politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Why GOP 'Insiders' Thwart Conservative Reformers
Source:
Weekly Standard
URL Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs ... ervative-reformers_888858.html
Published: Mar 17, 2015
Author: Jay Cost
Post Date: 2015-03-17 09:56:49 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 11757
Comments: 67
Tom Cotton’s letter to the Iranian regime has spurred furious blowback from liberals. They want the president to cut a deal with Iran, and Cotton’s letter gets in the way; thus, they’ve engaged in a specious fight over inter-branch protocol. Never mind that the president is looking to sign an agreement with an enemy without the advice and consent of the Senate. And never mind that Democrats have made similar overtures to foreign governments before. It’s like that old lawyer’s adage: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table. Tut-tutting over Cotton’s letter is a classic example of pounding the table. Which is why this item from Friday’s Politico was so striking: One-third of Republican insiders believe that Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton and his GOP colleagues — including several potential presidential candidates — crossed the line when they published an open letter to Iranian leaders warning about a possible nuclear deal…. “The GOP letter — while sound in substance — caused the debate to shift from the administration’s wrongheadedness to the GOP’s tactics,” said a New Hampshire Republican, who — like all 92 respondents this week — completed the survey anonymously in order to speak candidly. “That’s not helpful.” It manifestly did not “cross the line,” as Steve Hayes’s editorial in this week’s WEEKLY STANDARD makes clear. What it did was rock the boat, which is something that a wide swath of Republican “insiders” never want to do. This has been a persistent pattern. Conservatives come forward with bold proposals to reform the way government works -- or at least stop some egregious abuse -- and GOP insiders warn of dire consequences. We’ve seen that on the farm bill, on the Export-Import Bank, on the Paul Ryan budget plan, on executive amnesty, and now on Iran. Don’t make waves, they warn, lest we risk the majority! But what is the point of a majority, if not to reform the government? That is the conservative attitude, at any rate, but there is a different view that, unfortunately, has wide purchase in quarters of the Republican party. It is the belief that the majority is a good thing because it means Republicans get to decide how the government pie gets sliced up. Upsetting the apple cart threatens the chairmanship of the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee of Appropriations, which simply cannot be risked under this view. Otherwise, Democrats will get to decide how all that tasty government cheese is allocated! This is a very old view within the Republican party. In my new book, A Republic No More: Big Government and the Rise of American Political Corruption, I tell the story of how the Republican party got in tight with business interests looking for government rents. One particular anecdote is apt. The following is a letter from George Edmunds, a “liberal” (for the time) Republican who -- heaven forbid! -- actually wanted the railroads to pay back their government loans in a timely fashion. Enter James G. Blaine, the famous orator and party leader, to thwart the effort. Edmunds complained bitterly: It is my opinion that Mr. Blaine acts as the attorney of Jay Gould (head of the Union Pacific railroad). Whenever (Senator Allen) Thurman and I have settled upon legislation to bring the Pacific railroads to terms of equity with the government, up has jumped James G. Blaine, musket in hand, from behind the breastworks of Gould’s lobby, to fire in our backs. This is still a common occurrence in the Republican party. When conservatives try to reform government in ways that upend the established order, they end up getting undermined by . . . Republicans. What can we possibly do about this? Three things. First, we have to stop focusing so relentlessly on the personalities of politicians. Edmunds and Blaine are long gone, after all -- yet the same dynamic persists. That suggests the problem has more to do with the rules of the game than with its players. To that end, the second thing we need to do is reform Congress. Today, the institution is premised on a conflict of interest -- members of both parties trade public policy to the private groups that subsidize their campaigns and provide for their post-political careers. This lends itself inevitably to the don’t-rock-the-boat mentality, particularly when it has to do with corporate welfare like the Ex-Im Bank, corporate tax loopholes, or the farm bill. Third, we have to reform the GOP nomination process, not just for the presidency but also the Congress. That’s the other end of the conflict of interest: politicians trade public policy because they believe (correctly) it will get them reelected. If we change the way those elections take place, we can change their incentives. Don’t get me wrong. The Edmunds quote illustrates that this is an old problem within the GOP, and it admits of no easy solutions. But the only way to improve the Republican party, to make it truly a vehicle for a conservative reform agenda, is to change the rules by which it operates. Otherwise, our efforts to fix the government will be met with fire from our “friends,” straight into our backs. Poster Comment: Jay Cost explains why the GOP elite is so cowardly and inclined toward Big Gov policies while spewing conservative platitudes. More importantly, he points out there is no reason why the GOP should be left in the hands of these people and why and how the GOP should be reformed to be more conservative in policy and law.
