Ryan Streeter
Republians could stand to be a bit more aspirational.
Now, aspirational politics are in a bad place after 2008. Barack Obama was elected on a wave of aspirational euphoria that has largely disappointed. His left wing has a lot less to cheer about these days, and independents – fed up with how his aspirations so quickly turned into a very expensive government – are siding largely with Republicans these days. The national mood, reflected in a number of polls, seems more practical now than in 2008: let’s get the basics right so we can get on with our lives.
But aspiration still matters. And it will matter in 2012. Our sluggish economy, poor jobs outlook for young workers, state fiscal crises, gridlock in Washington, and a general "wrong track" public sentiment suggest that voters will be ready to support whoever can point a clear path forward or up.
The party that can convince the public the effort still gets rewarded in America, that opportunity is real, that dreams can still come true – that party will do well. Americans haven’t stopped being Americans. We still believe in expanding horizons, improvement, progress.
Republicans have a huge opportunity here. In almost no time at all, Democrats have watched their domestic agenda go up in flames.
They are the party of a smelly, festering health care bill, a jobs plan that consists of no plan to create jobs, stimulus spending that resembled buckshot from a rifle aimed at no target, and cowboy poetry festivals. All they have is Barack Obama. And he’s about as weak as he has been.
But Republicans stand a very good chance of blowing this opportunity. By betting the farm on spending cuts, they have set themselves up to falter. They will anger Tea Partiers by falling short on their spending cuts pledge, and they will eventually look small as it becomes more apparent to the public that even their pledged amounts won’t move us more than a millimeter toward their stated goal of “getting spending under control.”
As Republicans continue the spending fight, they will be aided by a strong entitlement reform message coming out in a few weeks. But they also need a positive economic message. That much is clear. Karl Rove has argued the point, and Paul Ryan has promised a message of prosperity. Eric Cantor has started trying to deliver it.
But, so far, the message isn’t very interesting. Or, at least, it's not clear.
It needs focus. It needs to be aspirational, yet scaled to the aspirations of a tired public, a public that wants practicality and results based on real evidence.
I have suggested that Republicans should rally around a goal to raise median income in America by 7% over the next decade. With middle incomes stagnating as they are, such a goal would commit us to make the kinds of policy choices that improve prospects in the middle class – where we need it the most.
What use is it to try to climb out of poverty if the middle class is mired in the mud? And what does prosperity in America mean if it really only applies to hedge fund managers, technology entrepreneurs, and people we see on TV? If upward mobility in the middle of America goes away, the American Dream goes away.
A 7% goal is aspirational – in a way suited to our times. It helps us rethink in bold terms how to organize our policy objectives. But it’s also concrete and achievable. No more of this vague, lofty “we are the change we seek” stuff.
Aiming for a 7% increase in middle class income in America suggests we focus our ideas on a few key areas:
Reduce the added costs of health insurance. Total compensation has gone up just fine over the past decade, because employers have shifted more to benefits than wages. But no employee wants it that way. They want to earn more money and enjoy more disposable income. If we can slow the growth of health insurance, we will grow wages. This should be the context for repealing ObamaCare and replacing it with the kinds of market-friendly reforms a number of smart conservatives have been proposing for some time. Repeal is not enough. We need reform, or the health insurance cost problem will continue to suck up money that should go into wages.
Do what we know works to get businesses hiring en masse. The best way to do this is to get the corporate tax rate down to OECD average levels. Businesses will hire more in a growing economy, and the best way to growing the economy is to fix our overall business tax rate. Cantor, to his credit, talked about this recently, and it appears there is some real energy behind this idea in Washington. Coupled with lowering the cost of health insurance, this will do more to increase employment and wages than many realize.
Consider the sectors where some level of public spending creates broad public goods and jobs at the same time. This one gets controversial, but it doesn't really have to be. The two main areas where we should increase activity are energy and roads. Devin Nunes' recent energy bill is aimed at creating a 21st energy policy that would not only make us a world leader on energy innovation but would create a lot of jobs. And regarding roads, Sam Staley and Ted Balaker have made a good case for rethinking how DOT funds are used so we can add lanes of highway, which would not only create jobs but increase productivity.
Of course, we need to be thinking longer term about education reform and human capital formation. But to get to 7% in the next decade, we need to start in the areas where we can get the biggest payoff early. These three - none of them an easy lift - provide some context.
Comments