If only Fred Barnes drove the GOP’s strategy

The pre-criminations, at least among Republicans, began in earnest a couple of weeks ago, and we’ve already seen some doozies. As the NYT recently noted, “Tax-cutters are calling evangelicals bullies. Christian conservatives say Republicans in Congress have let them down. Hawks say President Bush is bungling the war in Iraq. And many conservatives blame Representative Mark Foley’s sexual messages to teenage pages.”

But to appreciate just how bizarre the finger pointing will go, especially if today is a debacle for the GOP, consider the lamentations of the Weekly Standard’s Fred Barnes.

Whatever happens in [today’s] election, he’ll be in the White House for two more years to protect them from Democratic excesses. But what if Republicans had followed the president’s lead last year and tried to overhaul Social Security and enact personal investment accounts? If they’d succeeded, voters would now be perusing the stock tables to decide how to invest their payroll taxes. Had Democrats blocked reform, Republicans would be pointing out the gains voters were missing in the bull market. Either way, Republicans would be ahead. So would the country.

Instead, they balked at Bush’s modest reform proposal. House Speaker Dennis Hastert thought it too risky, though the president had trumpeted his idea, with impunity, in two national campaigns. Another Republican leader told Bush that House Republicans would line up behind him — but only after he’d drummed up a strong national majority in favor of entitlement reform. In truth, it already existed. Private accounts financed out of payroll taxes, while controversial, have long been popular. Left alone in the drive to fix Social Security, the president, disappointed and exhausted, finally gave up the fight.

That’s right, Fred Barnes, one of the nation’s most prominent conservative pundits, not only believes Social Security privatization was popular, but believes Republicans would be riding high right now if only Congress had followed the White House’s lead on the issue. He did not appear to be kidding.

I often wonder if leading conservatives live in the same country as the rest of us. When it comes Barnes, I’m not even sure if we’re on the same planet.

I realize that 2005 seems like a long time ago, but did Barnes and the Weekly Standard forget that the public hated the Bush privatization plan? That lawmakers ran in fear because of the strong public outcry? That polls showed the idea growing increasingly unpopular the more Americans heard about it?

Indeed, in Dems’ wildest dreams the Republican establishment would have followed Barnes’ idea and stuck to the privatization scheme.

But wait, Barnes also believes the GOP could have won with “tax reform.”

Tax reform could have had a similar effect. It may be hard to achieve, but it’s both important and favored by the vast majority of Americans. Here again, however, Republicans were anything but bold. A tax panel commissioned by Bush concentrated on easing the burden imposed by the Alternative Minimum Tax at the expense of fundamental tax reform. Not surprisingly, the panel’s timid recommendations produced little enthusiasm. And the tax issue quickly faded away.

The White House didn’t have to acquiesce. It could have pressured the tax commission to come up with a sweeping reform plan. Or it could have proposed its own blueprint for reform. There’s no secret about what’s needed: lower rates, fewer deductions, a broader tax base, simplification of the tax code, elimination of double taxation of dividends, and a lot more. Instead, the White House let the moment pass.

The Bush gang “let the moment pass” for a very good reason. “Tax reform” was, believe it or not, even less popular that Social Security privatization. Indeed, in October 2005, Bush’s tax advisory commission recommended two plans, both of which limited or eliminated almost all existing tax deductions, including those for state and local income and property taxes. For that matter, both plans were transparent giveaways to the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else.

And yet, Barnes believes Republicans would now see smooth sailing in the midterms if only they’d embraced such an obviously-popular policy.

If only Fred Barnes drove the GOP strategy, Dems would never lose another election again.

It the plan was popular Bush wouldn’t have nneded to screen the audiences at those dreadful whistle stops.

  • Who do you have to screw to get a gig like that? Conservative punditry is clearly no meritocracy.

  • I think the turning point in Bush’s popularity came when he tried to stump for Social Security privatization. People got so turned off when he tried to talk about all of the “political capital” he would spend, that the mainstream voter began to see him for who he was. It was such a naked attempt to transfer wealth that even a disinterested voter could see that he was messing with their retirement. It was his first Katrina moment. Mr. Barnes is crazy.

