As chronicled in recent editions of Troup’s Corner, momentum has a new address. That address is 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The latest AP-GfK poll has the President’s approval rating at 60 percent. On the other hand, the same poll reveals that 52 percent of Americans think that the country is on the wrong track.
The results are hard to interpret. The current approval rating is seven points higher than the last poll. Of course, the current poll also takes into account recent events. The Bin Laden outcome was met with almost ninety percent approval. This development could explain the volatility of the overall approval number. For example, 60 percent of respondents now favor “harsh interrogation tactics.”
What are not volatile, are economic issues. Sixty-one percent of respondents do not like the President’s handling of the gas price issue, and less than half approve of his handling of budget issues. These issues existed prior to last week.
Despite the apparent opportunity, the GOP shouldn’t be overjoyed. The American voter has trust issues with the conservative brand. The less than stellar Bush administration and its mixed message of “compassionate conservatism” will do that. This doctrine employed a cocktail of government expansion (DHS and Medicare D), nation building, bail outs, and tax cuts. The end was anything but compassionate. The means were anything but conservative, but no matter, it’s guilt by association for retro-cons such as yours truly.
On matters of National importance, Troup’s Corner tries to convey two themes. First, conservatism is more than a mere anti-government movement. Second, the majority of Americans live as conservatives but have a hard time identifying with it because of red herrings and mixed messages.
The one thing that can overcome these obstacles is a unifying theme. The election results of 2010 indicate that Americans want to capture 1994 in a bottle, right down to the passionate Congress and newly discovered left-of-center President. Back then, Newt Gingrich executed the Contract with America under the watch of Bill Clinton. Some milestones were met, while other deliverables remained unaddressed. Even so, the Federal government balanced the budget and was on its way to repaying the National debt, barring catastrophe.
The unifying theme this time around may have arrived in the form of Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) “A Roadmap for America’s Future.” The plan preserves Medicare for those 55 or older. Tax revenue would be indexed to GDP at nineteen percent. The budget process would take the responsible zero-based approach, as opposed to a prior year basis (quick aside for our Upper Shore readers: this is the major flaw in the State’s maintenance of effort mandate. I smell column!). It is a good long-term strategy.
For sure, the plan is not infallible. Perhaps Ryan is deferring to Secretary Gates’ defense spending proposals. It’s too big of a chunk of change to ignore. Another question that needs to be answered concerns timing. This plan addresses deficits. Federal spending is currently 25 percent of GDP. Tax revenue is 17 percent. This has created annual deficits in excess of 10 percent of GDP, meaning that the debt is growing at a higher rate than the economy, and rapidly at that.
It would seem that the slashing, cutting, and reforming would take care of that 8 percent gap; however, that only gets us to the break-even point. An increase in Federal revenue is necessary to address debt reduction. Using CBO’s budget outlook from 2009 (the basis of the Ryan plan), Federal revenues would reach 25 percent of GDP in 2074. Look at the numbers in the last paragraph. Yeah, that’s a problem. The Ryan proposal would get the Nation to 19 percent, which is an increase from the current 17 percent. Coupled with spending overhauls, this would put the Nation in a good spot if we were discussing a problem with the magnitude of what we saw in the 1990s. Unfortunately we aren’t discussing those numbers.
We need a revenue jolt to pay off the investments we made in war and stimuli in all its forms. There is plenty of wiggle room for tax changes that could be employed to raise revenue. Ryan could concede the point on the inheritance tax. Obama could concede the point on individual income taxes, and embrace a strategy like lifting the cap on Social Security earnings.
There is room for compromise. For the hard liners out there, remember this: the Constitution we love to uphold as the basis for all of our arguments was, in itself, a gigantic compromise. At the end of the day, we’ll probably see a plan that looks a lot like the Simpson Bowles report. And in 2012, Ryan and Obama can argue over whether the Simpson portion of the plan, or the Bowles portion of the plan, is right for our long-term health.
Write a Letter to the Editor on this Article
We encourage readers to offer their point of view on this article by submitting the following form. Editing is sometimes necessary and is done at the discretion of the editorial staff.