So We Win in 2012. Then What?
I blame Mark Steyn for this sentiment, but I fear that even a landslide our way in 2012 will be too little too late. We could elect the most conservative president in the history of ever, and have TEA party senators and representatives running the capitol building, but would it really usher in the conservative version of kittens and rainbows?
Consider the Department of Education. It's budget is just over $63 billion and it employs 4200 people. Are we really just going to board it up? What will become of the local school district employees whose sole function it is to document compliance with the myriad federal requirements tied to the money provided through Title I and other programs? We know these things are ridiculous and unnecessary, but can we simply end them without cushioning the impact of such a decision? And this is just one cabinet level department with a relatively small budget.
We need to have that adult conversation Paul Ryan is always talking about. We as a nation need to reevaluate how much government we are willing to pay for and what services from government we are willing to live without. What concrete recommendations would we Ricocheteers make to our lawmakers and leaders on how to save our nation?
- Comment (36)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
As Ted Kennedy said, "I'll cross that bridge when I come to it."
Apr '11
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
Here's a challenge to Mark Steyn, Jonah, Derb, Rush, Mark Levin, VDH, Paul Rahe, Tom Sowell - - - all of the greatest essayists: we've 'won' the great national debate over the size and role of government. It is now time for the greatest peacetime propaganda campaign of all time. You polemicists must now turn your talents toward preventing class civil warfare. We are not doomed anymore. As a people we have taken the first step by electing the leaders King Prawn describes, but in only two short years the Midterms could take away all of the momentum. Your new task is to convince the millions feeling short-term pain due to the comprehensive rollback of the welfare state that everyone will be better off in the long run. "We had no choice" isn't going to take us very far. We need to know what to say to that one individual on Main Street USA why he had to sacrifice, and why it's better for everyone to cut taxes even for the rich (job creators).
Apr '11
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
[cont.]
Pelosi [Biden?] said, "paying higher taxes is patriotic" - - - the new message must be something better than "going cold turkey on handouts is patriotic".
There is going to be an insurgency. We need a Petraeus of Propaganda who this time has the plan in place before the invasion.
Oct '10
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
KP, you're right. You could shrink every Agency of the Executive back to it's size under Washington and if the entitlement programs remained untouched the country would still be screwed.
I think the key is the middle class - get them off welfare and the task becomes tractable. This requires a moral, rather than a managerial, transformation. There would still be a permanent underclass to wean off dependency, but having something to aspire to, something more than crass consumerism, can only be a good thing.
A slim hope, perhaps, but better than none.
Edited on August 19, 2011 at 11:43amAug '10
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
Sign me up ! Wont we need alot of riot police ?
Jul '11
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
At least the with the president and Congress you describe we would be in a position to follow the age-old advice: "When you're in a hole, stop digging!". Getting all the way out of the hole will not be easy, but simply refraining from making things worse will be a critical step. Perhaps even the hardest step ... look at all the gnashing of teeth we've had to endure with those "draconian" cuts from the budget deal ... cuts that amount to essentially nothing. Once people begin to accept that government need not perpetually grow, the idea that it can actually shrink becomes more palatable.
One step a time, dear boy, one step at a time.
Edited on August 19, 2011 at 5:05pmFeb '11
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
The effect on Federal employees needn't be a huge problem. You could close the Dept of Ed and still pay everyone's salary for a couple of years without conditions (i.e. even if they find other work). This would cushion the blow to them, encourage them to get another job, but still deregulate education on a massive scale. The problem is that I'm sure the Dept of Ed has myriad vendors, private contractors, etc who would feel the pain from day one. Any way we slice it there will be someone hurt in the short term and the media will work overtime to make their pain (1) known by everyone and (2) seem horribly unjust.
Still, we have to start somewhere. I agree with King Prawn that we might be too late. We may have already reached the point that democratic means will only increase the size of gov't, that 51% will never agree to shutter any substantial gov't program. In that case, we are doomed, and the only question is how soon.
I'll change my mind when I see a federal budget smaller than the previous years. Even Reagan didn't do that.
Jan '11
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
The possible (inevitable?) upheaval that would take place should government departments/programs be eliminated is a tough problem.
Should the Republicans win big in 2012, the initial steps should be strong pro-growth policies. Then after the economy becomes stronger, departments could be eliminated. A healthy, growing economy would soften blow. It would still required robust vocal support from us, as mentioned above.
While spending needs to be reduced, I would think it a mistake to start just cutting off entire departments before making other efforts to improve the economy.
Jan '11
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
duplicate
Edited on August 19, 2011 at 4:57pmMay '10
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
For sure it's too late for merely better governance. I think we're looking at one of the following:
1) societal collapse.
2) a act of God
3) widespread conversion of hearts and minds
I'm not yet persuaded that incremental change back to good is impossible. But for sure it will have to be cultural, moral, and religious as well as legal and political.
