Ryan Streeter
If we were to boil down the current Republican domestic agenda – whether in Congress or among the 2012 presidential hopefuls – to bullet points, it would essentially be:
- Cut spending
- Create jobs
While there are always stray comments and views about other issues, these two dominate the debate.
And only the first has received any kind of specificity. We know that (1) the Republicans wanted to cut $100 billion this year and, even though reaching that goal is not possible, they will try to cut as much of that sum as they can, (2) that ObamaCare’s repeal represents a big overall cut, and (3) we should expect entitlement reform proposals in the GOP’s spring budget, which will contain cost growth more than anything.
On job creation, we have virtually no idea what anyone is thinking – other than statements to the effect that getting spending under control will produce an environment in which jobs can be created. Eric Cantor rolled out a pro-growth economic plan at the Hoover Institution yesterday, speaking of renewing a culture of entrepreneurship through lowered corporate tax rates, regulatory relief, and trade.
Perhaps this is a start, though the ideas a fairly straightforward and accepted by just about everyone on the right. The GOP domestic agenda lacks focus. It needs goals, objectives, a vision of some kind that helps us know whether we're pursuing the right policies. Spending cuts and job creation are necessary, but perhaps not sufficient, to get our country where it needs to go.
What if we cut federal outlays down to, say, 20% of GDP this decade? Do we have enough evidence that this will lead to the kind of job creation our economy will need? It is possible to reduce government outlays without creating new jobs.
What if we reduce unemployment to, say, 6% by putting people in jobs that pay the same now as in ten years? We would have less unemployment, but no upward mobility.
We need more than spending cuts and a general commitment to job creation. We need a reinvigoration of the American Dream framed by a goal, or goals, that help us figure out the best policies. I have proposed here and here that we frame our goal by committing to raise the median income in America by 7% in seven years. Those who don’t like this goal can propose another, but here is why this one makes sense:
- Median income has been stagnant over the past decade, even as higher incomes have risen. Rather than turn their heads away from this, conservatives should embrace this problem and offer solutions. This is not about inequality (a topic conservatives don’t like) but about upward mobility (a topic Republicans do, or should, like). And as I have argued elsewhere, it must be achieved without income transfers and redistribution; otherwise, any progress toward the goal would be artificial.
- A 7% rate of growth in seven years is doable: it gets us back to where we were in the 1990s. Middle incomes rose faster than this rate in previous decades. This idea is not a “put a man on the moon” kind of proposal as much as it is a goal to get America’s economy working for middle class families again.
- It trains our eyes not on “growth” in the abstract but on growth where it matters most. Lower income Americans strive to hit the middle class, and those in the middle class strive to rise above. If the middle of America is stuck, both dreams fail. It is hypocritical to say we believe in the American Dream if mobility has vanished in the middle. If growth only benefits the upper tier, then something’s wrong in America.
One obvious objection to pursuing a goal such as this is that there’s no way to know which policies have contributed to attaining it over time, and which have not (or, if it’s not attained, which policy choices are responsible). This may be true, but it shouldn’t stop the politically courageous from shooting for the goal.
Comments