Problem is the GOP has to come up with someone who can beat him, and Palin isn't it...
Such a candidate will need to be an effective speaker who is capable of conveying complex ideas in an understandable and powerful fashion. In terms of message, they'll need to dig into the details of matters such as the health legislation, present its genuine flaws, and avoid the temptation to resort to extreme rhetoric.
In the process leading up to the legislation's adoption, rhetoric focused on extremes. For example, on the eve of the vote, predictions were made that stocks would crash. That argument was rooted in nothing but fear and had little basis in fact. Health care expenditures still amount to less than 20% of GDP. The changes accounted in the new law amount to just a fraction of overall health expenditures, and the overall cost curve (a problem of a long-term nature) was not materially and immediately altered. Hence, the idea that stocks would crash was never realistic. Not surprisingly, predictions of doom did not materialize. The stock market did not crash. Of course, the failed prediction will undermine credibility.
A detailed and compelling case could have been made in many areas e.g., with respect to using increased capital gains taxes to help finance the expanded coverage. A 3.8% increase in the capital gains tax is, by itself, not excessive. Nonetheless, it is important in the marginal sense, and it could have a long-term detrimental impact on innovation and improvement in the U.S. economy on which American competitiveness depends. Such a tax hike would be focused on the people who account for a disproportionate share of private investment and it would come at a time when important U.S. competitive advantages are eroding. Factors such as declining U.S. educational attainment relative to the rest of the world, comparative tax code/investment advantages that are emerging in various developing countries, increasing emphasis on R&D in rising economies in key sectors e.g., China's companies spent far more on alternative energy research last year than U.S. firms did, an aging population, long-term fiscal imbalances that could raise long-term interest rates in the U.S. (making the cost of capital more expensive), etc., suggest that even a marginal rise in the capital gains tax could be problematic. At the same time, capital gains tax revenue is particularly volatile. If financing is to be reliable, a more stable revenue source is required.
That big picture perspective complete with various linkages requires rigorous analysis, snythesis, and effective communication. Shallow soundbites cannot begin to suffice. The debate, especially near the end, was disproportionately comprised of shallow soundbites and exaggerated warnings of doom.
Needless to say, there are some Republicans who can convey sophisticated messages and get to the core of the issues involved. Congressman Paul Ryan is one example. He had one
op-ed on the issue in Friday's edition of
The New York Times. Needless to say, the loud, fear-swept discourse drowned out the voices that could have made a substantive difference in bringing significant issues to the forefront.
The immediate post-health debate period appears to be little different. Already, many Republicans are slamming the law for raising tax burdens on companies such as AT&T. Yet, on closer inspection, what had happened was that the companies had been exploiting a loophole in which they were treating government subsidies (a non-taxable income stream) as their own expense and deducting those amounts for tax purposes. In effect, they were double-dipping. The loophole was closed in the health law. The more sophisticated argument from the Republican perspective should have that such loopholes distort economic activity and that they should be closed in exchange for keeping tax rates low. Fewer loopholes and lower tax rates was, in fact, one of the powerful messages President Reagan conveyed in winning support for his tax cuts back in the early 1980s. It's also an argument that former House Majority Leader Dick Armey has made with respect to his flat rate tax concept.
An argument that seeks to preserve loopholes is not a winning one. individuals and businesses who do not partake of such loopholes find them unfair. Those who understand the difference between income and expenses find the exploitation unethical, particularly at a time when memories of the pre-economic crisis practices in the financial sector still draw substantial public criticism.
