[Mb-civic] AMUSING AND BARBED: Borrow-and-spend conservatism - Scot Lehigh - Boston Globe Op-Ed

[William Swiggard]

Borrow-and-spend conservatism

By Scot Lehigh, Globe Columnist  |  October 13, 2005

THE BILLS are piling up at home, and I have to admit, it's having an 
effect on my political philosophy.

I'm thinking of becoming a conservative.

If you're one of that vanishing breed of traditional conservatives, 
perhaps you think you can guess my motivation: If I could help bring 
about a leaner, more limited government, I might ultimately see less of 
my paycheck disappear in federal taxes.

Oh, you poor naif. Sorry, but that thinking is so pre-supply side as to 
be positively antediluvian. Why, it's as ancient and outmoded as the 
hoary notion of sober, Main Street, balanced-budget Republicanism.

Actually, my thinking is much more basic: These days, being a 
conservative means you don't have to pay your bills at all. You just 
pass them on to the next generation.

At least that's my conclusion from studying the complex combination of 
ironclad rules and unspoken assumptions that guides the modern right.

Let's start with a case study that shows the rules in action.

Hurricane Katrina recently devastated New Orleans and wreaked havoc on 
the Gulf Coast.

It took a while for the news to reach the Bush administration, but once 
the Pony Express finally arrived, the president sprang into action. He's 
now called for a huge rebuilding effort, one that's apparently going to 
cost at least $200 billion, and perhaps a good deal more.

Given that the federal government is already spending some $300 billion 
a year more than it takes in, the interesting question arises of just 
how the reconstruction will be paid for. Some have suggested a tax 
increase on the well-to-do.

But this is where Rule Number 4 of modern conservatism comes into play: 
You just don't raise taxes after a national disaster. US Representative 
Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana and chairman of the so-called 
conservative caucus, explained it this way to The New York Times: 
"Raising taxes in the wake of a national catastrophe would imperil the 
very economic growth we need to bring the Gulf Coast back."

I have to admit, that was a rule I wasn't familiar with. (Like Harriet 
Miers, I'm apparently going to have to do some cramming for my new role.)

But since George Bush took office, I've become very familiar with Rules 
1 through 3, all of which pertain to cutting taxes.

Here's Rule Number 1: If you have a big surplus, there's an urgent need 
for a tax cut, both to remove the temptation for government to spend the 
largesse and to give taxpayers their money back. (As a moderate, I'm 
somewhat sympathetic to that argument, though I've also thought it might 
make sense to consider the nation's long-term needs first.)

Then there's Rule Number 2: If the economy seems to be sliding into 
recession, there's a pressing need for a tax cut to stave off economic 
bad times. (I'm still not sure I understand why that tax relief has to 
be targeted disproportionately to upper earners, mind you, but then, I'm 
just trying to master the basics.)

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/10/13/borrow_and_spend_conservatism/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20051013/0d8cc273/attachment.htm