June 18, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for Ronald Reagan

Can idealism save the Grand Old Party?

April 10, 2013 by 2 Comments

I is for idealism, which may very much be the future of the GOP, if it is to regain relevancy.

 

For 37 years, Ron Paul was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Largely ineffective there, he earned the nickname Dr. No for his unwillingness to vote for government spending. It wasn’t until he ran for president, though, that he really hit his stride and reawakened interest in a national libertarian movement.

Now, Congress and Presidential campaigns behind him, Paul is almost more popular now than when he was in office. With his son, Senator Rand Paul, taking the baton, speaking out against war and the growth of government and regularly mentioned as a possible contender for the GOP nomination in 2016, libertarianism (little ‘l’) is coming out from the shadows and, to paraphrase Politico, going mainstream.

Could it save the Republican Party?

With post-mortem of the 2012 election continuing six months after the polls close, it’s clear that Republicans are taking a close look at what it takes to win an election, and whether the White House will be attainable in the foreseeable future.

Led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), libertarians hope to become a dominant wing of the GOP by tapping into a potent mix of war weariness, economic anxiety and frustration with federal overreach in the fifth year of Barack Obama’s presidency.

The country’s continuing fixation on fiscal issues, especially spending and debt, allows them to emphasize areas of agreement with conservative allies who are looking for ways to connect with Republicans who aren’t passionate about abortion or same-sex marriage. A Democratic administration ensures consensus on the right that states should get as much power as possible.

Senator Rand Paul filibusters from the Senate floor in March of 2013.

Senator Rand Paul filibusters from the Senate floor in March of 2013.

Libertarianism is no new member of the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan famously stated that “libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism.” In the years since his 1980 election, though, the influence of evangelicals have pushed their own brand of big government into the forefront of the Republican Party, and libertarians have been largely left in the wings.

However, America has changed over the last generation. Whether it’s the war on drugs/poverty/terrorism/marriage–Americans are tired of the government telling them what they should, or shouldn’t do, and they are leery of the secrecy and expanse of a government that has colluded with Wall Street for big “bailouts” while compiling kill lists for drone hunter/killers.

When Senator Paul took to the Senate floor to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan as Director of the CIA, activists and individuals on both sides of the political spectrum applauded. As Harper’s Magazine observed

The antiwar left saw the filibuster as a challenge to the violence and the innocent dead left in the drone program’s wake. The antigovernment right rallied around Paul’s pointed question about whether a hypothetical Hellfire missile might just leave a crater where your neighborhood Starbucks once stood. Rush Limbaugh called him the future. Code Pink activists brought him boxes of chocolates. #StandWithRand was, for a moment, the most popular Twitter topic on the planet.

But can the popularity last? Can the anti-statist movement shift the Republican Party?  Can idealism trump the establishment?

It’s an open question, but one that could hold the future of the Republican Party. For years Republicans have talked a good game, promising less government, then blithely creating programs that expand government’s reach and cost. For example, Medicare Part D, one of the largest expansions of government prior to the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) received strong Republican support, including from conservatives like Congressman Denny Hastert and Senator Orrin Hatch.

But not anymore: with continued high unemployment and growth failing to return to pre-recession levels, Americans are starting to question whether a government that promises the world and delivers higher taxes and fewer jobs is a government “for the people.” Obamacare begins to take full effect in 2014, and already businesses are cutting workers hours to part-time levels to avoid providing mandated healthcare. It’s cheaper to pay a financial penalty.

And so, the rise of an idealistic view of government, where the government that serves best is that which weighs on us the least.

Can it work? Will it save the Republican Party?

Publius Online is participating in the Blogging from A to Z Challenge, a month-long quest to post every day. Each day should match a letter of the alphabet. Today is the letter I, as in Idealism.

