What Would Reagan Do?

"Misguided" conservatives bristle after Dyche examines Neo-Con Republicanism in Kentucky. Do Kentucky Neo-cons prefer political power over good public policy?

This from John David Dyche in C-J:

State GOP's anti-tax stance endangers Kentucky's future

Republicans in the Kentucky General Assembly have conflated the concept of conservatism with opposition to any and all tax increases. This is unfortunate and incorrect. Properly understood, conservatism is an attitude of realistic prudence toward politics and society, not a rigid position on any single issue.

The most recent manifestation of this Republican misunderstanding is in the apparent opposition of every GOP representative and senator to an altogether sensible, and indeed much too modest, increase in the cigarette tax. Sen. Gerald Neal, D-Louisville, was right in saying that no legislator has articulated a good reason for this resistance.

Sen. Robert Stivers, R-Manchester, called the cigarette tax "bad policy" because as the tax went up, fewer people would buy cigarettes, thus decreasing revenue. But this argument ignores the benefits of both badly needed short-term revenues and long-term savings from the improved public health that reduced smoking would produce.

Funds from taxing a vice like smoking can be used to promote conservative social virtues. There is virtual consensus, for example, that expanded early childhood education would improve Kentucky in myriad ways. Yet for want of money too little is done in this regard and even existing educational programs are effectively cut.

How did the anti-tax talisman take hold of the state GOP? Perhaps when Louie Nunn never won again after raising the sales tax as governor. Or maybe in 2000 when U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell warned the state Senate's new Republican majority against raising taxes. Both these possible explanations reflect calculations of political power rather than good policy.

Yet conservative icon Ronald Reagan raised taxes as California governor and prospered politically. State Sen. David Williams, R-Burkesville, and then-state Rep. Anne Northup, R-Louisville, likewise thrived after they voted for a sales tax increase to finance education reform in 1990, as rare exceptions to the prevailing Republican rule.

Being anti-tax at the federal level is completely consistent with conservative, and constitutional, principles. The national government is supposed to be one of limited powers, but now grossly exceeds them. Its bloated bureaucracy poorly performs functions that under federalism, to which conservatives at least pay lip service, should be state responsibilities.

It is, therefore, perfectly consistent with conservative principles for one to advocate for smaller government and lower taxes in Washington, but at the same time support bigger government and higher taxes in Frankfort. Some, like state Rep. Jim DeCesare, R-Bowling Green, nonetheless suggest that only ultra-liberals could back a budget containing a cigarette tax hike.

Not every proposed state tax and program merit conservative support, of course. Dumb taxes discourage desirable activities, like entrepreneurship and investment. But the cigarette tax literally discourages cancer and a plethora of other costly medical and social plagues.

One can also make a conservative case for expanded gambling, but it is admittedly more difficult. The best arguments are built upon conserving the state's signature equine industry. New gambling, maybe limited to slots, at tracks with some proceeds steered into purses would not extend gambling to new venues, but would produce revenue and help sustain a broad-based agricultural industry now suffering from intense multi-state competition.

Kentucky formerly featured more philosophical diversity among its Republican politicians. Many will argue that is the very reason why the GOP was so long in the minority. Perhaps aggressively pairing an inflexible anti-tax stance with fundamentalist Christian positions on social issues is the key to a renaissance of Republican political success.

But nothing in the conservative intellectual tradition requires any such linkage. And little, if anything, in Kentucky's quality of life or future prospects proves that the commonwealth is better off because of it.

This stagnant state is in desperate need of a new "third way" alternative to its current partisan political gridlock. Pragmatic Republicans with the courage to reclaim real conservatism from the misguided ideology that has consumed it can point the way.

Dyche calls for SB 1 debate in the House

Louisville columnist John David Dyche would have us believe that the motives of Senate Bill 1's sponsors are as pure as the driven snow, and everyone should play nicely. ...otherwise he presents a nicely balanced view of the bill. Maybe Dyche is right. Personally, I think at least one of the key players has worked hard to earn his reputation. But, Dyche correctly outlines the way things ought to be.

Dyche wants to sweet talk Democrats into a lovely floor debate in the House. Kentucky is nowhere near ready to resolve this issue and it's hard to see how SB 1 could be amended without turning it 180 degrees. But, OK ... let's talk about it. It should never move out of committee, however. Better is Commissioner Jon Draud's effort to put a task force together to draft a new plan over time.

If Kentucky's leaders were truly "passionate about the agreed goal of all students achieving at high-levels" we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, these "well-intentioned men" would have already supported an adequately funded system of schools throughout the state, producing better student achievement and fewer students needing remediation as college freshmen.

This from John David Dyche in today's Courier-Journal:

SB 1 sparks productive debate

... [Senate Bill 1's] sponsor, Senate President David Williams, R-Burkesville, and two other Senate proponents, Dan Kelly, R-Springfield, and Ken Winters, R-Murray, do not deserve the scorn some ideological adversaries reflexively heaped upon them. Whatever one's opinion of SB 1, these smart and well-intentioned men performed an important public service by challenging old assumptions and forcing high-profile discussion of testing alternatives.

SB 1's supporters sometimes swerved off the legislative high road in ways that distracted from the substantive issues. Still, seeking better student-specific data, more instructional days and savings makes sense.

But the bill's backers failed to make a compelling, broad-based case for the radical change they advocate. There were credible witnesses, like the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce's Dave Adkisson, but insufficient evidence of either urgent need or widespread sentiment among administrators, parents or teachers to immediately abolish CATS altogether.

Among SB 1s opponents, Sens. Gerald Neal and Tim Shaughnessy, both Louisville Democrats, shone in committee, as did Senate Minority Leader Ed Worley, D-Richmond, on the Senate floor. They are open to reform, but they reasonably argued the benefits of CATS.

Other SB 1 foes featured Education Secretary Helen Mountjoy, who is dedicated, knowledgeable and deserving of great respect, if not deference. So are Robert Sexton and the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence, which Williams was wrong to impugn in his Friday floor speech.

Roger Marcum, the Marion County superintendent and president of the Kentucky Association of School Administrators, and Brent McKim, representing Jefferson County teachers, spoke with the prudence that real-world experience produces.

Rep. Harry Moberly Jr., D-Richmond, who gave a feisty tour de force in defending CATS on the "Kentucky Tonight" show, says SB 1 may rest in his committee "for years." But the House should hold hearings and vote. Like the stream-saver bill Moberly is helping to liberate, testing reform is too important for any one chairman to kill.

Task forces are frequently farcical or futile, but since SB 1 is probably dead this session, Education Commissioner Jon Draud is correct to convene one on assessment. In the meantime, maybe legislators should let some individual districts, like flourishing Fort Thomas Independent, opt out of CATS as a pilot program.

After watching this robust debate, albeit from a distance, this dad wants both sorts of assessment for his children. Neither CATS nor SB 1 covers all bases, but from a parental perspective, each test type has its virtues. A blended or hybrid assessment strategy seems desirable and should be possible. But time constraints may dictate that there must ultimately be an either-or choice.

Public school families know well that budget woes and partisan politics infuse this issue. They wish more mutual respect would, too. For despite all Kentucky's past policy struggles and present pedagogical disputes, we are grateful so many talented people are passionate about the agreed goal of all students achieving at high-levels.