Why GOP 'Insiders' Thwart Conservative Reformers
It's the political structure, stupid.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: TooConservative (#0)
Privatize safety net and government in general to benefit the rich?
You say that as though the present system is not a hotbed of corruption and cartel operations that rely on government to maintain their monopoly power and exclude potential rivals. In fact, relying on government to do so much with so little accountability is a recipe for waste and inefficiency. And the problems go from being temporary to being entrenched special interests as we see with Big Bank and with the Veteran's Administration and countless other ineffective and untouchable agencies.
You say that as though the present system is not a hotbed of corruption and cartel operations that rely on government to maintain their monopoly power and exclude potential rivals. I rather rely on the power of our "of the people, by the people, for the people" govt over my life than a corporation. You may agree with me that it it gets dangerous when govt and business link up - like the case of a judge sentencing children to jail so that a private prison can make a profit.
Representative government is at least formally accountable to the people. For the rich, the people are not masters but a commodity to be exploited or discarded at will. Privatization means transfer of wealth from the people to the rich.
It's accountable to the majority. And what will happen when 51% tell the other 49% that they demand free health care, free food, free college education, free housing, etc.?
Privatization means "the rich" no longer have to pay 90% of the taxes to support the parasites.
And what will happen when 51% tell the other 49% that they demand free health care, free food, free college education, free housing, etc.? It is better when 1% owns 99%
Take your safety net and shove it up Obamas wife. Your safey net is stolen money. Why should people who make the right decisions have to pay for losers? If the losers want to be winners every single one of them can succeed. Unless physically handicapped. We need to let all you welfare lovers go. Get off the raft. If you can't swim drown. I really don't care what a thief who covets someone else's fruit desires.
A corporation is just a group of people. Why do you hate groups of people?
Privatization means transfer of wealth from the people to the rich. Here is one of the problems in this world. Maybe stupid people who believe crap like you just wrote shouldn't vote. I mean why should a moron have as much say as someone who has accomplished something? If you are on welfare you should not get a vote. It isn't right to vote for someone elses things they worked for. Anyone can be rich if they do the right things. So quit stealing from smart people and giving it to lazy morons. The system you advocate is contrary to our constitution. It is in line with the Soviet Union.
Except that is not the case now is it? Deceptive of you.
A for profit corporation is a sociopath.
Wealth is created by human work. Yet it is often so that the idle rich have wealth when workers suffer poverty. "When Adam delved and Eve span, Who was then the gentleman?"
There you answered your own problem. The people who want some money should do what? WORK. Then they will create wealth and no longer be a thief stealing from more productive people. People get rich by sitting on their asses right? No fool they do things that other people are unwilling to do. They work harder, longer do without and make something of themselves. They don't owe you, or your kids anything. They worked for it. Not you. So they get to make the decision to do do with the money THEY EARNED. NOT YOU WHO DIDN'T EARN IT. I have an idea for you. All of you liberal retards can start your own insurance company. Then you can all chip in to your hearts content. Then all the mooches and leechers can go take your money. Not the people who don't want to subsidize laziness and unproductiveness.
You said a corporation isn't a person. But you are labeling corporations with a human ailment. Are you sane?
The wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nation’s wealth. So? The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay more in federal income taxes than the bottom 90 percent. Is that fair? What do you propose? Are you saying we should steal their money and give it to "the poor" for them to piss away? F**king communist.
A sociopath who pays taxes, employs people who pay taxes, and "gives back" billions of dollars to the community and charitable organizations.
You bet. And that wealth belongs to the humans who worked for it. It is not yours to steal.
GWB worked very hard and millions of the working poor are just lazy.
The wealthiest 1% possess 40% of the nation’s wealth. So? You missed the context (provided by you originally - about 51% versus 49%) 1% owns 99% is that the small ruling group owns the rest of population. Like in ancient Egypt or worse.
If the working poor just saved 25 bucks a week. How much money would they have when the were retirement age? They would be millionaires. Some people inherit wealth. That is better then the government stealing it. I mean taxes were already paid on it afterall. Were you a fan of the Soviet Union? Seriously. I used to work for this rich guy who thought the collapse of the Soviet Union was awful.