Related articles
Filed Under: Political Thought, Republican Politics Tagged With: , , , , , ,

G is for “greatest British peacetime prime minister”

April 8, 2013 by 4 Comments
Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Unless you’ve been under a rock today, you’ve heard the news that Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister, has died.

She was eulogized by current U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron as “the greatest British peacetime prime minister.”

Rest in peace, Margaret Thatcher.

Since I’m no expert on Britain’s “Iron Lady,” here’s a few hits from around the web (none of which I can take credit for):

Great quotes:

  • “If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing.”
  • “I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.”
  • “If my critics saw me walking over the Thames they would say it was because I couldn’t swim.”
  • “Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren’t.”

And one of my favorites:

  • “Europe will never be like America. Europe is a product of history. America is a product of philosophy.”

anigif_enhanced-buzz-16364-1365434499-25

 

anigif_enhanced-buzz-19622-1365434487-13The Wall Street Journal told this story about Thatcher’s first meeting with Mikhail Gorbechev:

The close and candid relationships Mrs. Thatcher formed with both Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and Mr. Reagan, and her vocal support of the uncompromising U.S. position toward the Soviet Union, proved an important element in the end of the Cold War.

At her first meeting with Mr. Gorbachev, she leaned over the table to tell her Soviet counterpart over lunch: “Welcome to the United Kingdom. I want our relationship to get off to a good start, and to make sure there is no misunderstanding between us—I hate Communism,” said Sir Bernard, her press secretary at the time.

Related articles
Filed Under: History and People, Leaders Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Polls got you down? Don’t Panic

September 12, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Don’t panic.

These two simple words can save you a world of worry and even improve how you respond to life.

So take a deep breath and don’t worry. Don’t panic.

To the topic: polls. There’s really only one that matters, and it’s only held in November. That doesn’t mean we don’t follow every poll like it’s a glance at the scoreboard of a rivalry week football game. The difference is that elections are not about getting ahead and running the clock out–they’re about peaking on election day.

So relax, take a breath, and realize that polls are less like a scoreboard and more like taking the temperature of a body of water…a large body. You can get the temperature at any given point, but you only learn so much. Factors like where you dip your thermometer, how deep you dip it, what time of day you take the temperature, and so on will all affect the reading. Similarly, with polls, who the poll calls, what time of day, who answers the phone, and what football game is on at the same time…all this will affect the outcome of the poll.

In the end, polling is only helpful, but often not indicative of the result. Even Ronald Reagan was running behind Jimmy Carter at this point in the election in 1980, by almost four points. So, when polls seem to be “all over the place,” says John Fund, take a look at the polls are handling “undecided” voters:

This year there may be more undecided voters out there than people think. Most pollsters deal with voters who say they “don’t know” how they will vote by asking them whom they lean toward. Zogby says that kind of “hard pushing” creates very “soft” supporters, who can easily change their minds or not vote at all.

There are other reasons polls tilt slightly toward Democrats. The late Warren Mitofsky, who developed exit polling for CBS News in the 1960s, believed Democrats were more likely to respond to media polls than were Republicans, who may distrust the “liberal” news media. More than 80 percent of the people pollsters try to contact

routinely hide behind voice mail or screening devices or otherwise refuse to answer. That makes survey results more uncertain, and should cause concern, caution, and above all humility in reporting polling results.

Confucius says: humility in reporting polling results saves embarrassment on election day.  Polls are regularly wrong or survey the wrong people.

Last, remember this: no sitting president who has run an approval rating less than 50% has garnered reelection, and President Obama is stuck hovering around 48% (Washington Post/ABC). He’s been around there for two and half years.

[National Review]

Related articles
Filed Under: Elections Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Should the rich pay more taxes (than they already do)?

August 6, 2012 by Leave a Comment

What is your “fair share” of taxes?

President Obama’s plan to balancing the budget, if I don’t mistake it, is to raise taxes on the wealthy. His argument is that the wealthy are not paying their fair share of taxes. If they were, we could pay down our debt and put our fiscal house in order.

