Resurrecting The Ruined Repug "Brand"

Apparently it has finally dawned on the national Republican Party that they face a rout in November; one indicator is their anemic fundraising numbers (resulting in this) compared to the Dems from “straight talk” McCain here (Hillary raised more, and from an electoral point of view, she’s a “dead man – person? – walking”), so in a frantic attempt to escape their legacy of utter failure, they’re doing what they do best, which is to blow smoke and create the appearance of actual governance, as noted in this New York Times story yesterday…

The party leadership in the House has already begun to roll out its own agenda under the rubric “The Change You Deserve,” but some lawmakers have said the party needs to be more aggressive. Others are skeptical about overreacting to the elections or embracing too strong a conservative theme.

I’m sure now that this story will usher in a whole “divided Republicans” narrative that will generate a bountiful harvest, if you will, of stories depicting their division and chaos…and if you believe that, then I’m sure you’ll believe that 75,000 people showed up in Oregon recently only to see the rock group The Decemberists (here - h/t Eschaton).

A draft of the conservative agenda calls for the endorsement of a constitutional amendment to prohibit federal spending from growing faster than the economy except in times of war or national emergency.

What a joke. Gee, could you qualify that any more so that it applies to some vague, distant point in the future as opposed to right freaking now? Besides, the Dems have already implemented the PAYGO rules in the House, so the Repugs are “a day late and a dollar short” again.

And when it comes to limiting federal spending particularly concerning earmarks, this Think Progress post from last January tells us…

The conservatives’ political posturing over earmarks seems purely an effort to get headlines without actually bringing about change. When Rep. David Obey (D-WI) just last month proposed whacking “an estimated 9,500 earmarks worth about $9.5 billion” from an omnibus spending plan, he ran into deep opposition from conservatives. Conservative bloggers even criticized their party for not supporting the plan.

Back to the Times story…

The plan seeks support for an income tax overhaul that would provide a simplified flat tax and allow people to choose between it and the current system.

Can you imagine the IRS having to process returns with taxpayers using two different tax formulas? There’s the issue of verifying whether or not they’re using the correct formula, and then there’s the issue of verifying that the numbers computed with that formula are correct.

In the immortal words of Poppy Bush, “Na. Ga. Ha. Pen.”

And when it comes to the so-called “flat tax” embraced by Mike Huckabee when he isn’t trying to make jokes about shooting Barack Obama, this first came up in the 1996 presidential campaign of Steve Forbes, and as noted in this Time article from that year…

…the spareness of Forbes' flat tax is deceptive. Yes, taxpayers would pay a single rate on their income above a certain threshold: for example, above $36,000 for a family of four. (And families below that threshold would pay no income tax.) But it is almost impossible to sort out fully the economic burdens that would result from the system's new rules. This much seems clear: the scheme Forbes is pushing in his television ads looks as if it would either swell the federal deficit or raise taxes on middle Americans while bestowing extra riches on the rich.

Back to the Times story again…

The conservative proposal seeks tax credits for buying health insurance, more domestic energy production and a streamlined terrorist surveillance program. The draft also said that House Republicans should extend existing welfare work requirements to food stamps and housing assistance “so that those who are not old, young or disabled are either working in the private sector or serving in their community.”

And do you know how exactly the Repugs want to “increase domestic energy production”? As noted here, by “moving $17 billion in financial incentives from major oil companies to alternative and renewable energy programs,” as well as investigating price gouging and overseas price fixing (yeah, let me know how that works out, Repugs; I’m sure our “friends” the Saudis would be happy to see that, probably squeezing supply even more in response).

Sound nice (a bit)? Well, the Dems are prepared to actually accomplish something by…

…(imposing) a 25% windfall profits tax on oil companies that do not invest in increased capacity or renewable energy sources. (The Dems’ measure) would suspend federal purchases of crude for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through December unless the 90-day average price fell to $75/bbl or less. And it would attempt to limit oil futures market speculation by keeping traders from routing transactions through offshore exchanges to avoid disclosure, and by substantially increasing margin requirements for oil futures purchases.

Now there’s a thought – trying to prevent anyone from gaming the futures market and thus make a killing through high energy prices (can you say “Enron”?).

And of course, it wouldn’t be a Repug plan unless it included a nod towards “Terra! Terra! Terra!” and persecution of the poorest in our society, would it (the whole “streamlining terrorist surveillance” bit and “extend(ing) work requirements to food stamps and housing assistance,” with the geniuses who concocted this nonsense apparently unaware of the fact that we’re in a recession).

I also cannot understand why the Repugs have not embraced the vision of their one-time leader, a certain Newton Leroy Gingrich, who wants to re-define his party with such bold moves as continuing to underfund the upcoming census, declaring English the official language of government, and building a space-based GPS system to route our air traffic (here).

The Times story also notes the following…

(Jeb Hensarling of Texas, chairman of the group of 100 Repug lawmakers trying to concoct this scheme) said his group was emphasizing fiscal policy because polls and recent electoral experience showed that voters viewed Republicans as having strayed too far from the party’s tradition on spending restraint.

Uh…yep.