Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Max Borders - Part II

Having previously listed the first half of Border's list of suggested GOP policy changes, it is only right that I post the second half of the list:

6. Healthcare “1,2,3”

1-Medical savings accounts for every American – Give every American the option to divert part or all of their Medicare portion of payroll taxes to a medical savings account (aka HSA). These interest-gaining accounts can be used for out-of-pocket medical care and high deductibles. Mitigates the expense account effect running up the costs of healthcare and pulls us back from the cliff (See Singapore).

2-Refundable Tax Credits for the poor (straight into your MSA). Perhaps we can “afford” to help the poor, but not the way we’re doing it. Means-test people and give poor folks refundable tax credits on a sliding scale. They put these resources into their HSAs and choose where their healthcare dollars go.

3-Kill State Monopolies - Let people buy less expensive insurance across state lines. If I can cut my insurance premium in half by buying in Idaho, I should be able to. The only thing that prevents me from doing so is government. Let’s end that bullshit.

7. Dollar-for-Dollar Schools – Create the conditions for the emergence of creative new private, non-profit schools by allowing people to deduct a portion of the tuition to place their kids in these innovative schools. (Then, perhaps this will happen.) If you’re taking a full pupil out of the DMV-style school but leaving a large portion of the tax money for said pupil, no one can credibly argue that it “takes resources from the public schools.” Add refundable tax credits for the very poor and you’ve got a viable alternative to the mediocre-at-best public schools system. Universal primary school is maintained. Competition and iterative innovation radically improves our kids’ education. Everybody’s happy (except the teachers’ cartel, uh, union).

8. Congressional Crowdsourcing - Public solutions for public problems means big-dollar contests and public suggestion-box-type efforts can get the best ideas out of the American people. Bureaucrats have terrible incentives. And seriously, there are no Steve Jobs(s) in Congress. Congresspeople and their staffers should find ways to let the "wisdom of crowds" – even ideas futures markets - solve genuine public problems. Who ever heard of an innovative populist meritocracy? Well, now you have.

9. 1% Rule – For every dollar a federal department saves taxpayers relative to a reasonable budget baseline, those employees get 1 percent of that savings directly in their paychecks (according to pay grade). This would encourage bottom-up departmental efforts to tighten up. To prevent artificially bloating budgets the following years in order falsely to reward these functionaries, you’d have to set up the baseline to avoid political gaming of the system. Such may only be possible with a TABOR-like provision. I agree that the devil would be in the details. Just tossin' it out there.

10. Toleration – I have written elsewhere that the GOP should replace the social conservative policy leg of their tripod with a leg of toleration. Toleration is the cultural institution that means conservatives have their own private social conservatism and let others have their own lifestyles, religious beliefs, or whatever as they see fit. The kids today are much more tolerant and you won’t get anywhere with them unless you let go of all the stuff that smacks of theocracy or social engineering a la Falwell. Persuasion and privacy on social issues is preferable to power.


While a little messier than his first five reccomendations, Max still offers some substantive ideas that deserve further exploration. Health care, education, and government beurocracy are incredibly messy issues, so one can't expect the solutions to be easy. I do like #10, but that should come as no surprise.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I just quickly browsed these, and nothing really struck me as something I wanted to post an angry response. I do take a little issue with the implication (not direct statement) that Republicans are seeking a theocracy, and that somehow Falwell is a desired spokesperson. I am both Republican and Christian, and know many others who fit both categories without appreciating that stereotype.

Falwell and Limbaugh aren't the spokespeople for the GOP anymore than Michael Moorer and Keith Olberman are for the Democrats. They just happen to be the most vocal - and its always easier to criticize a loud idiot that is full of hyperbole and caricature.

However, I do recognize that this is an issue within factions of the Republican party and I would like to see some more vocal leadership from less antagonistic members.

Justus Hommes said...

Anon, I think your last sentence hits it on the head. The problem is not with being Republican and/or Christian, it is a leadership problem. Who do you allow to hold the megaphone and steer policy?

So I wonder first if the Republicans can rally behind less antagonistic and more principled leaders (that surely exist), and furthermore, would they want to? A lot of people seem happy with the Republican Party more or less how it currently is, which leads me to my next post...

JB said...

Jerry Falwell died 2 years ago. Max really needs to find a new totem.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

6 - Good words but hard to practice.

7 - An expensive plan if it does not reassign funds.

8 - Good to acknowledge the free market but the idea is little more than gambling when you don't have an underlying asset.

9 - Intriguing but seems open to problems.

10 -- The one I really want to discuss. People who stress this as the reason for two consecutive Republican electoral defeats really seem to be talking about (1) abortion and (2) gay marriage. Even most religious conservatives would agree with the broad general statement that the church and state should be separate. However, when you start talking about the issues to which the writer is actually referring, then it's not so easy. Furthermore, saying one is opposed to abortion or opposed to gay marriage is not inherently a religious position, but religion may influence those views.

Justus Hommes said...

John,

I think it is much more than just abortion and gay coupling, although you are correct that those can be religiously influenced issues. Other issues like it would be "the war on" drugs, gambling, pornography, and blue laws.

But, as someone who has family sending me religious right forwards on a regular basis, I see a large number of people who, while stopping short of a theocracy, do want their leaders to talk specifically of Christian values, both personally and politically, and fight for public prayer and symbols of faith in public spaces. In just about every presidential debate each candidate was asked to describe their religious faith. It is a sappy, sensational, and cheap veneer, but the candidates smear it on thick, and their followers eat it up.

Anonymous said...

I think I may jump back into this one, but unfortunately don't have time right now. Stay tuned for my mediocre thoughts supported by fabrication of information.