After November, Then What?
Happy Labor Day. For most of our neighbors, election season really begins tomorrow. Republicans, led by conservatives, are poised to do extremely well in November. But what then? The statist project has burrowed into our constitutional republic over a span of 80 years. How do we stage a concerted, long-term effort to reverse the trend, first by reigniting economic growth to ward off immediate calamity, then by slowly and methodically restoring our country?
I offer here my own omnibus American Liberty and Recovery Act of 2011, fully realizing that it is too ambitious in scope -- one of many reasons why I'm not a politician.
Liberty
- Repeal Obamacare. If repeal is vetoed refuse to fund implementation of the bill.
- Reform health care (for real this time) by permitting consumers to purchase health insurance across state lines. Also, equalize the tax treatment of employer-provided and individually-purchased health insurance.
- Deny EPA funding to regulate carbon dioxide, eliminating this backdoor effort at centralized industrial policy via administratively enacted cap and trade.
- Direct Treasury to unwind and privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
- Direct Treasury to sell its stakes in US banks and automakers.
- Reverse the Gulf of Mexico oil-drilling ban.
- Repeal Obama’s new CAFÉ standards – automaker stimulus we can believe in.
- Repeal Dodd-Frank financial regulation – avoid the coming nightmare.
- Repeal Sarbanes-Oxley financial regulation – end the nightmare we already know by bringing back small company IPOs.
- Repeal the ethanol mandate for automobile fuel. Direct EPA to preempt state-by-state custom fuel blends, creating a truly national market.
Recovery
- Extend the Bush tax cuts – all of them.
- Reduce the US corporate income tax rate, at 35 percent the second highest on earth, to 15 percent. Get out of the way as corporate dollars and jobs flood back into America.
- Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax. One tax system at a time is enough.
- Implement an Accelerated Cost Recovery System modeled on the Reagan-era depreciation schedule to spur investment in plant and equipment. Watch American small businesses start growing again.
- Enact the Ryan plan to place entitlement spending on a more sustainable trajectory
- Weed TARP and stimulus dollars out of the federal budget baseline. Return overall federal spending to pre-financial crisis levels.
So, fellow Ricochetans, if you were the incoming Speaker in the 112th Congress, what would you do in the first 100 days to save our country from the current crisis and set the stage for 2012 and beyond?
- Comment (41)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: After November, Then What?
Right about now, I'd settle for complete government gridlock. First, just stop kicking me in the groin. I'll worry about getting an ice bag later.
Jul '10
Re: After November, Then What?
Repeal the ban on incandescent light bulbs.
Seriously.
Who remembers any of the "accomplishments" of the 1994 Contract with America?
Nobody.
Except for one: repeal of Jimmy Carter's 55-mile-per-hour national speed limit. Repeal was wildly-popular. Every time they drove past a new 70-mph highway sign, Americans felt a real, tangible victory over the Washington elites.
Symbolism matters, folks. And the idea of huddling in our living rooms, bathed in the weak, ghastly glow of compact fluorescent light bulbs will be a permanent, gloomy reminder of our serfdom.
Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour-light bulb!
Edited on Sep 6, 2010 at 10:15amJun '10
Re: After November, Then What?
Nice set of suggestions. I actually think Liberty 2 and Recovery 6 are achievable.
Edited on Sep 6, 2010 at 9:18amJul '10
Re: After November, Then What?
Absolutely repeal Obamacare and all the rest but, in addition to extending the Bush tax cuts, repealing AMT, I would push for a flat tax.
Edited on Sep 6, 2010 at 9:52amJun '10
Re: After November, Then What?
Great prescription Dr Savage - all are important. As to Speaker Pilgrim's first action in the 112th Congress; I would thank and dismiss the Simpson/Bowles Deficit Commission, stating the Article One of the Constitution gives sole power to the House of Representatives to initiate taxing and spending measures and that the House views a presidential commission to be extra-constitutional and of no weight. I would then propose a "grand bargain:" we would accept taking the income tax back to Clinton-era rates if spending were likewise taken back to Clinton-era levels. Our creditors would then have reason to believe that we were worthly of continued forbearance while we worked on Dr Savage's prescriptions..
Edited on Sep 6, 2010 at 9:57amAug '10
Re: After November, Then What?
