The GOP is having a change of heart on economics. It could have implications for policymaking.
By: Sahil Kapur and Allan Smith (NBC News)
Ronald Reagan is finally dead in the Republican Party. Rest in Peace. Now if we can convince Democrats to leave Bill Clinton behind perhaps we can begin rebuilding America.
Yes, Donald Trump has the personality of a warthog. But Trump's policy ideas worked and have been good for America. If the world depends upon American leadership then America needs to be strong at home. Taking care of America before other nations is just common sense. And we know that America is in trouble. We've seen during the pandemic that being too dependent upon other countries is not good for America.
Neo-liberals disguised as libertarians make dire predictions about populism and nativism. But those neo-liberals weakened America so much that we struggled to supply our own needs in a time of crisis. If America cannot help itself then America certainly can't help other countries. Neo-liberals lied and more Americans died.
Democrats are wringing their hands over the demise of the Republican Party. But the Republican Party isn't dead. The Republican Party needs to clear away the neo-liberal and libertarian deadwood that is harming America. Republicans are having to learn how to think about what's good for America, again.
Let Democrats continue to elect their deadwood to high office. America is ready to move on and Democrats will be left in the past if they do not change as the Republican Party is changing.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Republican Party is showing signs of softening its trademark fiscal conservative brand in favor of a new populist approach, a potentially seminal shift as the party becomes more reliant on blue-collar white voters after Donald Trump's presidency.
The last time Republicans were thrown out of power, in 2009, they embraced an unabashed tax-cutting and spending-cutting vision to find their way out of the wilderness. Now, the party is taking a different path as ambitious figures seek to curry favor with voters by pushing a larger government safety-net that includes cash to families and a minimum wage hike.
The new approach comes at a time of deep economic hardship — rising income inequality and escalating costs of health care and college tuition — made worse by the coronavirus pandemic. The trend, if it continues, will test the longstanding alliance between the GOP and big business and has the potential to reshape the future of American policymaking.
"I hope there's support for getting working people a fair shot. Most Americans — they don't want to be taken care of. They would like a fair shot though — to be able to get a job, be able to raise their family," Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said.
Hawley's rhetoric echoes progressives who say the government has a larger role in providing equal economic opportunity. He has been a vocal supporter of direct cash payments to Americans, even teaming up with democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., recently on the issue.
Senator Josh Hawley speaks during a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing in Washington, on Oct. 13, 2020.Patrick Semansky / Bloomberg via Getty Images file
But despite his interest in fiscal liberalism, Hawley breaks sharply from Democrats by embracing Trump's cultural conservatism, skepticism of immigration and even his promoting of conspiracy theories about the 2020 election result — a potential new model for the party.
"Republicans need to have a broader conversation about what we're going to do to support working people, working families in the middle of the country, where I'm from, but all across the country," Hawley said. "So I hope that that's the direction that we're headed."
'It's time'
The party-line vote Saturday to approve a $1.9 trillion Covid relief bill shows there remain economic differences between the two parties. Yet 48 Republicans voted in the process to spend $650 billion on measures including direct cash, jobless aid and child care.
Perhaps no Republican embodies the change quite like Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah.
He ran for president in 2012 on a platform of slashing taxes, raising the Social Security retirement age and cutting Medicare spending. He picked as his running mate Paul Ryan, the vanguard of traditional fiscal conservatism.
Now, Romney is leading efforts in his party to expand the safety net with a substantial child allowance and a minimum wage hike to $10 per hour, one that's tied to stricter immigration enforcement. And he was an early proponent of direct payments amid the pandemic.
"With regards to each of those plans, the effort is to make our safety net more effective," Romney told NBC News, while emphasizing that his plans are paid for.
In some ways, Romney is Trump's polar opposite and chief antagonist — the only Republican who voted twice to find him guilty on impeachment charges. But Trump's pro-spending and anti-immigration attitudes created space for the policies Romney is pushing.
Case in point, his minimum wage proposal is co-sponsored by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., one of the chamber's most conservative members and someone who is considered a likely presidential candidate.
"It's time for the minimum wage to be raised. It hasn't been raised in a long, long, long time," Romney said. "But do so gradually and consistent with the rate of inflation — and marry that with immigration enforcement to make sure that we don't have people coming in illegally, taking away jobs from those at the entry level."
