The other day, James asked about this line from one of my posts:
“On the other hand, people like me no longer describe ourselves as conservative because we are at odds with everything the modern conservative supports.”
His questions was:
“Two questions: 1. what specifically are the things the modern conservative supports? 2. In what respect are you at odds with each of these things?”
Large books have been written on the subject and I could easily write a small book on what I find objectionable with what we currently define as “conservative.” Since I don’t have the time to write a book at the moment, I’ll nibble away at it here. This post by one of Tyler Cowen’s grad students is a good place to start.
The latest from Louisiana is that taxes are going up, but in a strange way that won’t be called a tax increase:
One of the most critical parts of the budget plan, and the part that attracted most of the debate, would raise no revenue and lighten no one’s tax burdens. But because of a complicated arrangement of tax credits, this plan could, by some interpretations, allow Mr. Jindal, a Republican, to say that despite millions coming in from cigarette tax hikes and tax break rollbacks, the state had technically not raised net new tax revenue.
Read the whole article, it is even weirder than that sounds. Combine that with the recent fiasco in Kansas, where the strongly Republican state government will be reversing earlier tax cuts.
It seems to me that, whether we like it or not, fiscal conservatism has been stymied at the state level. No, that’s not true for Illinois, New York, or California, but it does seem to be true for many other states, especially those governed by Republicans. (And yes, state pension obligations still do need to be reigned in and made subject to proper accounting.) More concretely, trying to cut taxes at the state level doesn’t seem like a useful or productive way forward.
I’m old enough to remember when the people saying they were “fiscal conservatives” were almost always in the Democrat party. That phrase was a lot like “path to citizenship” or “secure the border” is today. It meant something different than the literal meaning. The Congressman I worked for was a fiscally conservative Democrat and that meant he was a deficit hawk.
My congressman was no one’s idea of a conservative back then. He was fine with New Deal style government programs, as long as they were paid for through taxes. Like all other fiscal conservatives in both parties, he preferred broad based taxes to pay for government. Today, exactly no one in politics is a deficit hawk. Borrowing is a given and no one cares how much or from whom the government borrows money.
The innovation Reagan brought to the debate was the idea of cutting taxes in order to force spending cuts. That’s what it meant to be a conservative. They agreed with the deficit hawks about not borrowing so cutting taxes naturally meant a restraint on spending. If you slow the growth of government to some level below inflation and population growth, the relative size and scope of the state shrinks.
In other words, conservative meant small, financially responsible government. That meant the aversion to borrowing of the deficit hawks and the desire to shrink government. The novelty of using tax policy to force spending restraint was a means to an end, not an end in itself.
There were objections to this on the Right. The old-school conservatives preferred to fight the spending fight on its own terms. They contended that the inevitable deficits from tax cuts would not force spending cuts, but normalize chronic borrowing. The fact that they were proven correct has been lost to the mists of time.
There was also another “conservative” principle in the use of tax cuts and that was simplification. The Progressive view on taxes was as another tool to shape behavior. The myriad of loopholes, shelters and breaks was a way to force behavior that otherwise would not occur, without the carrot of tax breaks. Conservatives always rejected that and pushed for simple tax systems.
Today, what passes for a conservative holds views no conservative would recognize forty years ago. For starters, demanding trivial reduction in taxes as some sort of great goal is just silly. The tax cuts of Bush, for example, had no impact on the lives of 90% of Americans. If twenty bucks a week is making a difference, you’re not paying taxes anyway. For most families, the Bush tax cuts were a rounding error.
Worse yet, today’s “fiscal conservatives’ are in favor of all sorts of social engineering through the tax code. The credits and breaks demanded by conservatives could fill a warehouse. The Reform Conservatives are calling for a proliferation of breaks and credits making tax lawyers rich and further entangling the state in the lives of citizens.
Tinkering with tax rates and expanding the complexity and scope of the tax code is what defines the term “fiscal conservative” today, along with an embrace of reckless borrowing to finance a metastasizing welfare state. I’m old enough to remember when moderate Democrats would mock that as woolly-headed liberalism.
