Dana Milbank’s column in today’s Washington Post is impressively incoherent:

The federal debt has exploded to an incomprehensible $12.1 trillion, and the nation continues on its path to becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of the People’s Republic of China. Yet lawmakers can’t even agree on a modest proposal to form an independent debt commission and then vote on its recommendations.

The debt commission is expected to be voted down Tuesday morning, as foes on the far left and the far right unite to form a status quo supermajority. Prospects have become so bleak that a couple of retired congressional leaders got together Monday morning in hopes of shaming their former colleagues into action.

Assuming words haven’t suddenly lost all meaning, it is literally impossible for an extremist fringe to constitute a supermajority. For that to happen, any given fringe would have to come in striking distance of a plurality, in which case, it wouldn’t actually be a fringe.

That bit of logical incoherence notwithstanding, Milbank’s column is a pitch perfect example of how Beltway elites are utterly incapable of correctly identifying or explaining problems, especially ones for which they are intimately responsible. Our bleak fiscal outlook is mostly due to the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the financial collapse. Put another way, each of the policies responsible for the deficit were supported, sometimes enthusiastically, by the “center” of American politics. Beltway elites — Democrats and Republicans — gleefully signed on to massive tax cuts, senseless “projection” of American power, and deregulation of the financial sector.

If anything, the “fringe” that Milbank (and other Beltway elites) deride was responsible for putting up what little resistance there was to the most egregiously “centrist” policies. Paleo-cons and progressives were, and are, deeply skeptical of the wars, the tax cuts, and the frenzy of deregulation that characterized the late-Clinton and Bush eras. And now, in this era of massive deficits, it’s the “fringe” advocating policies and approaches that actually have a chance of solving the problem. Progressives and reform-minded conservatives (which in the conservative movement, is a fringe view) recognize the need for tax increases, reduced military spending, and a restructuring of federal entitlements. Of course, there are serious points of disagreement, but let’s not pretend like its the fringes who are to blame for America’s sorry shape. That distinction belongs to the Beltway elites who dominate our political discourse.

(cross-posted from my blog)

You’d think after rightly complaining about the Bush Administration’s unprecedented irresponsibility for eight years, leading Democrats would understand that we’re trapped in a terrible hole, but instead they just keep digging, figuring that while they’re in power, why not lobby for a massive new health care entitlement, game its scoring to make its cost seem more palatable to voters, and pay for it by pretending that it won’t cost any more than what we currently spend. […]

Republicans may be full of it when they promise that if returned to power they’ll cut spending and pay down the debt, but at least they recognize the need for those measures, and that they’re an appropriate priority.

The reflexive, evidence-free dismissal of the CBO scores (High Broderism at its finest) at the beginning of Conor’s post is enough to convince me that he isn’t actually interested in hearing liberal ideas for bringing the United States back on a firm fiscal footing. That said, it’s worth reminding Conor that in the three decades since the Republican Party became the dominant political coalition in American politics, the deficit has been reduced exactly once, and that was during Bill Clinton’s presidency. All three Republican presidents of the “conservative era” – Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush – were responsible for significant increases in the deficit, and in the case of the latter, a tremendous increase in the overall national debt.

Here’s a graph that illustrates the point (I found the data here):

Moreover, it’s not even really accurate to say that Republicans recognize the need to reduce spending, and Democrats don’t (by implication). The Obama administration’s central conceit on health care reform has been that absent systemic change in the way we deliver and pay for health care, the United States is facing fiscal ruin. As such, the only real requirement the administration has for health care reform – as per Peter Orszag – is that it “bends the curve.” We’ve heard more about cost controls and deficit reduction from this Democratic administration than we did in eight years of the previous Republican one. Indeed, if there’s been anything notable about nearly every major Democratic policy proposal we’ve seen this year, it’s that both congressional Democrats and the White House have been adamant that they pay for themselves at least in part.

I hate to be super partisan about this, but it’s one of those situations where you can’t actually avoid it. The simple fact is that while neither party is perfect, Democrats at least have something of a claim to the mantle of “fiscally responsible.” President Clinton was the first president in a generation to balance the budget, and President Obama’s economic team shows an obvious concern for the long-term fiscal viability of the United States. They’re just also concerned about not letting the United States fall into economic ruin, hence the various stimulus-related deficits.

On that note, I want to make one last point: when considering Republican and Democratic deficits, you can’t make a one-to-one comparison without also thinking about the actual content of spending. Or, to borrow from a post I wrote a long time ago at my own blog:

Spending trillions of dollars financing a massive reinvention of our transportation infrastructure – an unquestionable public good – is a lot different then spending trillions on say, video games. Which, while awesome, aren’t exactly a wise investment (I’m looking at you Atari Lynx and Sega Game Gear). The real measure of fiscal responsibility isn’t deficit spending as much as it is the return on said spending. If President Obama’s spending puts the country on a sustainable fiscal footing in the long-term, even if it is significant, it will be far more “responsible” than President Bush’s comparatively smaller, but overall disastrous, spending.

I am also surprised to see that revenue from payroll taxes has essentially remained stable through the recession, and like Megan, I’m not entirely sure as to why that is (and if anyone wants to hazard a guess, I am all ears).

What’s more interesting to me though, is what this graph implies about the volatility of revenue.  Assuming that this is an accurate representation of what happens to tax revenues during a recessionary period, it seems to suggest that our most progressive taxes – income taxes – are most vulnerable to the effects of a recession, while our most regressive taxes – payroll taxes – are our least volatile sources of revenue.  And if that’s true, then it has powerful implications for progressive policies.