As I’ve cited before, this is the crux of his “You didn’t build that” speech, an attack on successful Americans everywhere.

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me because they want to give something back,” he said in a speech in Roanoke, Va., that set off dueling campaign ads. “Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.”

Private opinions can disagree, though, and they do. Says Joseph Thordike, a tax historian to the Wall Street Journal:

“Who’s right: Obama or Romney? Both. Or neither,” says Joseph Thorndike, a tax historian. “When it comes to taxing the rich, there is no single, objectively correct answer. You can talk all you want about asking rich people to pay ‘their fair’ share,’ but don’t kid yourself. You’re just trying to turn private opinions into public policy.”

“I’m struck” he adds, “how the facts can be used selectively by either side.”

[Emphasis added]

If where the “fair share” line is up to private opinion, what does it say about President Obama’s opinion that, when the economy is struggling and unemployment is high, he wants to take wealth out of our country to balance the debt? Wouldn’t it be better to grow the economy and lower the cost of government? Why would we soak the rich–most of them owners of businesses and investors in businesses–at the very time capital is most needed to grow business and expand?

____________________

INTERLUDE

I recall, in an election past, attending a fundraiser for a candidate for President. The candidate himself was there, and though I was only there to help (hand out name tags, direct traffic, etc), I shook his hand and got a picture with him.  While a good man and a patriot, he was not the person supported for the party nomination. However, he could be the next president of the United States and that, I thought, was cool.

The fundraiser was small–probably less than a hundred donors–and was held in one of those spacious homes up on Salt Lake Valley’s bench. The door knobs were probably worth more than my undergraduate education, and the chandelier might have funded law school. A stairway lifted out of the main room where the donors were gathered and the candidate climbed up a few steps to speak. Among other things, he said something that has stuck with me:

“This sure is a nice place,” he said, and donors chuckled at the understatement. “In fact, it’s part of why I am running for President. My opponent wants to take this away and spread out the wealth. I’m running because I think everyone in America should have a place like this.  But you don’t get a place like this by taking it away from those who have earned it.”

Hyperbole or rhetoric, or both, fast forward now a few years, or more, and we find ourselves with a President who appears increasingly out of touch with the reality of what it takes to increase wealth, and that’s what it’s all about, right? Increasing wealth?

We’re not talking just about the level of unemployment, though that’s a great indicator. We’re talking about our national wealth–as a country and as individuals.  Whether we are talking about how much debt the federal government is carrying or the average wealth of Americans, the high and lingering level of unemployment (anywhere between 12 and 23 million people, depending whether you include underemployed and those who have stopped looking, and whether you say it’s 8.3% or 8.254% unemployment) is a mark that our country is not growing.

In fact, economic growth was at only 1.5% from April to June. That’s abysmal. Even while the rest of the world is picking up, last year the US growth at only 1.7%, while China grew at 9.2% and India at 7.2%. Lest you blame it on cheap labor available to those developing countries, note that even Canada grew at 2.5% last year and Germany at 3.1%. If we’re going to turn the economy around, we’ve got to start growing again.  Growth won’t happen by taking the fruits of success away from those who earned them.

____________________

TAXES OVER TIME

David Wessel, in the same article that cites Thorndike above, makes a few salient points: How much are the successful (‘wealthy” in President Obama’s parlance)  paying in taxes now in comparison with past years?

  • The top 5%, top 1% and top 0.1% of Americans have been getting a bigger slice of all the income and paying a growing share of federal taxes,  and the corollary: the share of taxes paid by the bottom 40% of the population has been shrinking along with their share of income..

As my friend “Steve” would argue, the gap between the rich and the poor (or the rich and the middle-class) is getting bigger. Granted. But so is the share of taxes paid by the rich, too.

From Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, the tax code has been tweaked and the economy has had its ups and downs, and the share of federal taxes paid by the top 5% and the top 1% has risen faster than their share of income:

In the 1980s, the top 5% averaged 22.6% of income and paid 28.5% of taxes.

