Republican Budget Strategy

I, like many other commentators have frequently wondered about what exactly is the Republican budget strategy.  Ok, I understand the ideology: lower taxes, less regulation, federalist principles (sometimes), smaller government, reduce the deficit, etc.  This part is clear, what is a bit murkier though is the strategy that has been employed and its outlook on fostering a greater acceptance for fiscal restraint.  I just finished reading Frank J. Thompson's Medicaid Politics: Federalism, Policy Durability, and Health Reform for one of my classes and, while it was not the focus of the book, he did touch on the strategy that the GOP has employed in the modern era.  Thompson calls their strategy "starve-the-beast" (though I doubt he coined the phrase) and points to a specific one-two punch, "One, cut taxes with little regard for the impact of such action on the deficit... Two, rigidly insist that belated effort to bring down the deficit could succeed only through spending cuts with no revenue increases." (Thompson, Kindle location 4958)  Republicans are purported to believe that this could massively shrink the federal government, but there is reason to question this assumption; and by proxy, their entire fiscal strategy.

Looking at this strategy in real time we see two troubling results for republicans.  First, even when they have succeeded in generating a significant amount of "deficit fear," translating this fear into specific policy recommendations appears to diminish enthusiasm for their side.  Second, the fact that they haven't been particularly effective in promoting budget savings policy recommendations means that they haven't successfully shrunk the size of government.  What has happened, it appears to me, is that this partisan conflict has increasingly allowed American's to "have their cake and eat it too."  Basically, we get all the government benefits that the Democrats espouse, without having to pay for it because of Republican insistence on low taxes.  In this light, both parties seem to be responsible for the growing deficit, and a marked change in policy stance between either or both is necessary to halt this growing trend.

With that in mind, I think that it should be the Republicans who change their position, not because I tend to be fairly progressive, (I do) but because it is actually a wise strategic decision.  If Republicans focused on a balanced budget rather than tax reductions, they could generate millions of future fiscal conservatives.  Their branding as a "small government" party (a contestable assumption to say the least) would be much more appealing if taxpayers actually had to pay for all the services that government provides.  During the talks over a "grand bargain" I had hope that the GOP would pursue this stance.  I believe they could get a lot of concessions if they allowed taxes to rise (insisting that all groups share in this burden) to cover the entire deficit.  This tax raise would actually boost the number of people flocking to their ranks, it would enliven their base and propel many young Americans towards their ranks.  This would be a risky strategy for sure, but I think if they put out a plan that shrunk government at the same time as they allowed for the tax increases to take effect, I think they could offset some of the skepticism from within their own ranks.

Giving people government services, and then insisting that they don't pay for them is not an effective strategy for developing the next generation of fiscal conservatives.  I argue that (reluctantly) raising taxes is the real strategy for increasing the Republican ranks, especially among younger voters.

In my next blog, I'll outline the plan I thought up during the "grand bargain"discussion to show how the GOP could really push for significant concessions if they were to take up this strategy.  Maybe it'll work and they will listen to my advice... wait, is that really something I would want?  I kind of like having my cake and eating it too.