Republicans vs. Big Business
Tim Carney over at The Washington Examiner has a very interesting piece today, and it's worth looking at. (Hat tip to the ever-brilliant Matt Welch).
Carney points out that Obama's populist rhetoric -- all that blather about "corporate jets" and "millionaires and billionaires" -- opens up an opportunity for Republicans to get a little populism of their own. For instance:
Start with the handouts such as billions in direct grants, in the name of "green energy," to big, well-connected companies like Florida Power & Light. Then there are the green energy loan guarantees, also enriching revolving-door lobbyists and Big Business.
Along the same lines, Republicans could block this year's reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, a corporate-welfare agency that Obama has been steadily expanding. A majority of all of Ex-Im's loans and long-term guarantees subsidize Boeing sales. Banks love this agency, too, because it provides private profit and socialized risk.
Imagine Republicans running to protect taxpayers and reduce the debt by abolishing Ex-Im, while Obama stands with Boeing, GE and Halliburton in preserving this Fannie Mae for manufacturers.
This is a great idea. Republicans should be the party of Main Street. (And given that Wall Street has been bankrolling Obama, what's the harm?)
But, as Carney notes, the Republicans probably won't adopt the strategy:
Republicans could reshape the debt debate by showing that Big Government is often a way of protecting Big Business from competition and transferring wealth from ordinary taxpayers to whoever has the best lobbyist. But the GOP track record suggests this won't happen.
During the health care debate, Republicans mostly attacked the public option and Medicare cuts -- the provisions that Big Business most opposed. It was the same story during financial regulation: Republicans trained most of their fire on killing a bank tax.
Too bad. It would be fun to watch Obama defend the fat cats.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Republicans vs. Big Business
Tim Carney's work is consistently a must read. I'm a big fan of the "bootleggers and Baptists" model in public choice theory and every day Carney comes up with more evidence that it's true in general and especially in the Obama administration
May '10
Re: Republicans vs. Big Business
They don't call them the "stupid party" for nothing, you know.
In interactions with my liberal-leaning friends I always try to point out how the Dems are the party of Big Business and the Reps are the party of Small Business by illustrating how much tax and labor law is predicated on how many employees you have.
That sounds like a break for small businesses but is actually more of a brake. When they reach those thresholds they either quit hiring or sell out to one of the big boys.
Re: Republicans vs. Big Business
What I find so frustrating is that this is one area where both parties are just so completely corrupt. The reason why Republicans won't bash Dems for this is that they're in bed with the corporations, too.
Reading Carney elevates my blood pressure, but his reporting is key to understanding the lobbying-industrial complex and how its destroying this country, growing the government, gumming up the economy, and otherwise creating insurmountable barriers to entry.
Sep '10
Re: Republicans vs. Big Business
I have always assumed that this is the main reason we do not have a flat tax. Too many favors can be granted deep inside the tax code so that nobody notices except the recipients. It also shows us the brilliance of the founders who knew that government needed to be set against itself and forced to compete with itself. A friend of mine owned a small mortgage brokerage business. He never did a subprime mortgage but he said the trade off that Bankamerica and Well Fargo have made is very high regulatory costs and in exchange they own the market and competition is eliminated. Once the dust settles and they payoff all the pols, they will reap huge returns.
Apr '11
Re: Republicans vs. Big Business
Hmmm. And who is the most populist GOP politician? Who has the fealty of the Tea Party which different polls show may be composed of anywhere from 15-40% democrats and independents? Who will shortly throw her hat in the ring? Why she who shall not be named (especially on Ricochet).
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/10/palin-plots-her-next-move.html
http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitpic/photos/large/342965622.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJF3XCCKACR3QDMOA&Expires=1310399823&Signature=MN1NNgLTfag8z9U5o2LGAPA0Kto%3D
Edited on Jul 11, 2011 at 8:41amMar '11
Re: Republicans vs. Big Business
I, too, despise the crony capitalism employed by both parties. I'd LOVE to vote for a Republican who did not do it!
Is that a flying pig?
Jun '11
Re: Republicans vs. Big Business
The Progressives have dusted off and revived FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act.
What a shocker.
