If all your friends jumped off a fiscal cliff, would you do it too? The answer from Senator Tom Coburn and Representative Tom Cole is no.
State Treasurer Ken Miller
Though staunchly opposed to increasing tax rates, both men recently made national headlines; Coburn for his willingness to increase receipts by eliminating loopholes and preferential tax treatments and Cole for suggesting Republicans accept a compromise solution ensuring 98-percent of Americans avoid a tax hike.
Grover Norquist claims both positions defy the anti-tax pledge, the revenue-neutral standard for tax policy changes made famous by his Americans for Tax Reform advocacy group.
Until now, ideology-based conservatives like Norquist have defined conservatism by their own terms. Absurdly, yet expectedly, the conservative credentials of both Coburn and Cole are under fire. Such reality-based conservatives who dare step out, or in it, get branded with the M-word to be thrashed about in the public square clothed in the “moderate” label regardless of the fit.
Norquist lambasted Coburn saying, “he lied his way into office.” Coburn struck back by defining the difference between cheap and courageous conservatism, stating the former is that of rhetoric, pledges and pandering while the latter is that of truth, action, solutions and sacrifice.
Oklahoma also has ideologically-driven interest groups that seek their own definition of conservatism.
One such group, the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, has upped the ante on the Norquist gold standard where anything short of complete elimination of the state’s largest source of revenue is deemed not conservative.
Is it not conservative to be cautious in our approach to needed income tax reduction, to protect the state credit rating, to pay our debts and to ensure sufficient funding for core services with a diversified and dependable revenue structure?
In Oklahoma, those who say cuts in tax rates should be offset by cuts in spending and by broadening the base – ironically the very position heralded as conservative at the federal level – are burnished with the moderate brand.
Perhaps one can find some humor in the dictionary definition of conservative as “moderately cautious.” Its synonyms – reasonable, temperate and judicious – are descriptors that most would normally appreciate. But for us on the right, the term “moderate” is decidedly negative and misdirected at reality-based conservatives who dare question the ideological.
Even with a consistent record of cutting taxes and spending, this conservative economist was dinged for questioning a study by Arduin, Laffer and Moore and even jabbed in a Wall Street Journal editorial for issuing a “bogus” opposing report.
Of course, no such report existed and the editorial was written by Stephen Moore, who along with Laffer was being paid by OCPA for services rendered. Seemingly forgotten was that our policy positions are in alignment much more often than not.
Recently, The Oklahoman urged “caution in cutting the income tax without offsets,” siding with the more “moderate voices.” Their use of the M-word may be correct according to Webster’s. But in politics such characterization scores a win for the agenda-driven ideologues who seek to redefine conservatism, which begs the question: moderate compared to what?
Ronald Reagan, the deserved standard bearer of conservative principles, would no doubt be attacked in today’s political climate since he failed the revenue-neutral test by signing several tax increases.
The fact that he greatly lowered income tax rates overall and shrunk the highest marginal rate from 70 to 28 percent would not be good enough.
When reminded of this inconvenient fact, Republican Senator Jon Kyl said, “Reagan was in a situation where he had to compromise in order to get some things done.” Gee, with the pending fiscal cliff and three years with no federal budget, I guess we’re not there yet.
Though the 100-percent litmus test currently shows little sign of abatement, with principled statesmen like Coburn reclaiming the real(ist) definition of conservatism, perhaps soon we will be able to focus our energy on the 99-percent where conservatives agree rather than the 1-percent where we do not.
I must ask — Is this for real? If so, Mr. Miller lacks a complete picture, thus an understanding, of what is really at play here. ” Ronald Reagan, the deserved standard bearer of conservative principles, would no doubt be attacked in today’s political climate since he failed the revenue-neutral test by signing several tax increases.” Is Mr. Miller really trying to compare apples to tree sap here? Todays political climate would be MUCH different if Reagan were President…anyone want to argue against that point? The “Reagan Compromises” were a far cry from the compromise we are seeing attempted today…with MANY TRILLIONS of dollars more at stake and more generations of Americans now on the hook.
Surely Mr. Miller understands that the fundamentals of our economy and the ability to “pull out of the doldrums” is MUCH different than the days of Reagan?
Surely Mr. Miller knows that the American peoples trust in government is at an all time low and that many of us are sick and tired of being told its just raining when we’re watching them piss on us!
