A conservative Republican reader who is also a Catholic sends this in from the Corner:
Huck: There's a World of Hurt in America [Andy McCarthy]This is the Republican primary, right?
The reader adds, sarcastically:
Because, you know, Republicans aren't supposed to care about the working man.I am beginning to think that so many conservatives don't give a damn about the common good.
UPDATE: Don't know if you caught it, but here, via The Corner, is what Limbaugh had to say the other day to a caller who phoned to tell Rush he was a rich man out of touch with how much it costs just to get by in America today:
You can talk about my wealth, but let me tell you something, sir. I don't depend on anybody else for anything, and it was one of my objectives when I grew up. I didn't want to be obligated. I didn't want to be dependent. I didn't want to owe anybody. I don't buy into insurance plans because it's a hassle! Now, I know a lot of people don't have that freedom. I used to not have that freedom, either. But I do now because I worked for it — and if I can do it, a lot more people can do it than think they can, and that's conservatism again.
Good to know. Meanwhile, today's NYTimes reports on some pathetic whiners in Ohio, who apparently don't listen to enough Limbaugh:
Middle-aged men moving in with parents, wives taking two jobs, veteran workers taking overnight shifts at half their former pay, families moving West — these are signs of the turmoil and stresses emerging in the little towns and backwoods mobile homes of southeast Ohio, where dozens of factories and several coal mines have closed over the last decade, and small businesses are giving way to big-box retailers and fast-food outlets.Here, where the northern swells of the Appalachians lap the southern fringe of the Rust Belt, thousands of people who long had tough but sustainable lives are being wrenched into the working poor.
...Shari Joos, 45, a married mother of four boys in nearby Wellston, said, “If you don’t work at Wal-Mart, the only job you can get around here is in fast food.”Between her husband’s factory job and her intermittent work, they made $30,000 a year in the best of times, Mrs. Joos said. Since last fall, when her husband was laid off by the Merillat cabinet factory, which downsized to one shift a day from three, keeping anywhere near that income required Mrs. Joos to take a second job. She works at a school cafeteria each weekday from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m and then drives to Wal-Mart, where she relaxes in her car before starting her 2-to-10 p.m. shift at the deli counter.
Her 20-year-old son went to college for two years, earning an associate degree in information science, but cannot find any jobs nearby. He still works at McDonald’s and lives at home as he ponders whether to move to a distant city, as most local college graduates must. Her 22-year-old son works at Burger King and lives with his grandparents — “that was his way of moving out,” Mrs. Joos said.
In late December her husband landed a new job, driving a fork lift at a Wal-Mart distribution center, a shift that ends at 2:30 a.m. It pays a little less than he used to make and is an hour’s drive away, so gasoline soaks up a painful share of his wages.
“We never see each other,” Mrs. Joos, 45, said on a recent morning as she packed a roast beef and cheese sandwich for her evening meal. “We never even think of taking a vacation.”
What does the party of Family Values have to say to people like this, whose families are being chewed up by the economy? "Losers! Pull yourself up by the bootstraps and become a conservative talk show host with a mansion in Palm Beach!" Nah, that's not quite it.
Look, I don't think the Democrats have the answers here, but at least they -- and Mike Huckabee -- are aware of the questions. David Brooks remarks today:
Meanwhile, the Republican prospects in the fall just got even dimmer. I say this not only because a weak general election candidate won a primary, but because Mitt Romney’s win pretty much guarantees a bitter fight for the nomination. If you doubt that, here is what Rush Limbaugh said about McCain and Huckabee on his program today: “I’m here to tell you, if either of these two guys get the nomination, it’s going to destroy the Republican Party, it’s going to change it forever, be the end of it.” This week, Rush and his radio mimics have been on the rampage on the party’s modernizers, from Newt Gingrich on over.This thing will only get uglier.
The GOP "modernizers" are Republicans who wish to live outside the bubble, in reality, and retool the party's philosophy and message to better suit the times. It's not 1980 anymore, and it's been 20 years since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. The Bubble Republicans are going to go down this November, and they're going to go down very, very hard.