While Romney is hardly a favorite among conservative grassroots activists because of his extensive criticism of Trump, some were enthused by the proposals, particularly his childcare plan. That plan would provide households up to $4,200 annually per child while cutting some existing entitlement programs.
The idea of using federal power to promote the nuclear family is at the center of this change in GOP policymaking, and a number of other lawmakers like Hawley and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., are seeking to lead in this area.
"I think Romney's proposals are interesting," Don Thrasher, chairman of Kentucky's Nelson County GOP, told NBC News. "I think [GOP policy] needs to be addressing the inequity of what is going to corporate America versus what is going to Main Street America. And I think part of what Romney's saying does that."
Republican strategist Andy Surabian said some in the GOP are shifting away from its fiscal orthodoxy.
"There's a lot more openness from the base to policy proposals that are more populist in nature and are less concerned with kind of orthodox, libertarian conservative economics in some ways," he said. "But I also think it's super easy to overstate the extent to which that's true."
He added though it's wrong to assume conservative activists no longer care about spending and debt, or "that they're all of a sudden for a bunch of liberal economics" like a national $15 minimum wage.
'Deficit hawkishness'
Notably, Republicans are talking less about the national debt and are instead attacking the Democrats' Covid bill as a "liberal wish list." And the tea party activists who took politics by storm in 2009 with complaints about government spending are nowhere to be found. A recent Economist/YouGov poll showed the bill is supported by 66 percent of Americans, with just 25 percent opposed. It has support with nearly four-in-10 Republicans and 30 percent of Trump voters.
A Nebraska Republican, who asked to speak anonymously to provide a frank assessment of Republican messaging said that as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and the unprecedented government relief, "a lot of the base" is more comfortable with accepting "a larger economic role for the government" — so long as "it actually serves to benefit the American citizen."
"I think the days of a party exclusively dedicated to deficit hawkishness are waning," this person said. "I think you'll see a much larger body of freshmen in 2022 move toward the middle on that issue."
Some Democrats say this shift is shows Republican counterparts are searching for an identity after four years of Trump and then his re-election defeat.
"The Republican Party's a snow globe right now," said Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis. "They don't know if they're QAnon, if they're tea party, if they're fiscal conservatives, if they're a religious right party — they don't know. And during that time, you're gonna see lots of shit falling from the sky."
But Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said the decline of fiscal conservatism is good for the country.
"If that legacy of the Trump era is maintained inside the Republican Party, it means that there'll be a lot more room for negotiation with Democrats, because they won't be any longer wedded to root canal-like budget policy that is focused on inflicting more pain," he said.
However, some Republicans say Trump's vision on spending actually attracted more voters to the party — mainly disaffected Democrats.
Trump "brought a lot of people into the party that were traditional Democrats," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., a former Democrat who switched parties in 1994, said. "Just hope we keep bringing more in."
Trump infused the party with a mix of economic populism and nativism that many Republicans initially resisted. Now, even after his defeat, it continues to influence the party.
"Probably one of Trump's biggest changes was to have a more populist approach, particularly to helping people," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a former Trump critic turned fierce ally, said in an interview. "I think that's good."
Tags
Who is online
62 visitors
Neo-liberal elites and phony libertarians may call it populism and nativism. What is really happening is an American rebirth.
So true, and the Dems seem to think they have a mandate for one party rule.
Yes, the only thing holding Democrats together is hatred of Trump. But that hatred has been built upon Trump's warthog personality. Even Democrats understand that opposing an America First policy approach would be political suicide.
Democrats may bicker and whine about the details but Democrats can't oppose the fundamental idea. And if Republicans backslide then they will pay a heavy price.
If he just could have kept his mouth shut we all would have been better off. The Smart Democrats know that Biden didn't beat Trump, Trump lost it all by himself. He had good policy and results and he tried to keep his campaign promises. Even his immigration policy was well liked because even though the far left and the media attacked it most Americans want illegal immigration stopped (even most Democrats).
That is ridiculous. Biden whipped Trump fair and square. Americans rejected Trumpism!
I agree. Trump lost because of what he said coupled with his downplaying of the virus.
Haha. The Democrats have been pushing for a minimum wage hike for a while. Now all the sudden several republicans think it is a good idea and that is leaving the Dems behind?