Sen. Coburn knows, and so should Mr. Miller, that we are in this mess because of our government…not in spite of it.
Surely Mr. Miller knows that many are really willing to sacrifice but we had better see government sacrificing first…namely by downsizing and spending less of our dollars on ineffective, inefficient, duplicative, cronyistic, freedom-robbing policies, programs and institutions. As a friend of mine said earlier: I’m ready for a new breed of Merry-Go-Round operator and I’d take Reagan any day of the week, past compromises and all, over what we’ve had.
For Mr. Miller to tell me that I’m too conservative or that I do not understand the definition of conservatism (just because it may not match HIS definition) because I support OK State Income Tax reductions, all the way to nil if possible, is laughable. It is because I am a “reality-based conservative” that I support such a move(s). I didn’t “redefine conservatism”, Mr. Miller….you are attempting to, however.
I’m pretty sure Miller – like any Republican – would love to have Reagan still running things. i didn’t read into this that Miller was attacking anyone, least of all Reagan. and I think Howard missed the point of his piece, which is that conservatives should spend less time jockeying for the title of “most conservative” and unite behind our common principles. miller didn’t label anyone “more conservative” or “less conservative” but pointed out that conservatism isn’t just what any one person or group says it is. Howard, you actually proved Miller’s point by getting so angry and defensive that you couldn’t see reason. and unless my memory is failing me, Howard was proud to have Coborn’s endorsement a few months ago.
“Agenda driven ideologues” and “ideologically-driven interest groups that seek their own definition of conservatism” are being used by Mr. Miller to define groups like OCPA and individuals such as myself who happen to support, among other things, reductions in the state income tax as well as not support federal tax increases. I am not missing Mr. Milller’s point and do not believe he is “attacking” Ronald Reagan. What he is doing is attempting to do is to apply his definition of conservatism as the 100% be-all-end-all definition. I believe most would agree that ANY definition of conservatism in American political discourse would include the notion of smaller, limited federal government. Do you believe spending is the problem or that lack of revenue is the problem, Anna? I believe it is spending and would like to see serious efforts at rolling back spending before we are asked to contribute more revenue.
I was truly honored to receive Dr. Coburns endorsement and did not disparage him one bit in my remarks above. Dr. Coburn is attempting to shed light ways to cut spending by highlighting waste. The poltical reality is that there is extreme pressure to raise revenues without serious cuts, I understand that. Just because its a political reality does not translate into being the proper thing to do.
Thanks for the comment!
Howard, i appreciate the discussion as well. I do agree that spending is the problem and that limited federal government is best, and i didn’t read anything above that said otherwise. I also read the words “needed income tax discussion” – so I guess I am confused at your interpretation. Coburn is a budget warrior and I read Miller defending him against those questioning whether he’s a “true” conservative for being willing to allow revenue to increase without raising taxes. I think you, coburn and miller are probably in agreement on most issues, which was the point I got – that we Republicans should unite instead of attack our own, even if we all don’t see things exactly the same way all the time.
Isn’t this FUN, Anna? The “needed income tax discussion” I believe you are referring to is from the The Oklahoman piece where the need for offsets in spending is discussed…my position and, I believe, Mr. Miller’s position is very close in this respect.
I believe you would have to agree that Mr. Miller is quilty of a bit of scolding here himself. He IS scolding Norquist…and he IS scolding OCPA for THEIR conservative beliefs (of which mine are VERY, VERY close).
The point I’m trying to make is that there has been far too much leniency given relative to what is almost universally considered Conservative versus what some are calling conservative (little “c”). Just look at where we are today — on the precipice of another “fiscal cliff”. Could it be time to say — “Enuf is Enuf”? The political reality dictates that even if the people say enough is enough, its not going to have much of an effect due to Progressive majorities in the executive and Senate while the House enjoys a slim conservative majority (little “c” — IMHO).
Just last night, Marco Rubio echoed what I scribed yesterday by saying: “This fiscal cliff is the creation of Congress”. I would like to add that not just this Congress is to blame, rather many of the past Congress’ are to blame. Why? Because of balking at those BASIC principles of conservatism that you and I agree on, Anna — there has NOT been less spending (or as Coburn would refer to it: proportional increase in spending relative to population growth) and gov’t has grown FAR beyond any reasonable conservative principle.