In the 1990s, the top 5% averaged 25.3% of income and paid 34.3% of taxes

In the 2000s, the top 5% averaged 28.4% of the income and paid 40.3% of the taxes.

Do you see a pattern?

  • Average tax rates have come down for everyone. On average, the tax bite on the rich is bigger—except for those whose income mainly comes from capital gains and dividends.
Everyone is paying fewer taxes, but the wealthy are giving a bigger share of their income to the government. It’s why we call our tax system “graduated.” The higher on the income scale, the more taxes you pay, while the on the bottom (as much as half of Americans) pay almost no income taxes (though they pay a relatively higher share in sales tax…but that’s another story).

In 2011, according to the Tax Policy Center, about 46% of households didn’t pay any U.S. income taxes, a proportion swollen because so many have seen paychecks shrink or evaporate. But even in the better years of the mid-2000s, roughly 40% of households didn’t pay any federal income tax.

  • The tax system narrows the gap between economic winners and losers, but not enough to stop the gap from widening.

Our tax system does provide a safety net to those who do not succeed, but not as much as the Obama campaign wants it to.  Narrowing the gap is not enough, though; the Obama Presidency is aiming to eliminate it, not by lifting up the bottom, but by redistributing the property held by the top to those below them.

Unfortunately, we’re saddled with a President who is more concerned with a healthcare solution that will increase our taxes than an economic solution that will increase wealth so we can afford health care. It’s no unlike killing the golden goose to feed your family instead of just selling the golden eggs.

Golden eggs or rotten eggs, the question about fairness of taxes comes down to opinion resolvable only by a “show of hands.”

Related articles
Filed Under: Tax Policy, The Economy Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Meet Rep. David Butterfield of Utah’s 4th Legislative District

December 20, 2011 by 5 Comments

This is the fifth in a series of  interviews with some of Utah’s elected officials. In addition to high-profile candidates, Utah has many public servants whose quiet work often goes unsung. With this series, I hope to shine a light on the personalities that make up Utah’s political leadership, not only for their work in government, but also to show what they are like as our neighbors.

The questions are a potpourri of the fun and the serious, and I hope allow us a small glimpse into the men and women who run our state.

______________________________________________

When Rep. David Butterfield talks about his constituency, you can tell he loves living and working among them. A nearly lifelong resident, he refers to Cache Valley as “God’s country” and remembers milking cows and hauling hay and moving pipe. Perhaps it is that background–working the land in beautiful northern Utah–that has taught him the pragmatism and commonsense that was plain when we spoke on the phone.

Like all the legislators I’ve interviewed, he prefers serious non-fiction and focuses on reading what will inform and prepare him, as both a legislator and as a leader in business and his community.

~~

Good afternoon, Representative Butterfield. I appreciate the chance to talk today.

Thank you. It’s no problem.

Now let me see: you’re up in Logan, right?

Yes, up here in God’s country.

And you’re an Aggie, right? Or so Joe Pyrah tells me (one of the reasons he recommended I call, by the way).

[Laughter] Yes, I’m an Aggie. I went to Utah State for my undergrad, but I refer to myself  as a rare Aggie-Cougar breed. I went to BYU to get my MBA.

Very nice. So, as an Aggie-Cougar, what’s your day job?

I’m the President and CEO of the USU Charter Credit Union here in Cache County.

How did you manage to stay in Cache Valley after school?

I worked in three different industries before the credit union. My first was in manufacturing. From there, I moved into the hospitality industry and then finally the banking industry. I’ve always been a marketing and sales strategy kind of guy—at least that’s what I enjoy—so when the opportunity arose with the Credit Union, I took it. We really love it up here in Cache and feel lucky to be here.

So, it sounds like you’ve spent a lot of years in Cache.