1% owns 99% is that the small ruling group owns the rest of population. Like in ancient Egypt or worse. I didn't miss the context. I did notice you sweetening the pot with your bogus numbers to make your argument more favorable.
Like slave owners or something? Come on. If that were true the 1% wouldn't be taking it in the ass every time they turned around.
16 . . . 17 . . . 18 . . . . For your viewing pleasure, the manditory "bush did it, too" post has been relocated. It can now be seen in post #19
Are you sane? I never said a corporation is not a person. Corporations are artificial entities treated by the state. Where did I claim corporations are not people? I believe in corporations that are subject to the power of the state because corporations are given grants of life by the state. That is old school me in a nutshell.
"A for profit corporation is a sociopath." A sociopath who pays taxes, employs people who pay taxes, and "gives back" billions of dollars to the community and charitable organizations Sociopaths do all these things also. The BTK killer was a pillar of his community.
Work is the requirement? So if I sit home all day and inherit money or make money via stocks (in other words I did not work for the money) it really does not belong to me? And should the laborer and his work not be rewarded more than say a stock holder who does no work for the product?
I find distressing (or amusing) when Christians - who label themselves as devout Christian fundamentalists - hold the exact opposite view on wealth Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, does.
So corporations are also serial killers?
Hmmm. Goes against the definition, doesn't it?
They are not Christians, they are hypocrites and wolves is sheepskins.
Sure. See slave dealing corporations - legal till 1865. See tobacco companies after they knew their product was killing people.
"Sociopaths do all these things also." Hmmm. Goes against the definition, doesn't it? Sociopaths act in ways to seem they are not sociopaths while being sociopaths. Corporations that donate to charities while knowingly selling a defective prodict that kills people is one example.
You know, being sceptical of corporations is a right wing conservative- capitalist trait. Adam Smith was against corporations/critical of them. When did corporation become "sainted" and defended as being the basis of capitalism? http://livingeconomiesforum.org/Adam-Smith When Corporations Rule the World The Betrayal of Adam Smith - Excerpt It is ironic that corporate libertarians regularly pay homage to Adam Smith as their intellectual patron saint, since it is obvious to even the most casual reader of his epic work The Wealth of Nations that Smith would have vigorously opposed most of their claims and policy positions. For example, corporate libertarians fervently oppose any restraint on corporate size or power. Smith, on the other hand, opposed any form of economic concentration on the ground that it distorts the market's natural ability to establish a price that provides a fair return on land, labor, and capital; to produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers; and to optimally allocate society's resources. Through trade agreements, corporate libertarians press governments to provide absolute protection for the intellectual property rights of corporations. Smith was strongly opposed to trade secrets as contrary to market principles and would have vigorously opposed governments enforcing a person or corporation's claim to the right to monopolize a lifesaving drug or device and to charge whatever the market would bear. Smith strongly disliked both governments and corporations. He viewed government primarily as an instrument for extracting taxes to subsidize elites and intervening in the market to protect corporate monopolies. In his words, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.'' Smith never suggested that government should not intervene to set and enforce minimum social, health, worker safety, and environmental standards in the common interest or to protect the poor and nature from the rich. Given that most governments of his day were monarchies, the possibility probably never occurred to him.
I was simply responding to the statement, "Wealth is created by human work". "or make money via stocks (in other words I did not work for the money)" A stockbroker doesn't work? It looks like he's working at least as hard as an accountant or a lawyer. "And should the laborer and his work not be rewarded more than say a stock holder who does no work for the product?" First, the laborer should be rewarded what he's worth. Second, there's nothing preventing the laborer from being a stock holder. Third, the stock holder is taking a risk -- the stock holder could lose money as well as make it. Don't we reward risk? I know Las Vegas does. Do you envy those who win at Blackjack? Should we take their money because they didn't "work" for it?
Jesus Christ believed in tithing (10%). Yet the government demands 39.5% from Christians. I find that distressing indeed.
You're the one "sainting" them so you can "de-saint" them in your classic strawman argument. Corporations just are, as far as I'm concerned. What would you substitute for them? The collective state? That's certainly not
A good question. Particularly in an era of unlimited campaign funds and armies of lobbyists, the corporate system needs to be sharply curtailed. The very largest corporations often plot with officeholders to use regulation to drive smaller and more nimble competitors away so the big corps can keep their cartel exclusive. True in banking, true in many other areas of the economy. There's nothing sacred about corporations. Much of the increasing disparity in wealth is created via corporate means and that should be curtailed as well.