Here’s the deal, in my book; All of us C(c)onservatives are trying to crawl out of this pot of boiling water…its time to quit dragging us back into the pot if we believe we’ve found a way out just because another one in the pot doesn’t agree with our devised way out (make sense?). Mr Miller is just as guilty as Norquist or OCPA, or myself but, I do think that there are basic principles that must not be compromised. If I believe an elected servant of the people is violating a basic principle, it is my duty and my right to call them on the carpet about that. Thats the beauty of being Conservative as opposed to being a progressive D in todays political climate — we still participate in discussions about political philosophy, policy, and intent and purpose whereas the “other side” just blindly follow and rarely question. Todays policies are, without question, transforming America into a barely recognizable shadow of its former economic greatness. Norquist, OCPA, myself, you, Miller…millions of us recognize this! Is this because of too much adherence to Conservative principle or too little? I posit it is the latter. In the past 25 years, where has compromise and conservatism (little “c”) led us? To multiple debt ceiling increases and place where over half of the voting American public now desire gov’t intervention over less gov’t. To use an old oil-field term; We’re in a 9-line bind and our government got us here because of lack of faith in those basic conservative principles Mr. Miller is chiding OCPA (and their ilk) and Norquist for having and arguing for.
I’ve rambled long enough and will leave on this point — follow and/or unite based on commonly held principles, not because someone has an R or D (or whatever) by their name.
Little side note: The first words (IN PERSON) I ever heard Dr. Coburn say were this: “Ladies and Gentlemen…Never trust your government”.
online political exchanges are not fun for me actually. I work hard all day, take care of my family and try to be an engaged and active citizen and occasionally share my views. since I don’t have time to write political novellas, I will make 3 final points:
1) I was not referring to any other article – i was referencing miller’s own words in the commentary above, you know, the piece that sparked such a lengthy response from you. I did mistype though. what he actually wrote (8th paragraph, FYI) was “needed income tax REDUCTION.”
2) there is nothing in the commentary above that indicates a “basic principle” was being “violated”
and 3) questionable advice not to trust the government from someone who so desperately want to be a part of it.
3). “Most bad government has grown out of too much government” — Thomas Jefferson. This is why I choose to be involved in OUR government. Government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people. It is most apparent that this is less and less the case.
2). OCPA, Norquist (the ones specifically targeted by Mr. Miller’s “commentary”) have always stood for and advocated the basic principles of Conservatism. I’m sorry if you are unaware of that.
1). FYI: The only item thing close to what you originally had written WAS contained in the commentary by Miller — he referenced The Oklahoman!
I’m sorry if my responses are lengthy but I have so much time on my hands with getting up no later than 4am every morning, driving 102 miles to work, then back in the afternoon to take care of family, kids homework, show preparations, writing articles, reading proposed legislation, community projects and volunteering, and bed by 11pm.
IT IS FUN, THOUGH!
A TRUE Conservative would end the wasteful albatross called the Drug War!
I believe many folks are just tired of Republicans getting elected on a platform of being “conservative” and then continuing to vote for higher debt and higher taxes. A perfect example is right here in Oklahoma. Since 2010 when the Republicans took full control of state government in OKC they have passed the two largest budgets in states history, attempted to pass a debt package in 2012 of over half a billion dollars and attempted to make changes to the tax code that would have adverserly affected up to 25% of Oklahomans.
And after passing this lastest and largest ever budget Governor Fallin emailed out that she felt this years budget was a “fiscally conservative budget”. Governor we can read the numbers.
The Republican party can pass all the platforms it wants to but the folks who define who we are as Republicans are the elected officials and they define us when they vote. “You know a tree by the fruits it produces”. The Republican party will continue down this path until enough true “limited government and lower tax” folks are elected and are willing to stand their ground.
J.B., Oklahoma state government is most certainly limited and the only way one can claim the budget is the biggest is if you add in federal money that didn’t come from the legislators in Oklahoma. And, as a percentage of the Oklahoma economy, tax collections are, indeed, lower. Those of us in the Sooner State are paying less of our dollars in state taxes than in at least 20 years. Sure, you can read the numbers, but can you really understand what they mean in context to the bigger picture? Apparently not.