Legislating out of the majority
In keeping with the theme of my column this week, I wanted to point out what could possibly lie ahead for Georgia Republicans if they continue to pursue their tax-and-spend course. The article is called How to Turn a Red State Blue from February of 2006 and it appeared in the Wall Street Journal. It describes why Republicans lost control in Virginia:
Republicans in that ostensibly "red" Southern state got their clocks cleaned in November's elections after they refused to take a coherent stand on taxes, and Democrat Tim Kaine squeezed to their right on pocketbook issues. As GOP state senator Ken Cuccinelli explained, "We ran on a message of almost being for tax cuts, almost for smaller government, almost for protecting Second Amendment rights, and almost being pro-life. As a result, the voters almost came out and voted for us."Every detail may not be the same (although you can make the argument that we don't have a Republican governor) but Republicans in the Georgia General Assembly, specifically in the State House, are headed down a dangerous path and those who do not learns from lessons of the past are destined to repeat it.And they apparently have learned nothing from that rout. When the legislature reconvened last month, the first proposal from the majority Republicans in the state senate was to endorse a $1 billion tax hike for roads and transit projects -- the second huge tax increase in two years. The GOP plan would increase auto fees, the gas and diesel tax, and even taxes on batteries and tires. This is the same party that last won the governorship under Jim Gilmore in 1997 promising to abolish the very car taxes they now want to increase.
[...]
These tax-hike proposals keep coming despite a state revenue office report that Virginia now has a $2 billion biennial budget surplus. As a high-tech state, Virginia has been a huge beneficiary of the expansion spurred by the Bush investment tax cuts. But the entrenched senate Republicans -- many of whom have been fixtures in the capital of Richmond for decades -- want to spend the tax windfall and then some.A Virginia Institute for Public Policy study notes that, over the past decade, the state budget has swollen at twice the rate of inflation plus population growth in the state. That's an $11 billion bonanza for state agencies, or about $500 more spending annually per Virginian. It's true that roads have been neglected during these high-spending years, causing some of the worst pockets of traffic gridlock in the country. But that's because state pols spent like crazy on social services and schools -- though student achievement tests show virtually no gains.
Comments
First, let me say, I am a fiscal conservative hawk. But I don't necessary agree with the premise that Republicans lost due primarily to protest voting by constituents because the GOP have become tax and spenders. I believe it is more nuanced than that. Please, let me explain.
In the last few general elections and primaries, there have been fiscal conservatives running, but most keep losing. The reason is none of them have been able to adequately articulate the benefits of a small, frugal, un-intrusive government. Therefore, the reason I believe this pundit and others are incorrect, is not because Republicans have become fiscal liberals, it is just that the Democrats are better at it.
I once heard a staunch Libertarian tell me that he'll keep fighting for the cause of freedom and a fiscal responsible government as long as he can. But, if he ever has to choose between a statist government that benefits a few and one that benefits all, he'll choose the latter. At least then we’ll all go down together. And that is how I see the current situation. The new big government(neo-con) Republicans tax and spend to the benefit of a few, creating, what some are calling, Corporatism. And the tax and spend Democrats are promoting a government that more and more reflects Socialism. Where safety nets have been replaced by a lifestyle that depends on a welfare state.
Therefore, until we have some fiscal conservative politicians who can connect with the people and convey to them the benefits of a libertarian type of government that Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and others envisioned, the current crop of neo-conservatives will continue to lose(like Hamilton, just not as quick) and be replaced by socialist Democrats that will eventually lead us All down the tubes.
Posted by: Daniel N. Adams | February 23, 2008 12:46 AM
In the last few general elections and primaries, there have been fiscal conservatives running, but most keep losing.
Please cites some examples of that, because no real fiscal conservatives have lost their seats.
Posted by: Jason | February 23, 2008 10:44 AM
Valid point. In that statement, I was referring to challengers. I do believe you are right, once constituents have elected real fiscal conservatives, they do usually re-elect them which makes me somewhat hopeful and is one of the arguments against term limits.
But lately, when a big government GOP fiscal liberal faces a GOP fiscal conservative challenger, the fis-con loses. And when a GOP fiscal liberal faces a DNC liberal, the GOP loses. This was the point I was making.
Posted by: Daniel N. Adams | February 23, 2008 12:39 PM
But lately, when a big government GOP fiscal liberal faces a GOP fiscal conservative challenger, the fis-con loses.
Your point is valid to some extent, but two examples of fiscal conservatives beating fiscal liberals are Wayne Gilchrest's recent loss in Maryland and Joe Schwarz losing in Michigan in 2006.
Posted by: Jas