Funny....
Hahaha ... Who do you think pays those higher wages?
Consumers provide the money for everything. Consumers provide the money to pay wages, pay taxes, pay for regulatory compliance, and pay for stock dividends.
Who do you think pays for wages so low people need public assistance?
I can only shake my head at people claiming that a rise in minimum wage would lead to a catastrophic rise in price in everything.
I hate to break the news to some but prices have been rising without a wage hike.
What part of consumers provide the money for everything is difficult to understand?
Where do the rich get the money to become rich? Where do businesses get the money to pay taxes?
Raising the minimum wage only allows people to spend more. Where does that money go? What does raising the minimum wage actually accomplish?
Supply-side economics simply doesn't work because it's the demand-side of the economy that provides the money for everything. Supply-side socialism won't work any better than supply-side capitalism.
Yes, raising the minimum wage will allow people to spend more money. Where does that money go?
We've raised the minimum wage in the past. What did that accomplish? Why do we need to raise the minimum wage again? Aren't we just repeating the cycle and not addressing the problem?
So what is your recommendation? Should the minimum wage be lowered to reduce spending and 'starve the rich'?
The strategy appears to be step 1: poverty. Step 2: Step 3: poverty solved!
Such equivocation is unsurprising.
Several things need to be done. Protect the buying power of the dollar. Let the rich take the haircut during recessions; instead of bailing out finance focus support on consumers. Make the progressive income tax progressive; the current overall Federal tax system works like a flat tax. Use racketeering laws to control profiteering. Use reverse tariffs to prevent foreign businesses operating in United States from moving money offshore.
Allow deflation to control inflation. Deflation is also a natural function of the marketplace.
Equivocation? I asked you to explain your position. Do you know what equivocation is? For your future reference:
There is nothing ambiguous in my question. You stated that minimum wage should not be raised because it will accomplish nothing but make the rich richer. So I asked you:
That is ambiguous language trying to conceal truth? It is a question about what you wrote. See? Now look at the rest:
This is taking your logic and asking if it goes both ways (in your mind). If you are against raising minimum wage because people will simply spend more and thus provide more income to the suppliers does your reasoning hold that lowering minimum raise is good because of less spending and less income to the suppliers? This is the obvious follow-up question to ask given what you wrote.
You find that ambiguous or concealing truth? In both cases I am asking you to be more clear.
Don't ascribe bullshit labels simply because I asked a challenging question.
Why not take these measures instead of holding (or, worse, lowering) minimum wage? Your reasons above say nothing about minimum wage and could be done right along with increasing minimum wage.
I understand what you would do (I could nit pick but will not), but you have yet to explain why you would not reduce minimum wage along with these measures given (per you) raising minimum wage simply exacerbates the problem.
No, that's incorrect. Where have I said I'm against raising the minimum wage? That's something you made up with flawed logic.
Raising the minimum wage in the past obviously has not addressed the underlying problem. Otherwise why is there a need to raise the minimum wage again? We've raised the minimum wage in the past and economic disparities have increased. Something is missing; raising the minimum wage is only a half-measure.
I'm advocating that the underlying problem needs to be addressed. Raising the minimum wage only kicks the can down the road.
Raising the minimum wage without measures to address the underlying problem of consumer exploitation is only a feel-good measure to buy votes.
Apparently you do not understand what you think you understand. Workers are consumers. And consumers provide the money to pay higher wages. So workers are paying for their own wage increase when they buy things. There isn't any other source of money.
Consumers are also providing the money that makes the rich richer. And that won't be addressed by raising the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage won't affect the rich very much.
What game are you playing?:
Figure out what point you wish to make.
Both those quotes make the same point.
Think about the questions I've asked and perhaps you can figure out the point I'm making.
You will have to enlist someone else to play your game.
In other words this whole article can be summed up by this one sentence, “republicans are starting to realize that supply economics was always bullshit and embrace economic policies and government programs that democrats have been pushing for decades.”
Explaining why Maynard Keynes is The Father of Modern Economics and Milton Friedman is not!
"It's time for the minimum wage to be raised. It hasn't been raised in a long, long, long time," Romney said. "But do so gradually and consistent with the rate of inflation
If minimum wage had kept up with inflation it would be close to $24 per hour, not $10 Mitt. This article is a joke.