Lovely set of suggestions overall -- especially repealing ObamaCare.
But this goal has me worried as to its long-term implications:
George Savage:
I'm a bit wary about giving the EPA more power to pre-empt state decisions for any reason. Mightn't this set a precedent that comes back to haunt our liberties later, when we're not looking? (If they get the power to mandate relaxing fuel standards now, what's to keep them from mandating truly impossible fuel standards later?)
Kenneth: Repeal the ban on incandescent light bulbs.
Seriously.
Kenneth, I don't know why anyone wouldn't take repealing this ban seriously.
The ultimate environmental purpose of this ban is to reduce CO2 emissions, right? Manmade CO2 emissions may or may not be functioning as a pollutant. But the mercury in CFLs is a known biohazard and pollutant: nobody disputes that.
So to get marginally less of a possible pollutant (one that doesn't pollute in small quantities anyhow), mandate the increase of a known pollutant that does pollute in small quantities?
Brilliant.
Jun '10
Re: After November, Then What?
Ban the practice of earmarks as a legislative prerogative. It won't pass, but it will provide ammo for challengers to use against entrenched opponents. Same should go for other types of graft such as honoraria. If holding office can be made less lucrative, maybe some of the professional grifters will leave by their own accord.
Re: After November, Then What?
Kenneth: Repeal the ban on incandescent light bulbs.
Seriously.
Who remembers any of the "accomplishments" of the 1994 Contract with America?
Nobody.
Except for one: repeal of Jimmy Carter's 55-mile-per-hour national speed limit. Repeal was wildly-popular. Every time they drove past a new 70-mph highway sign, Americans felt a real, tangible victory over the Washington elites.
Symbolism matters, folks. And the idea of huddling in our living rooms, bathed in the weak, ghastly glow of compact fluorescent light bulbs will be a permanent, gloomy reminder of our serfdom.
Repeal the 55-mile-per-hour-light bulb! · Sep 6 at 9:07am
Edited on Sep 06 at 10:15 am
Kenneth, this is a brilliant suggestion. A day doesn't go by when I don't fondly reflect on the denationalization of Washington DC's 55 mph speed limit courtesy of Newt's Contract With America.
While we're at it, let's take out the low-flow toilet as well. As radio show Mark Levin likes to point out: What business does the government have managing your toilets and light bulbs?
Re: After November, Then What?
MFR, I think this is a reasonable use of the commerce clause to actually encourage interstate commerce. Right now, EPA routinely grants waivers to states with stricter-than-federal gasoline requirements -- my own state of California comes to mind. In practice, this means that California is a hermetically sealed gasoline market, often with much much higher prices for fuel than our neighbors in adjoining states.
But let's do it by statute and start slimming EPA down. Okay?
Jul '10
Re: After November, Then What?
Good post Paules....too bad Boehner is already backing away from the no earmarks pledge. Extremely out of touch with America he is.
Aug '10
Re: After November, Then What?
Excellent ideas, all. But here's one more that's critically important for Liberty and Recovery: Require every department of the federal government to justify its budget by stating exactly what they do and how they benefit the nation.
Isn't it great how Jimmy Carter solved our energy problems by creating the Department of Energy? Budget is $95 billion. They employ 4,200 people.
Government solves our education problems with the Education Department: $68.6 billion, and 4,200 people.
Farmers are so inept that they need the feds to help them with the Food and Agriculture Department, $95 billion a year,100,000 people. That's almost one million per employee.
Here's whopper. Makes you wonder why we needed 'healthcare': Health and Human Services: $700 billion; 65,000 employees!
What on earth would we do without a Secretary of Labor? Unemployment would soar! So we spend $50 billion; and they have a staff of 15,000.
My favorite is Housing and urban Development. We never knew how to house or develop until they came along! Their budget is $40 billion, and they employ 9,000. That's $4.4 per employee.
See more at www.whitehouse.gov.
Jul '10
Re: After November, Then What?
You should read John Batchelor's article on Boehner over at The Daily Beast.
Brutal. Brutal.
Byron York was chatting with Laura Ingraham the other day about why the GOP "leadership" is backing away from Obamacare repeal. He has been talking to them personally.
And they say they're terrified to mention it because people might react badly to "losing" their new "benefits".
