with the Senate re filibusters: a majority can require a larger majority than itself in the future. Hence, 51% of Senators can approve a filibuster requirement that then requires 60%. While that 51% have in a sense reduced their power, if their agenda is obstruction, they have punched above their weight. Similarly, Prop 13 passed with 62%, I believe, of the vote. A healthy margin. But now you have a 67% requirement to pass taxes. I think it should be an accepted principle of democracy that no majority can impose a requirement for a larger majority than itself.
Why haven’t the Democrats started to talk about the “borrow and squander” Republican Party. It seems like an accurate depiction of post-Eisenhower Republican government.
The lost pines are beautiful, when there aren’t Republicans all over the damned place.
.
Beautiful location and wonderful folks living in cabins BooMan.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
I don’t think they should get any money, if they run on the evils of federal monies.
Republican spending? Nah….
Why, its only pocket change
Just take it outta petty cash
Merely a pittance
< /snark >
As far as Republican spending on a more local playground, anything goes as long as it goes to the all-holy private sector..