That’s one example of where I am at odds with the modern conservative. Taxes are honest when they are frictionless. They should have as little impact on behavior as possible. They should be clear and in plain site. Hidden taxes are a crime against the free citizen. Taxes should also be universal. Citizens pay taxes.
The tax level is whatever is required to finance government. If the people want a lot of government, then they pay a lot of taxes. If they want lower taxes, then they have to cut spending. The core principle of conservatism is that public policy is about trade-offs. Borrowing conceals these trade-offs and deceives the public, just like hidden taxes and special tax breaks, thus making deficits at odds with a free society.
“That phrase was a lot like “path to citizenship” or “secure the border” is today. It meant something different than the literal meaning.”
Hmmmmm, you forgot “access to (fill in the blank)_____”
One of the advantages touted by Billy Tauzin and Dick Armey when they advocated either a national sales tax or a flat tax (with few loopholes) was the transparency of seeing the true cost of government (assuming the cost is paid by the tax raised rather than deficit spending). In the case of the sales tax, seeing that 15-18% at the bottom of each receipt would be, at the very least, educational. Neal Boortz’ Fair Tax had provisions whereby the poorest would receive a rebate each month, so that “punishing the poorest and most vulnerable” would be off the table.
The trouble with a national sales tax is the cost of implementing it. States spend a lot of money on compliance with their sales tax rules. Every cash business hides sales in order to avoid the tax. Having an army of auditors roaming the countryside would be costly and probably not effective.
A flat income tax, however, would use the same apparatus in place now so it would be cheaper to install. I’m fine with having progressive rates too. Let Mitt Romney pay 25% and Joe the plumber pay 12%. If you end the tax on business and hike taxes on the rich, you get more business investment, which means more jobs and money for everyone.
Here in Nevada our newly elected Republican assembly and our Rhino governor just passed a very significant tax increase, including a business tax. To give more money, so they say, to our failing schools. That’s the ticket, send more money to a demonstrably bad organization. The voters passed (twice, as is the constitutional requirement) an amendment which required a two thirds majority to increase taxes. Every last Democrat voted yea, needless to say, and the turncoat Repubs will have cushy jobs awaiting their removal in the next election. But we can take it all down, and we will, in ’16 because we need only 58 thousand signatures to put the tax increase repeal on the ballot. The amendment was passed with 80%, the new ballot measure would require only a bare majority.
But it’s all a holding action in a retreat.
That’s the pattern everywhere. The Bipartisan Grand Fusion Party works against the interests of the people. I think even at the state level winning a spot in the legislature is like hitting the lottery. These otherwise unemployable people get in office and suddenly see they can cash in by going with the program. The old line is that no man is so virtuous that he can resist the highest bidder.
The train is traveling left. You may, if you wish, walk toward the caboose, but you are not traveling to the right.
One of W’s big brags in his first presidential run was his reduction in Texas property taxes. If you did not pay more actual taxes (they just increased the valuations, QED), then you maybe saved $20 for the annual property rental Texas charges.
If the left one don’t get you then the right one will.
A conservative is a person who goes only part of the way the left goes. So if, say, the lefties go hard to the left with their socialist plans to make lifers living hell for the residents of a nation, a conservative will lean a little bit that way but not too much. Thus an open border demand will have conservatives saying immigration should be allowed under certain flexible rules.
Thus the conservative will be condemned by the media for not being ‘fully on board’ and being ‘on the wrong side of history’ and in fear and shame the conservatives will therefore gradually weaken even their modest proposals for some sanity before it all goes belly up.
In other words, conservatives are hesitant lefties these days.
How do you feel about Flat Tax? Putin likes it.
Thank you for taking the time to answer. Your response is limited to fiscal/tax policy, which I can understand since the issues are myriad. It is much more nuanced than I expected and gives me a lot to think about. For example if Republicans favor needless borrowing than they are not conservatives. If we are under attack, then I say borrow, but otherwise we have to live within our means. I have been viscerally anti-tax but I see your point that in a democracy we raise taxes to pay for the government we choose to have. I would eliminate most ferderal departments, but this does not seem what the majority wants to do. I am a Calvin Coolidge fan, but the chances of electing another Silent Cal are nil. Your last paragraph could be turned into a book, or a college political science course.