Re: Republicans vs. Big Business
So Republicans give tax breaks to "Big Oil", and Democrats give billions in handouts to "Big Green." If "Big Green" weren't also the mascot of my alma mater, I'd be thrilled to have just coined a name for the new rhetorical bogeyman.
Oct '10
Re: Republicans vs. Big Business
Yes! It's about being pro-market, not pro-business. Luigi Zingales from the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago sums it up here:
[The Republican party] has to move from a pro-business strategy that defends the interests of existing companies to a pro-market strategy that fosters open competition and freedom of entry. While the two agendas sometimes coincide—as in the case of protecting property rights—they are often at odds. Established firms are threatened by competition and frequently use their political muscle to restrict new entries into their industry, strengthening their positions but putting their customers at a disadvantage.
And Paul Ryan says "Down With Big Business" in this column.
Edited on Jul 11, 2011 at 11:15amAug '10
Re: Republicans vs. Big Business
Rob Long:
Sounds like an excellent idea to me (why are we loaning money to other countries so that they'll buy our stuff?). But I wonder if the protectionists/neomercantilists among us will see it the same way.
At any rate, I'm about as optimistic as Carey is about the likelihood of Republicans carrying through with these reforms. Not because Republicans are fatcats (at least, no more so than Democrats), but because economic populism is only popular when it's the other guy's interest getting skewered, not yours.
My dad was a rabid economic populist -- except when it came to industries he worked in. Then he'd whinge that outsiders just didn't understand.
Comments on Carey's article are about as dismaying as the article is refreshing. There's the "nuts to free trade, it should be fair trade or NO trade" shtick, and another guy boosting the prognostications of one Richard Duncan, whose spiel is that we're doomed to return to Stone Age because of fossil fuel depletion.
Sep '10
Re: Republicans vs. Big Business
Lending other countries money to buy our stuff...hmmm lets see how that worked out for Germany and France lending to Greece et al....to say nothing of Lucent if we want to go way back into ancient history, like '99. They never learn because the benefits to them are greater than the costs to them ...until voters raise the cost.
Mar '11
Re: Republicans vs. Big Business
Rob,
I am curious about your statement "Republicans should be the party of Main Street" mostly because, if I am not mistaken, that is exactly what Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat argued some years ago in their book about changing the GOP. It is also the argument that is being put forward, in a different way, in the latest edition of National Affairs by Jay Cost.
My question to you (and our fellow interlocutors) boils down to this: Can the GOP be the party of Main Street and still hold fast to all elements of the Tea Party agenda?
That is: are the two tautological or are they, in some way, at odds?
I ask because, when some of the authors I listed above have been mentioned here previously, they have been charged with being less than "true conservatives"--Douthat in particular.
Oct '10
Re: Republicans vs. Big Business
Crow's Nest: Rob,
That is: are the two tautological or are they, in some way, at odds?
I ask because, when some of the authors I listed above have been mentioned here previously, they have been charged with being less than "true conservatives"--Douthat in particular. · Jul 11 at 12:59pm
I have not read Grand New Party, but my answer to the question about the Tea Party is that the Tea Party is in many ways the "main street" wing of the Republican party.
The agenda is very similar - no more bailouts, no more crony capitalism, fiscal sanity etc.
That is my view...or perhaps just my wishful thinking.
Dec '10
Re: Republicans vs. Big Business
Todd is right! The Tea Party is the "main street" wing of the GOP. The other point, which needs to be stressed over and over, and Jonah Goldberg has made this point far more eloquently, is that Big Business and Big Government are totally aligned. Big Business are not capitalists. They are opportunists in that they seek advantages over competition by raising the cost of entry. One of my favorites illustrations of this was when Bush I signed the Americans with Disabilities Act. Of course, the wording is so vague that the real laws devolve to the regulatory agencies. When the rules were being written for hotel accommodations the major chains were there to plead their case. Marriott, which had already made the marketing decision to furnish rooms for the handicapped vigorously argued for regs that required hotels to re-engineer rooms for the handicapped. Marriott wasn't being compassionate, they were forcing their competition to invest in an area that Marriott had sunk costs and the others would now have to shift costs to fulfill. Also, the more regs for hotel accommodations, the higher the costs for others to enter the hotel business. Big Business, Big Government. Beautiful together.