  • I love that Barnes called Bush’s plan a ‘modest proposal’. Immediately made me think of this:

    From Wikipedia:

    “A Modest Proposal: For Preventing the Children of Poor People in Ireland from Being a Burden to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick, commonly referred to as A Modest Proposal, is a satirical pamphlet written by Jonathan Swift in 1729. The work has now become one of the epitomes of satire, and the modern phrase “a modest proposal” derives from the work.

    Swift proposed that poor Irish families sell their children to be eaten, thereby earning income for the family.”

  • I wouldn’t let the Republicans reform anything. They all belong in reform school. Even when I think of reforms that Dems could make, I immediately picture the abuses to which Republicans will put those reforms. Republicans are people who just can’t take a fucking hint!

  • I am not sure where that comma after Fred came from. You may ignore it.

    Comment by rege

    It’s okay. Bush taught us to ignore commas.

    If the Republicans win today then Fred Barnes will be setting our national agenda.

  • Barnes is, once again, demonstrating the merits of placing the cart before the horse—without the horse, of course—and even without the cart. Under normal circumstances, a measure of intelligence this low would identify irreversible brain death.

    But sometimes, someone comes across as being too dumb to know that he/she/it is dead. Fred Barnes now qualifies for my “Auto-Masochistic Dead Horse” Award….

  • If only Fred Barnes Drove…off a cliff!

    Pish Posh! What a load of dosh! This GOP argument that they suck at governing because the lack total control is such crap I can’t even believe anyone says it out loud.

    The GOP is poised to lose Congress because they lack the ability and leadership to effectively govern. That is it. End of story.

  • What an idiot. I wonder if Fred knows about them tubes on the Internets. Then he could go to this one and see just how jolly the voters were last year about George’s plans for Social Security.

    Barnes. What a buffoon.

  • “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”

    John Stuart Mill

  • I’m pretty sure the Social Security bamboozlement plans being bandied about never included individual stock picking but ranged from investments in treasury bonds to govenment defined investment funds. Barnes is a hack who’s full of merde

  • Aerosmith said it best: Eat the rich.

    Private accounts financed out of payroll taxes, while controversial, have long been popular.

    With me and a my buddies at the yacht club. Who cares what the proles think? Anyway, none of our servants get payroll taxes. They scarcely get paid at all! Fwa, fwa, fwa! Who’s for another bottle of Bolly?

    Another out of touch BushWanker. Quelle surprise. Pas!

  • NEWSFLASH FOR FRED BARNES: Small-government conservatism is incompatible with an expensive war of choice.

  • The “privatization” would have created generic index stock, stock-bond, and bond index funds. And with high brokerage fees, probably.

    And if the average participant in on of these proposed funds is like the average 401k, IRA investor, they look at their account values 4x a year when the statements come.

  • “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives” — Comment by Liam J

    We shouldn’t forget this other truism about conservatives.

    Not all Republicans are con men, but all con men are Republicans.

  • “…pointing out the gains voters were missing in the bull market…”

    BWWWUUUUUHAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Isn’t it amazing what a college-educated professional economist concludes?
    That 10 – 20 = 100
    The Right cannot effectively govern because it does not like people! They are self-loathing,( Ted Haggard) so, if you hate humans, how can you understand them to govern them?

  • It all really does come down to an appeal to greed for these guys. On every issue.

    And fear. Fear and Greed: the two main pillars of the GOP.

  • If they’d succeeded, voters would now be perusing the stock tables to decide how to invest their payroll taxes. Had Democrats blocked reform, Republicans would be pointing out the gains voters were missing in the bull market. Either way, Republicans would be ahead. – not to

    I forgot the best part of this whole exercise in fantasy – he completely neglects to mention (or even think about) all the pissed off people whose guaranteed benefits would have reduced – not to mention the of people who (by necessary definition) would have seen their investment choices come in below average.

    The guy’s delusional in addition to being full of merde.

  • Comments are closed.