Since Obama entered office, I’ve gradually come to the conclusion that, above nearly everything else, progressives need to make a concerted effort to change the way we talk about taxation, in the interest of clearing the space for politicians to talk honestly and openly about raising revenue.  After all, we don’t have much of choice.  Most progressives are committed to significantly broadening the scope of the American welfare state; health care is only one part of what is a long-term effort to bring the United States more in line with our European peers in terms of what the state delivers to its citizens.  Taxation plays a critical role in furthering that project.  We simply can’t expand the welfare state without also raising dramatically more revenue than we currently do, since in the absence of any additional revenue, the United States cannot afford much beyond its current obligations (or rather it could, but it’s nice to be able to pay for what we spend).

The problem for progressives is twofold: first, we have to find a way of successfully countering the conservative narrative that taxes are unfair at best and borderline illegitimate at worst, and second, we have to find methods of taxation that are both fair and capable of raising an adequate amount of revenue.

Of the two, I actually think that the second is a far more difficult project, in part because the best solution – a value-added tax of some form – is anathema to a lot of progressives. For progressives, the VAT is simply too regressive; every imaginable form of the VAT would disproportionately affect poor, working-class and middle-class Americans.  That said, there are ways to craft a VAT as to soften its impact.  For starters, you could include exemptions for food and non-luxury clothing items, as well as use some of the revenue – Bruce Barlett estimates that a 20 percent tax could raise up to $1 trillion per year in 2009 dollars – to provide income supports for struggling Americans.  Indeed, if you buy the idea (which I do) that progressive distribution is far more important than progressive taxation, then a VAT is great by progressive standards, as the revenue generated could be used to support both a stronger safety net and significant investment into education and infrastructure.  What’s more, the stability of regressive taxes makes it more likely that you can expand the welfare state while also keeping it fiscally solvent over the long-term.

I don’t expect conservatives to sign on to this project (though it’s worth noting that the United States wouldn’t be the first nation to trade conservative taxation for progressive spending), but I think it’s something they should consider.  If you believe – as I do – that the United States is on a pretty steady march towards a much stronger public sector, then we must raise revenues one way or another.  Considering the alternatives – massive tax hikes on the rich, which depending on the form they take, I’m not necessarily opposed to – a VAT is probably the best possible outcome for conservatives.

“While I agree that it’s fairly pointless, as a tactical matter, for dissidents to attack the talk radio giants, this comes, I think, out of a deep frustration that people with little more than slogans and attitude have bigfooted discussion among conservatives, and have helped turn the GOP and the movement into something that’s extremely hostile to change (as distinct from skepticism of it, as all real conservatives should be), and almost fanatically opposed to dissent from within. A fairly conservative friend of mine and I were talking the other day about something Glenn Beck had said, and my friend looked disgusted, saying, “I’m sick of being associated with conservatives.” The impulse to take on the Becks and the Limbaughs comes from a sense that these guys are hurting us bad, and preventing the kind of clear thinking that we need to get back in the political game. I’d love to know how Mark and the League propose for dissident conservatives to “engage” the base when the kind of people the base trusts and takes its cues from demonize dissidents as RINOs, closet liberals, squishes, wets, suck-ups, and so forth. I’m asking seriously. I don’t know how to go about this in the current climate.” ~ Rod Dreher

There’s no easy answer to this question, of course.  Dreher and other critics of Beckian talk-show conservatism are right: the talking heads do hurt the  cause.  Think of William F. Buckley back in the days leading up to the launch of National Review.  Imagine if he’d had to compete with Fox News for the heart and soul of conservatism.  It wouldn’t have been easy.  Indeed, on the field of battle, Buckley with his more reasoned and polite approach to political discussion (which isn’t to say he always threw soft punches, the man could be rather straightforward after all) may very well have lost to the populists now manning the airwaves in defense of “true conservatism.”  Buckley would be painted like every other East Coast Elite.

But I doubt very much that Buckley would have taken to that particular field.  He was too canny to become embroiled in a fight he couldn’t win, and too immersed in ideas to need to resort to those measures – at least until he was sure of victory.  What’s the point in taking on the Goliaths of the conservative movement anyways?  They have a higher bully pulpit, a wider audience, a louder megaphone.  And they’re okay fighting dirty, and dragging you down to whatever level they need to drag you in order to win.  Wait until they’re marginal players.  Wait until they’ve outworn their welcome.

Conservative dissidents these days have nowhere near enough patience.  Impulsively, they attack the easiest and biggest targets they can find: the talking heads.  As Dreher points out, the impulse for this fight is two-fold.  On the one hand it’s the impulse to remove Rush and co. from the conversation, because they’re “preventing the kind of clear thinking we need to get back in the political game.”  But much, much more importantly, I think, is the desire to simply not be associated with that particular brand of conservatism.  Guilt by association.  We’re not with them, we say.  And to prove it, here’s post after post on just why this is so, on why we hate Limbaugh even more than you do.

And it works.  Nobody who knows Conor or Rod would ever couple them with Limbaugh or Levin – right?  Only, it has unintended consequences.  Sure, you’ve blacklisted the pundits, but you’ve also been blacklisted, by a pretty significant portion of the conservative base.

Isn’t there a better way?

I think there is.  Let’s call it the Trojan Horse strategy. [Read more →]