That sadly some people eat up.
Ironic....
I have seen this figure before and it's not based on inflation. It's based on production . It comes from this report . The idea is to calculate the wage (for no special reason) to keep pace with national productivity ( not the productivity of minimum wage workers), and not the value of money.
The proposal that the minimum wage should increase in buying power over time is interesting, but it has nothing to do with inflation. Anyway, under this arbitrary (and arguably irrelevant) metric, the minimum wage would indeed be $24 per hour.
It's important to note that the author also says that would be a terrible idea. For some reason, advocates of raising the wage this much never quote this part:
Here is a link to the history of the federal minimum wage, by year.
And here is a link to an inflation calculator .
What the wage would be today if it kept pace with inflation depends on your starting point. From what I can see, using these resources, the wage in 2021 (if it kept pace with inflation) should be:
$8.84 if based on 2009, the last change.
$12.03 if based on 1968, the highest relative minimum.
$4.64 if based on 1938, when it started.
1968 is the outlier. It was when the wage was highest, accounting for inflation. Based on any other year, I can't get the wage past about 10 dollars and change in today's money. And the current proposal from many people is $15. This gives some perspective on what a high number that actually is.
From your comments before the article:
Why do you feel the need to create a group called neo-liberals and say that they have been hiding in the guise of libertarians? I consider myself to be a liberal libertarian (lower case "L") and I have not recently adopted this stance. Also, the predictions about populism and nativism are not exclusive, by any means, to people of any one party or political persuasion. Further, you made the claim that this neo-liberal faction (it is unclear to me just who is encompassed by this designation) somehow made us here in the US struggle to meet our needs during the Pandemic. How was this feat accomplished? Indeed, what exactly do you mean by this: "Neo-liberals lied and more Americans died." How does this relate to your implied acceptance of populism and nativism?
Yeah that bit had me scratching my head, too.
I haven't created a group called neo-liberals. Neoliberalism is about free trade, free market capitalism, and economic liberalism. Neoliberalism only succeeds by exploiting consumers because consumers provide the money for everything. Free trade and free market capitalism isn't about protecting consumers.
Those who hope to get rich must either convince or force consumers to spend more money. Consumers won't get rich by buying things.
Once the rich become rich by exploiting consumers, they also become phony libertarians to avoid any accountability for their exploitation of consumers.
Soooo, Capitalists?
A type of capitalist that believes finance should regulate itself the same way Black Lives Matter regulates itself.
I feel like we're being unfair to warthogs.
Can you explain what that means?
I blame Grover Norquist. The idea that a politician should pledge to never ever ever ever raise taxes (the pledge says "net taxes" but whatever!) is stupid. If you want to prioritize lower taxes and spending as a general preference, that's fine, but there are times where you need to increase one or the other, or both.
The pledge might have become better known around 2009-2011, but it dates to the late 80s/early 90s* and it has served to take all the flexibility out of congressional Republicans. For a generation, they have all basically pledged to "just say no" to pretty much anything.
To the extent that Republicans might be ready to move away from such intransigence and back toward compassion, investment, and just general thoughtfulness, I think that's a good thing.
*Actually, Norquist said in an interview that he invented the pledge when he was 12. Not surprisingly, it has all the thoughtfulness, sophistication, and nuance you might expect from a 12 year-old.
Neoliberals disguised as libertarians? Mitt Romney.
Romney lauded rules and regulations that made vulture capitalism legal. After Romney got his (through legal exploitation) he became libertarian. Mitt Romney is a poster child for how neoliberalism rewards failure. Romney couldn't operate businesses, he could only suck money out of businesses; that's a failure with a large reward.
Grover Norquist is another neoliberal disguised as a libertarian.
Republicans can't do it alone. Democrats have been advocating the worst sort of tax policy. Taxing business is actually a tax on consumers. People buying a Chevy are providing the money to pay GM's corporate taxes. The same holds true for whatever consumers buy. Taxes don't do much to regulate how businesses operate because it's really consumers who are on the hook. And consumers are on the hook for providing the money to comply with regulations, too.
That's how imports gain a competitive edge.
Regulating business needs to be rethought to include criminal penalties. That's the only way the operators are put on the hook. Otherwise consumers bear the brunt of business taxes and regulations. Democrats are exploiting consumers with their policy approach.