I was so angry I did what I always do when I'm agitated. Started cleaning and oiling my AR-15.
So soothing.
May '10
Re: After November, Then What?
... because people might react badly to "losing" their new "benefits".
I was so angry I did what I always do when I'm agitated. Started cleaning and oiling my AR-15.
And so it begins...
Aug '10
Re: After November, Then What?
George Savage
MFR, I think this is a reasonable use of the commerce clause to actually encourage interstate commerce. Right now, EPA routinely grants waivers to states with stricter-than-federal gasoline requirements -- my own state of California comes to mind. In practice, this means that California is a hermetically sealed gasoline market, often with much much higher prices for fuel than our neighbors in adjoining states.
But let's do it by statute and start slimming EPA down. Okay? · Sep 6 at 10:41am
OK.
I've seen so many misapplications of the commerce clause that in my paranoia I tend to forget it must have legitimate applications, too.
Kenneth's comment below is a scream, though.
Edited on Sep 6, 2010 at 11:59amJul '10
Re: After November, Then What?
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Benjamin Franklin:
"That's it? Isn't that a little, uh, terse?"
James Madison:
"Short and sweet. Says what needs to be said."
Franklin:
"...among the several States. So...if someone in New Hampshire wants to sell pickles to someone in Vermont and the Legislature of Vermont deems those pickles not up to Vermont standards..."
Madison:
"Well, honestly, Ben. I think the citizens of Vermont and New Hampshire would work that out among themselves. Surely only a madman would expect the Federal government to delve into such minutiae."
John Hancock:
"What about Happy Meals? Or flame-retardant pyjamas?"
Sep '10
Re: After November, Then What?
Jul '10
Re: After November, Then What?
Governing matters,but the messaging about the governiong also matters. A lot.
If we summarize the concerns that are driving Americans to the polls and away from the Democrats it is that a) "They don't listen/care" b) "they are spending us broke" c) "they aren't fixing the economy" and d) "they are trying to run my life.
The beauty of the Contract with America is that it explicitly laid out how the Republicans were going to address the concerns of the American People. I think we must have a similar document that tells the people how we plan to address their concerns and provides a measuring sitck as to progress.And the framework is probably more important than the specific items. "Here are the things we will do to show we are listening to you". "Here are the things we will do to stop the Democrat power grab". "Here is what will will do to light up the economy while holding the line on spending". "Here are the changes we must make to give our children and grandchildren a secure future". "Here is how we will return to you your liberty".
Aug '10
Re: After November, Then What?
Patrick in Albuquerque
7. Define new gas guzzler tax to keep new guzzlers off the road, and to fund incentives for purchase of high mileage vehicles.
If you're worried about fossil-fuel consumption, mightn't it make more sense to instead, say, relax the draconian (and, as France has proven, unnecessary) US restrictions on building nuclear power plants?
For one thing, coal is dirtier than gasoline.
For another, as Cas just pointed out, the government and auto industry have such an incestuous relationship that so far, fuel-efficiency standards may have paradoxically put more "gas guzzlers" on the road (as so many exemptions have been made for the most fuel-inefficient vehicles).
Why expect a tax on "guzzlers" to be any different? It would undoubtedly come with numerous numerous carve-outs, carve-outs that may have the unintended consequence of putting even more guzzlers on the road, rather than fewer.
Perhaps the best way the government can help us purchase low-mileage vehicles is simply by not bailing out the Big Autos, who lose so much money on their fuel-efficient cars that they make up the loss by sales on guzzlers that fall outside the fuel-efficiency restrictions.
Edited on Sep 6, 2010 at 12:58pmJul '10
Re: After November, Then What?
Patrick in Albuquerque · Sep 6 at 11:54am
Huh? Wha'?
Do not touch my gas guzzler. Markets work, pal. When gas prices go high enough, I'll replace it my own self, without government forcing you and your children to fork over a subsidy to pay for my car.
Go there and I'll be replacing my vehicle every two years and your family will be subsisting on ramen noodles just to pay for my shiny new ride.
As for amnesty, don't even get me started.
Edited on Sep 6, 2010 at 12:55pmRe: After November, Then What?
Meet with the Trial Lawyers Association, now called "American Association For Justice" or something lame like that. Find out what they want done to the legal system and implement the opposite immediately.