Yeah. I lived in Riverton and West Jordan as a child, but my family moved to Cache Valley when I was in high school. I grew up milking cows and hauling hay and moving pipe.

I met my wife at USU when I was in college, and I was on my way to law school at BYU when I started to get cold feet at the idea of being an attorney for the rest of my life. The folks at the Y were gracious enough to give me a deferral for a year while I considered things, and over the course of that year, I decided that business was more for me. I stayed with it, and we never left the Valley.

You did end up doing your MBA at BYU, though.

Right…

So it sounds like they got their tuition out of you in the end.

Ha! Yes, I guess they did.

What might people be surprised to find in your wallet?

Actually, I don’t carry one. I’ve never liked them. I do have a money clip for cash and credit cards, but that’s usually in my brief case or coat.

How did you get started in politics?

When I was 10, Ronald Reagan was running for President. I remember watching his speeches and feeling inspired. Maybe that tells you what a geek I was…

Hey, from one political geek to another…

Yeah. Most kids weren’t into that, but I was.

Favorite vacation?

Heli-skiing in Valdez, Alaska. The most exciting feeling.

Wow. That sounds incredible.

It was.

What was the last book you read, or what’s on your night stand right now?

I actually read a lot more industry and public policy journals than books. Harvard Business Review is one of my favorites. I recently read “The Price of Everything.” It’s a book on economics that I’m planning on requiring all of my children to read so that we can discuss.

 Another book I read, and recommend, is “Plain Talk” by Ken Iverson, the CEO of Nucor Steel. It’s about him reviving that company at a time when the steel industry in America was failing, but he was leading Nucor and turning it into a thriving and profitable company.

Bar soap or body wash?

Bar.

What was the most mischief you got into before you were twelve?

Well, I almost burned down Grandpa’s barn once. My cousin and I were playing with matches in this old barn, and the hay caught on fire. It was very close to burning down. We managed to get the fire out before it took, but not before I had singed my eyebrows off.

What are you most proud doing before you were eighteen?

Hmm..that’s tough. Maybe it was boxing? I won the boxing junior Olympic championship when I was eleven or twelve.

Wow. That’s kind of cool.

My two brothers and I both boxed competitively growing up. We trained with the Fullmer brothers, Don, Jay and Gene…the same Gene that beat Sugar Ray Robinson twice.

That’s impressive. Leno, Letterman, or Conan?

Actually, none of the above. Jimmy Fallon is better than all three.

Favorite Restaurant?

El Toro Viejo.

Bond or Mission: Impossible?

Neither, really. I’m not one for action movies.

Why are you a Republican?

It goes back to Ronald Reagan and the principles that he popularized. It’s the best path to prosperity, and that has been born out over the intervening decades. When government exists to protect property and individual rights, stays out of the way, and lets the markets work, individuals of their own volition make better choices, choices that make sense. Take the ideas of the Austrian economists, like Friedrich Hayek and apply those ideas, and you will find them at the heart of the Republican party and why I am a Republican.

Wife’s favorite flower?

Oh, dear.  I don’t even know. I’m going to have to find out.

What bills are you working on this session?

I have a few. One would give more autonomy to how schools spend their money and resources, putting control in the principals’  hands and at the local level. I also have bills that will deal with bankruptcy law and with collection law.

All the best on all of those. I look forward to hearing about them as they move forward. Now, though, I’ve kept you long enough. Thanks so much for your time.

Thank you. It was good to talk.

 ~~
Learn more about Rep. David Butterfield at his site here.

 Related articles

Filed Under: Utah Legislature Tagged With: , ,

Reagan Debate Recap: Perry, Romney and six other candidates

September 8, 2011 by 7 Comments

Ah, presidential debates. They have little to do with demonstrating one’s fitness for the highest office in the land, and yet they are often weighed and measured with the highest of stakes.

Such it is for our generation, cultured to see winners and losers after a series of head to head play-offs, championships, and competitions between athletes. We’ve simply transferred those expectations over to the selection process for our chief executive.