In any case, let's get started wherever we can. Despair is not an option.
Dec '10
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
It wasn't that long ago that we had a republican president and congress. They didn't attempt to return government to its constitutional roll even slightly. Rather, they grew government exponentially on a social welfare program just like the left would do. The left demonized that compassionately conservative president as though he was beating orphans and stealing blankets from the homeless elderly. A real conservative will face a tremendous headwind.
Even with such opposition our victors must be bold if the country is to be saved Incremental change certainly will not work. As Mark Steyn points out, we don't have time for that. Any change will be painful, so a hearts and minds campaign will be difficult at best. I haven't read John Derbyshire's book, but I keep getting a sneaking suspicion that we are doomed.
I think Genferei hit the nail on the head. We have to get the middle class off the government teat. Our nation and economy are robust enough to handle a permanently dependent lower class, but nursing the middle class has bankrupted us. Getting it done may take, as Katievs stated, either a societal collapse or an act of God.
Dec '10
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
katievs:
In any case, let's get started wherever we can. Despair is not an option. · Aug 19 at 7:57am
I'm laughing riotously right now because I composed my entire reply post (complete with two edits) and did not see your last sentence until after I posted it. You are exactly right Katievs, despair does not help. What would help, I think, would be a president who could lead us through the pain and fear of change and congressional leaders who understand the problem (Paul Ryan) can devise solutions to said problems (Paul Ryan) and are bold enough to see those solutions through the legislative process (Michele Bachmann).
Jul '11
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
You make a good point. But Bush ran on a platform under the guise "Compassionate Conservatism". There was absolutely no mandate for rolling back government spending. But the context of your post was:
We could elect the most conservative president in the history of ever, and have TEA party senators and representatives running the capitol building ...
Such a body of elected officials would have campaigned on, and won victories because of, explicit promises to rein in spending. With that electoral blessing, I don't see the possibilities of taking meaningful first steps in that direction as being remote. The likelihood of actually achieving that electoral blessing, however, well...
... that's where despair creeps in.
Aug '10
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
Simply freezing the federal budget at current spending levels would save $9 trillion over the next 10 years and would be a good start. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent and then once the economy picks up you can make the case for eliminating departments like Education, Energy, etc (when you eliminate a cabinet level department you don't necessarily eliminate all of that Dept's functions so some of the employees would still have work).
We are never gonna get this thing back to where it should be but if we can just get it back to the 1990s that would be quite an accomplishment..
Edited on August 19, 2011 at 6:38pmMay '10
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
This is why Ryan is our best hope. I think the continually deteriorating economy between now and November will make Obama's defeat as certain as Hoover's was in 1932. What will HAVE to happen in the meantime, after the GOP candidate's nomination is assured, is that discussion.
It's a lot like, "Now that we know it was Bin Laden/the Japanese Empire/Hitler, how do we win the "war?" Ryan is the right one to lead that discussion. The reason Obama keeps harping about "shared sacrifice" is that the public is starting to get itself ready to accept that. They just don't think Barry is the right doctor to be in charge of the regimen of necessary treatment.
You would be surprised what Americans are willing to do in the way of sacrifice once they are convinced of the threat (Ryan Ryan Ryan) and SOLD on the solution.
I'm optimistic. Ryan should be preparing a series of "Fireside Powerpoints." ;)
Jul '11
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
Here are some very reasonable solutions from former comptroller general David Walker. Read the section titled "About the Book". The man has been meeting for a year with multiple high level politicians as well as Biden, Bernanke, and Greenspan. Unfortunately, he believes that no one in Washington is serious about reform yet.
Mar '11
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
I agree with M.T.S. that cutting government jobs will go down much easier if the private sector is growing. I think this will have to be done gradually. It is easy to understand conceptually that human capital is being squandered pushing Form 10C to subdepartment J where it needs to be signed in triplicate before moving on to the environmental impact study, etc., but it will be too much of a shock to the electorate to cut cabinet level departments on day 1 of the Ryan administration. The government grew at the private sector's expense, now it needs to shrink as fast as the private sector can absorb it. If it shrinks too much faster, we will have Greek style riots.
Edited on August 19, 2011 at 6:49pmMay '11
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
You can't cross a chasm in baby steps.
Jun '10
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
I think Dr. Bean is exactly right that the economy and our whole country would be better served by eliminating entire departments (Education, EPA, and on and on) even if we had to keep on paying the employees. Granted, the notion of giving overpaid bureaucrats paid for doing nothing rankles.
I say we free them up for useful, productive work.
Oct '10
Re: So We Win in 2012. Then What?
I had the same thought during the debt ceiling "crisis" - it seems like the only realistic way to cut spending. It was spun by leftists and most media outlets as pure politics, rather than an honest attempt to restore sanity to the nation's balance sheet.
When I think about how many 'conservatives' are dependent on federal subsidies and government contracts, I get really depressed.