What should the GOP stand for?

[kallend 2,182]

From The Atlantic:

Preventing President Obama and Democrats from doing things they don't like doesn't constitute a governing platform. Should the GOP take a more moderate position on immigration reform, which is popular with the public as a whole and could help the GOP with Hispanics? How about gun control, where large public majorities disagree with NRA-style Second Amendment absolutism? Are hardline Republican stances on gay marriage and abortion alienating young voters and women? Taxes and spending have been the party's traditional strength, but Obama had the public on his side in raising taxes on the wealthy, and he used Paul Ryan's proposals for trimming entitlements as a bludgeon in the presidential campaign. And when it comes to a foreign policy, Republicans are all over the map.

This is the real crisis facing the GOP: Articulating a set of stances on issues that majorities of voters agree with, in a way that convinces people they'd be able to govern if given the chance.

At the Republican National Committee's winter meeting in Charlotte this week, I posed the question, parlor-game-style, to a wide swath of GOP leaders from all over the country: What did they think the party ought to stand for? If they recited the mantra of "smaller government, lower taxes," I tried to get them to say what significant parts of the government they'd reduce and whose taxes they would cut. Here are some of the answers I got.

Dana Randall, South Dakota national committeeman: "In South Dakota, they're spending money to chase elk out of a national park, when they could be making money off people to hunt them. Our national forests could be handled more responsibly. After 9/11, they built all these fancy fences around the airport in Aberdeen, but the fence is hanging open!"
Jay Shepard, Vermont national committeeman: "I have a bit of an issue with the idea that we have to stand for something specific on every issue. Why do we have to be the pro-life party, when a huge number of Republicans are pro-choice? Why are we the only party having this discussion? You can get six Republicans talking about immigration reform and you'll hear eight opinions. We need to let people know we're not always top-down."

Mark Willis, Maine national committeeman: "A noninterventionist foreign policy, the abolition of the TSA, and ending the Federal Reserve."

Newt Gingrich, former House speaker: "We need to stand for the kind of problem-solving that leads to more economic growth, more jobs and more take-home pay. A health system that enables people to have the longest life at the lowest cost. It's going to take a decade or more of inventing big, conservative solutions .... House Republicans ought to hold hearings focused on waste and specific scandals. A lot of Republicans, frankly, spent the last two years saying, 'Oh, gee, we don't have to do much because after Obama loses we'll be in charge.' Well, now that world has ended."

Dave Agema, Michigan national committeeman: "Traditional family values. Fiscal conservatism, yet willing to help those in need. That's what we really are. We should have a basic safety net, but too often it becomes a hammock. Our values are what make America great -- a mom and a dad. Look what we have today with all these broken families. They have a much higher possibility of being poor."

Saul Anuzis, former Michigan Republican Party chairman: "The opportunity society -- the argument Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich used to make. There's a desire for it. People are just scared right now, so they want a bigger social safety net .... I don't think we can win being the party of 'no.' We've got to do something more.'"

Steve Scheffler, Iowa national committeeman: "We need to stand by our principles and not deviate. Mitt Romney had a mushy message. He didn't say anything but 'We need to get rid of Obama.' We need to talk about restoring fiscal sanity to the budget, but we can't talk about it in generic terms."

Curly Haugland, North Dakota national committeeman: "We need to reaffirm our vision of every individual in America being allowed to keep the fruits of their labor, and refute this socialism or fascism or whatever you want to call it that Obama has instituted. We should be cutting spending on this green energy. It's a disaster. There are windmills all over Iowa and North Dakota and South Dakota. It's ideology, not economics. It's a redistribution of wealth to produce something of almost no value. Wind power is practically worthless."

Mike Duncan, Kentucky national committeeman, former RNC chairman: "The trade-offs EPA is making on coal-fired power plants are costing jobs all over the country. Coal mine jobs, utility jobs, and they're costing people money through higher electric prices. When Nixon started the EPA in 1970, the air was terrible. Now, we've reduced 85 percent of the particulates in the air, and the amount being argued about is so small."

Jim Bopp, Republican National Conservative Caucus, Indiana: "Smaller government, lower taxes, so we can have more economic vitality. Yes, in this election, voters favored Obama on higher taxes on upper-income people, and he's now got that. But that's why we have periodic elections. Did he think when the people spoke in 2010 that that was the be-all and end-all?"

Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary: "Inclusiveness. We don't have to agree on every issue. We need to say to people we disagree with on certain issues, 'We welcome you.' ... There are people who need government, and we should recognize that. We want there to be fewer and fewer people needing government, but we have to recognize that some people do."

Glenn McCall, South Carolina national committeeman: "There are things we could cut in the Department of Education, even Defense. I served in the Air Force for 24 years. There's waste and abuse in every agency. In corporate America, you make cuts because you have to, and people whine and cry, but you get by."

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana governor: "Education policy. We need to be fighting for real choice, where the dollars follow the child instead of the child following the dollars. We need to be fighting to simplify our tax code, getting rid of all those distortions and loopholes. I've proposed getting rid of the income tax in Louisiana."

Lenny Curry, Florida Republican Party chairman: "There has to be some level of taxation or you get anarchy. It's up to Congress and the president to make those decisions. We have to fix the debt problem, and that is going to have to include reforming Medicare and Medicaid. We want them to exist in the future, but they have to be reformed. What we don't need to be is the party that stands in the middle of the road yelling, 'Stop, this is bad.'"