Enough philosophizing, though, let’s look at last night. What were the substantive results on the race?

From my perspective (in an arm-chair far from the spin rooms), we are starting to see true colors. Further, with Rick Perry finally in the race and on the podium last night, the race feels full. We’re still missing Sarah Palin, but she’ll show up, if just with her bus as she “tours” America.

Yes, I do think there’s a good chance she’ll get in.

But back to the debate. Since your time is short, here’s the skinny on the “winners” and “losers.” Since his supporters will cry “foul” if he doesn’t get his due for winning the after debate polls, we’ll start with Ron Paul.

  • Ron “if I had a silver dime for every time the press ignores me” Paul: From moments of brilliance (attacking Perry with an ad for his support of Al Gore then going after him on HillaryCare in the debate) to sheer weirdness (gas for a “silver dime”), I both like what he says and shake my head. He’s kaleidoscopic.
  • Mitt “I have a 160-page plan to kick-start the economy” Romney: Coming into the debate as the strongest candidate but down in the polls due to Perry’s entrance to the race, he managed to come off articulate, graceful (especially when the rest of the candidates were piling it on to Perry), and wise (as when he took a Reagan-esc stance on Social Security). While not the clear winner, he remains on his pedestal as the man to beat (Obama in 2012).
  • Rick “We execute bad people” Perry: with expectations set high, Perry came out strong against Ponzi schemes–er, I mean Social Security–but weakened as the others pointed out his weaknesses. Fortunately, for him, it was not an “intellectual discussion,” a term he use dismissively twice, and he’s not Mormon, as Chris Matthews pointed out repeatedly. I couldn’t help but feel like he had all of George W.’s strength, but none of his charm or wit. A pretender.
  • Jon “I can beat Obama if we skip primaries” Huntsman: Trailing (everyone) Huntsman excelled at looking and sounding articulate, but also a bit petty. Huntsman repeatedly drew attention to Utah’s economic success under his term as Governor, but I couldn’t help but wonder why all the Utah State Legislators who served with him  and delivered those bills to his desk are now supporting Romney…
  • Newt “I’m running for Veep” Gingrich: To the press: don’t mess. Gingrich was articulate and reminded us all that he was a part of the Reagan revolution. I couldn’t shake the feeling that he’s shifting to VP candidacy land, though.
  • Herman “9%” Cain: He continues to come up with good one liners, but he’s not making ground.
  • Michelle “SNL” Bachmann. I know SNL was watching, just hoping she’d stay in long enough for them to cast her…in the meanwhile, she’s fading. Perry has stolen her based, Pawlenty was gone for her to fight with, and her performance was next to unremarkable.
  • Rick Santorum: Did you know his parents and grandparents were Italian immigrants? He won’t leave until they stop inviting him, but he’s on stage…for now.
Your take? Is this really already a two-horse race? Can Huntsman pull out a New Hampshire miracle and become relevant in 2012? Will Bachmann find a way to win more than just the Iowa straw poll? Should we care that Ron Paul gets ignored by the media while last place runner Huntsman is their darling?
Official Portrait of President Ronald Reagan

Image via Wikipedia

The biggest loser of the night, as one colleague pointed out to me? Ronald

 Reagan. He’d be a RINO next to these guys, especially Perry and Bachmann (who at points sounded like a psychic trying to channel his spirit). He compromised, raised taxes, grew government to fight the “evil empire,” and, most importantly, inspired Americans to save the economy without the government’s help. Maybe it’s time the candidates stopped trying to be the Gipper and started trying to be themselves.

Also, to beat Obama and get the economy back on track.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

Filed Under: Republican Politics Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Recoveries Comparison: Reagan and Obama

April 29, 2011 by

If what you are doing isn't working, perhaps it's time to try something else?

Filed Under: The Economy Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,
«Older Posts