A secular tax is not a tith and Jesus said to pay your secular taxes.
Particularly in an era of unlimited campaign funds and armies of lobbyists, the corporate system needs to be sharply curtailed. The very largest corporations often plot with officeholders to use regulation to drive smaller and more nimble competitors away so the big corps can keep their cartel exclusive. True in banking, true in many other areas of the economy. There's nothing sacred about corporations. Much of the increasing disparity in wealth is created via corporate means and that should be curtailed as well. I think it started in the last 60s or early 70s when Ralph Nader started to attack the safety record of GM cars - what is good for GM is good for America - was kind of a rally cry. Also, in an era where we were fighting communisim - we had people on the left attack corporations while you had anti communists knee jerk defend corporations with them feeling that doing so was fighting against communist some how.
Comments (41 - 67) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestConservatives come forward with bold proposals to reform the way government works
#2. To: A Pole (#1)
Privatize safety net and government in general to benefit the rich?
#3. To: TooConservative, A Pole (#2)
(Edited)
Privatize safety net and government in general to benefit the rich?
#4. To: TooConservative (#2)
In fact, relying on government to do so much with so little accountability is a recipe for waste and inefficiency
#5. To: A Pole (#4)
"Representative government is at least formally accountable to the people."
#6. To: A Pole (#4)
"Privatization means transfer of wealth from the people to the rich."
#7. To: misterwhite (#5)
It's accountable to the majority.
#8. To: A Pole (#1)
Privatize safety net and government in general to benefit the rich?
#9. To: Pericles (#3)
I rather rely on the power of our "of the people, by the people, for the people" govt over my life than a corporation.
#10. To: A Pole (#4)
For the rich, the people are not masters but a commodity to be exploited or discarded at will.
#11. To: A Pole (#7)
It is better when 1% owns 99%
#12. To: A K A Stone, A Pole (#9)
A corporation is just a group of people. Why do you hate groups of people?
#13. To: A K A Stone (#8)
Your safey net is stolen money.
#14. To: A Pole (#13)
Wealth is created by human work
#15. To: Pericles (#12)
A for profit corporation is a sociopath.
#16. To: A Pole (#7)
"It is better when 1% owns 99%"
#17. To: Pericles (#12)
"A for profit corporation is a sociopath."
#18. To: A Pole (#13)
"Wealth is created by human work."
#19. To: A K A Stone (#14)
People get rich by sitting on their asses right? No fool they do things that other people are unwilling to do. They work harder, longer do without and make something of themselves.
#20. To: misterwhite (#16)
"It is better when 1% owns 99%"
#21. To: A Pole (#19)
millions of the working poor are just lazy.
#22. To: A Pole (#20)
You missed the context (provided by you originally - about 51% versus 49%)
#23. To: A Pole (#20)
"... the small ruling group owns the rest of population."
#24. To: A Pole (#19)
GWB worked very hard and millions of the working poor are just lazy.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#15)
You said a corporation isn't a person. But you are labeling corporations with a human ailment.
#26. To: misterwhite (#17)
#27. To: misterwhite, A Pole (#18)
You bet. And that wealth belongs to the humans who worked for it. It is not yours to steal.
#28. To: A Pole, misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#20)
(Edited)
1% owns 99% is that the small ruling group owns the rest of population. Like in ancient Egypt or worse.
#29. To: Pericles (#26)
"The BTK killer was a pillar of his community."
#30. To: Pericles (#26)
"Sociopaths do all these things also."
#31. To: Pericles (#28)
I find distressing (or amusing) when Christians - who label themselves as devout Christian fundamentalists - hold the exact opposite view on wealth Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, does.
#32. To: misterwhite, A Pole (#29)
So corporations are also serial killers?
#33. To: misterwhite (#30)
(Edited)
#34. To: misterwhite, A Pole, TooConservative (#30)
#35. To: Pericles (#27)
"Work is the requirement?"
#36. To: Pericles (#28)
"hold the exact opposite view on wealth Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, does."
#37. To: Pericles (#34)
"When did corporation become "sainted" and defended as being the basis of capitalism?"
#38. To: Pericles (#34)
When did corporation become "sainted" and defended as being the basis of capitalism?
#39. To: misterwhite (#36)
Jesus Christ believed in tithing (10%). Yet the government demands 39.5% from Christians. I find that distressing indeed.
#40. To: TooConservative (#38)
When did corporation become "sainted" and defended as being the basis of capitalism? A good question.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]