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[BIGUN 1,505]

Quote

Bobby Jindal’s Speech to the Republican National Committee in Charlotte

Here are seven things that I believe we must change if we are to amass a following worthy of our principles, and if we are to be in position to win elections and lead America:

1. We must stop looking backward. We have to boldly show what the future can look like with the free market policies that we believe in. Many of our Governors are doing just that. Conservative ideals are aspirational, and our country is aspirational. Nostalgia about the good old days is heart-warming, but the battle of ideas must be waged in the future.

2. We must compete for every single vote. The 47 percent and the 53 percent. And any other combination of numbers that adds up to 100 percent. President Barack Obama and the Democrats can continue trying to divide America into groups of warring communities with competing interests, but we will have none of it. We are going after every vote as we work to unite all Americans.

3. We must reject identity politics. The old notion that ours should be a colorblind society is the right one, and we should pursue that with vigor. Identity politics is corrosive to the great American melting pot and we reject it. We must reject the notion that demography is destiny, the pathetic and simplistic notion that skin pigmentation dictates voter behavior. We must treat all people as individuals rather than as members of special interest groups. The first step in getting the voters to like you is to demonstrate that you like them.

4. We must stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican party that talks like adults. It’s time for us to articulate our plans and visions for America in real terms. We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. We’ve had enough of that.

5. We must stop insulting the intelligence of voters. We need to trust the smarts of the American people. We have to stop dumbing down our ideas and stop reducing everything to mindless slogans and tag lines for 30-second ads. We must be willing to provide details in describing our views.

6. We must quit “big.” We are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, or big anything. We must not be the party that simply protects the well off so they can keep their toys. We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive. We are the party whose ideas will help the middle class, and help more folks join the middle class. We are a populist party and need to make that clear.

7. We must focus on real people outside of Washington, not the lobbyists and government inside Washington. We must stop competing with Democrats for the job of “Government Manager,” and lay out ideas that can unleash the dynamic abilities of the American people. We need an equal opportunity society, one in which government does not see its job as picking winners and losers. Where do you go if you want special favors? Government. Where do you go if you want a tax break? Government. Where do you go if you want a handout? Government. This must stop. Our government must pursue a level playing field. At present, government is the un-leveler of the playing field.


SOURCE: http://washingtonexaminer.com/full-text-bobby-jindals-dynamite-speech-to-the-republican-national-committee-in-charlotte/article/2519682?custom_click=rss#.UQKXP2fpyeY

With regard to fiscal policy, I would support:

Federal Agencies (Departments) that could sustain an immediate 33% in cuts are outlined in the CATO Institute's. "Downsizing the Federal Government." http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/

In addition; I would increase some funding to the SBA and Department of Energy.
NASA's role would change to that of Oceanic exploration.
Dismantle & reorganize Homeland Security.
Dismantle TSA
Remove the Patriot Act.
Implement a Constitutional Balanced Budget "Amendment" over a ten year period.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[wmw999 2,602]

As a long-time NASA contractor, it'd be hard to change it over to ocean exploration -- far easier simply to disband NASA and expand NOAA if you want to leave space out. But I'd disagree with that overall.

OTOH, your thoughts on disbanding things, rather than trying to "improve" them, is great. I'm all for removing things that we don't need. Might need to be done slowly so that people can get used to some of it, but starting with the newer ones like TSA, DHS, and the Patriot Act is a good place to start -- they're not as entrenched.

Going through the IRS code with a view to ONLY eliminating things (i.e. not trying to increase or decrease revenue), based on the number of people they impact (the fewer people, the more susceptible to removal) sounds like another way to, in the long run, simplify the tax code. Yeah, that hits the super-rich tax, but if it also reduces the overall tax code to something more manageable, it might make some sense to people then.

We have to remember that all those complexities were put in based on actual experience, and in many cases, the people who had those actual experiences are still around to say "see, I told you we needed that."

So the other thing that's needed to eliminate things is the stomach to deal with the unhappiness, and the ability to either let people, or help people, to deal with the outcome.

Let's face it -- rich people have an easier time than poor people in dealing with everything, and this is getting to be more true, not less true, over time. Attractive though it may be to say "everyone has the same chance," every single parent who pays for their kid to go to a good college, or who moves to a good school district, or who pays for braces so their kid won't look unattractive, knows that this isn't the case.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[BIGUN 1,505]

Quote

far easier simply to disband NASA and expand NOAA if you want to leave space out. But I'd disagree with that overall.

You know, I started to go down that path, but the collective minds and similarities between both agencies is quite a brain trust. Your thoughts on combining the two?

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[wmw999 2,602]

That could make a fair amount of sense. I'm not sure of the differences between the physics of keeping pressure out vs. keeping pressure in, but certainly for near-earth activity much of hte human stuff is the same.

Long-term, they're very different, but that might be down teh road anyway.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,182]

Jindal is a very thoughtful guy. I hope he goes into national politics.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

What should the GOP stand for?

Get Out, Palin!

[BIGUN 1,505]

Quote

Jindal is a very thoughtful guy. I hope he goes into national politics.

I've had the pleasure of dinner with him on several occasions and would agree... But, don't think he will.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.