Add to Newsvine
Comments
Mr. Dreher, unfortunately you are guilty of the very thing you accuse us Bubble Republicans of being - shortsighted and out of touch. You "out of the bubble conservatives" had best realize that the GOP ain't never gonna no how get no votes from the vast majority of low-skilled Hispanics, and most Hispanics are low skilled. It is a pipe dream of yours and the McCainiaks and Hucksters to think that by accommodating millions of illegal Hispanic aliens that we can somehow win them over to conservative principles. Sheesh, the average Hispanic who manages to graduate from high school - and nearly 50% do not - does so with 8th grade math and reading levels. You simply cannot mix the First World with the Third World. Where the two exist, as in Brazil, at best an uneasy, smoldering ceasefire exists. I guess Mr. Crunchy Con has become more like a soggy cornflake - willing to sell out his country. I'd rather join and fight in a third party, that will become the true bulwark for conservatism and American sovereignty.
Posted by: Mark Jaws | January 16, 2008 11:27 PM
FOr those still interested on this topic there was a interesting discussion at the Mirrors of Justice Blog under the Jan 15 entries. It is kind of fun because they compare Rush's statement to the views of the United States new ambassador to the Holy See. Who by the way was an unoffical advisor to Romeny
http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/
Posted by: jh | January 17, 2008 1:07 AM
Here is a example
Mary Glendon:
"To state the obvious: If the outlook for dependents is grim, the outlook for everyone is grim. Despite our attachment to the ideal of the free, self-determining individual, we humans are dependent, social beings. We still begin our lives in the longest period of dependency of any mammal. Almost all of us spend much of our lives either as dependents, or caring for dependents, or financially responsible for dependents. To devise constructive approaches to the dependency-welfare crisis will require acceptance of those simple facts of life. And it will require a certain tragic sensibility, for there is no solution that will not entail striking balances among competing goods."
Rush:
I don't depend on anybody else for anything, and it was one of my objectives when I grew up. I didn't want to be obligated. I didn't want to be dependent. I didn't want to owe anybody. I don't buy into insurance plans because it's a hassle! Now, I know a lot of people don't have that freedom. I used to not have that freedom, either. But I do now because I worked for it — and if I can do it, a lot more people can do it than think they can, and that's conservatism again.
Posted by: jh | January 17, 2008 1:10 AM
Mark Jaws hits the nail on the head. People like Brooks and the Crunchy Con really believe that low-skilled latinos are the future of this nation.
Posted by: roylee13 | January 17, 2008 9:51 AM
Timothy Copple
Taxing assets would be just as complex as taxing income (which requires tracking assets for deducting cost, etc.) It's really simple. You can't enjoy the benefits of money you've earned until you spend it. You can't get an asset until you buy it. Taxing consumption would put the incentive in the right spot and provide for a simpler way to fund the government, and reduce the power of lobbyist who can no longer lobby for tax breaks on various taxes for clients, because now those clients will simply be collecting it and sending it onto the government.
You're assuming they'll spend the money in the US. And aboveboard.
And, more to the point, you're allowing infinite accumulation of money as long as they don't spend it. And for some reason every single 'flat tax' has decided that purchasing parts of companies (aka, stock) shouldn't count as a purchase.
And you have to put up some sort of prebate or something to keep the taxes from being absurdly regressive.
In essence, you're trying to build an income tax that taxes only income you spend. I don't see how that's even slightly a good idea compared to taxing all income. If anything, income that isn't spent should be taxed more.
And, basically, that's what I'm trying to do. My idea wouldn't tax income that resulted in nothing. Eaten food is valueless. Used clothing is fairly valueless. Like I said, a minimum value of 500 or a 1000 dollars would keep almost everything from being taxed, or just don't even bother with them. Car, house, bank account, and stock taxes would already be calculated for you, and possibly that's all that 95% of the people would be taxed on.
If we're going to replace income tax, I see no logical reason that replacing it with sales tax would make any sense. You have to do all sorts of tricks to even try to make that less regressive, and it still doesn't work that well. Whereas property taxes are already progressive.
Posted by: DavidTC | January 17, 2008 1:07 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?