The Question Conservatives Often Get Wrong

Would you accept $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases?

It’s a simple question, and one that conservative presidential candidates have famously gotten wrong. What’s particularly frustrating is that there’s no actual legislation involved, no specific taxes being raised, and no spending programs being cut. It’s a hypothetical question, yet some conservatives seem unwilling to even entertain the possibility.

At a Fox News debate in Ames, Iowa, on August 11, 2011, moderator Bret Baier asked the eight Republican candidates on stage who would walk away from a hypothetical deal offering $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. All eight raised their hands.

I think they gave the wrong answer. But what bothers me most isn’t their opposition to tax increases. It’s what their answers communicate about their willingness to lead, govern, and work with people who don’t agree with them.

Independent Florida Quick Take

The question: At the August 2011 Fox News debate in Ames, Iowa, eight Republican presidential candidates rejected a hypothetical deal offering $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases.
The problem: Nothing was binding, and candidates could have attached whatever conditions they wanted. Their categorical refusal reinforced the perception that Republicans are unwilling to compromise.
The consequence: By trying to demonstrate conservative credentials, candidates may have alienated voters who might otherwise support their ideas.

Why Would Conservatives Reject This Deal?

There are several explanations, and some are perfectly reasonable concerns when we’re talking about actual legislation.

Republicans have long argued that tax increases can hurt economic growth. Some believe government already collects too much money and should focus exclusively on reducing spending. Others distrust promises of future spending cuts, particularly when tax increases might take effect immediately.

Conservatives also point to past budget agreements under Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush as reasons to distrust promises of future spending cuts. Whether those agreements delivered what was promised is still debated, but the concern itself is understandable.

Then there’s the influence of anti-tax pledges, such as the Taxpayer Protection Pledge promoted by Americans for Tax Reform. For politicians who have promised to oppose certain tax increases, even suggesting a willingness to consider one can create political problems.

I understand these concerns. I’m generally opposed to tax increases myself, largely because I don’t believe government is the most efficient way to solve many of our problems. But there’s something important missing from these explanations.

Nobody was asking the candidates to vote for a tax increase.

There was no legislation on the table, no specific tax being increased, and no particular government program being cut. Nobody was asking them to commit to an actual deal. The question was hypothetical, which is precisely why their answers bother me.

Brass balance scale showing ten gold coins outweighing one coin in a government conference room.

You Can Put Whatever Conditions You Want on It

Let’s say you’re a conservative politician who doesn’t trust Washington to follow through on promised spending cuts. Fine. Make that part of your answer. For example, a candidate could have said:

“Absolutely, provided the spending cuts are real, enforceable, and the tax increases are acceptable.”

Or perhaps:

“Yes, if we’re talking about actual reductions in spending, not just reductions in projected spending increases.”

You could even specify which programs you’d be willing to cut, which taxes you’d consider increasing, and how the agreement would be enforced. Put as many conditions on it as you want.

That isn’t just a thought experiment. In June 2012, Jeb Bush told the House Budget Committee that if someone could bring him a majority for $10 in spending cuts per $1 of revenue, “put me in, coach.” He didn’t have to abandon his conservative principles to say it. He simply declined to rule out the possibility.

That’s the beauty of a hypothetical question. You aren’t committing to anything. You’re simply acknowledging that there might be circumstances under which you’d be willing to discuss a compromise. Yet eight candidates couldn’t bring themselves to do that. What exactly did they gain by refusing?

What Does That Answer Say to Everyone Else?

I suspect many of those candidates believed they were demonstrating their conservative credentials. They wanted Republican primary voters to know they wouldn’t give an inch on taxes. But presidential candidates aren’t just speaking to the people who already agree with them.

Imagine you’re a voter who generally favors smaller government, lower spending, and fiscal responsibility, but doesn’t identify strongly with either political party. You hear a Republican candidate offered ten dollars in spending cuts for every dollar in tax increases. It’s not a real proposal, and the candidate can establish whatever conditions they want. And the answer is still no.

Does that make you more confident in their ability to lead? Does it make you believe they can sit down with people who disagree, discuss difficult issues, and find solutions that move the country forward? Or does it make them look so determined to oppose tax increases that even discussing an imaginary compromise is unacceptable?

To someone outside the conservative base, that can look less like principled leadership and more like a child refusing to consider anything that isn’t exactly what they want. That’s not an encouraging impression to leave with people you’re trying to persuade.

Republicans often complain that they’re portrayed as obstructionists, unwilling to listen, or unwilling to work with Democrats. But when every candidate rejects a hypothetical that appears so favorable to conservative priorities, they’re reinforcing that very perception.

And for what? Would a conditional yes really cost them more support among committed conservatives than a categorical no might cost them among everyone else? I don’t know the answer to that electoral calculation, but it’s a question Republican candidates ought to consider.

The question returned in October 2015, when CNBC’s John Harwood put it to Bush at the Republican debate in Boulder, Colorado. Bush, who had embraced the hypothetical three years earlier, answered by questioning whether anyone in Congress would actually offer spending cuts of that magnitude.

That’s a fair concern in a real negotiation. It’s considerably less persuasive as a reason to avoid answering an open-ended hypothetical. His 2012 answer is much closer to how I think conservatives should answer this question.

Sometimes Spending Money Can Save Money

There’s another aspect of this debate worth considering. Conservatives often argue, reasonably, that government spending should be evaluated carefully. But that doesn’t mean every dollar spent by government is necessarily wasted.

Consider education and job training. A successful program might help unemployed workers find better-paying jobs, increasing tax revenue while reducing their need for government assistance. Under the right circumstances, the long-term benefits could exceed the original investment. Of course, we’d need evidence before claiming that any particular program would pay for itself.

That’s why I believe we should evaluate ideas based on their potential results rather than reject them automatically. A tax increase isn’t inherently good, and neither is additional government spending. But refusing to consider either possibility can prevent us from recognizing solutions that might actually advance conservative goals.

Are Conservatives Helping Their Own Cause?

I don’t expect conservatives to abandon their principles. I wouldn’t want them to. I want political leaders who know what they believe, can explain why they believe it, and are willing to defend those positions.

But there’s a difference between defending your principles and refusing to entertain a hypothetical question. Governing a country requires working with people who don’t share your views, considering ideas on their merits, and putting the country’s interests ahead of political positioning. That doesn’t mean abandoning your principles or agreeing to every compromise. It means recognizing that your responsibility extends beyond satisfying the people who already support you.

The 2011 candidates could have said yes with conditions. They could have explained why real spending cuts matter, why they distrust Washington’s promises, and why any tax increase would need to meet a very high standard. They could have used the question to make a compelling conservative argument.

Instead, every one of them chose to reject the deal outright. That may have pleased some Republican primary voters, but I have a hard time believing it helped convince anyone outside their base that conservatives were prepared to work with others to address the country’s problems.

And that’s what frustrates me most. If you want more people to support conservative ideas, you have to give them reasons to believe you can turn those ideas into meaningful solutions. Appearing unwilling to discuss even a hypothetical compromise doesn’t accomplish that.

Sometimes the best way to defend your principles is to demonstrate that you’re willing to have the conversation.