Since it was signed by President Obama, House Republicans have threatened to essentially repeal the Affordable Care Act by refusing to fund it. “I can’t imagine a Republican Congress is going to give this President the money to begin this process,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has said. A spokesman for House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) even has a list of “possible targets for defunding.”

Could Republicans attempt to do the same to the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform legislation? Before Congress left for its current recess, the federal bank regulators — including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Treasury Department — requested funding to begin implementing the bill, but were shot down by Republican opposition:

The request for additional short-term money ran into tough criticism from Republicans, who sought a “clean” spending bill without the increases. House Republicans opposed the Obama administration’s request for money for the Treasury Department because it creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) with oversight of consumer products, including home loans and credit cards. With Republicans set to gain additional seats, or possibly control of Congress, in the midterm elections, the battle over appropriations will likely continue in a lame-duck session of Congress.

“The implementation of that good and historic law is in jeopardy if the CFTC doesn’t have increased resources,” Bart Chilton, a CFTC commissioner, said last week. Let’s not forget, many Republicans have expressed a desire to repeal Dodd-Frank outright, and if they can’t get that, defunding agency efforts to implement the new rules is the next logical step.

Right now, the agencies are implementing Dodd-Frank with whatever money they can scrape together from their existing budgets, but of course setting up a new consumer protection agency and creating the infrastructure necessary to police previously unregulated portions of the financial system requires some additional money. I’d also argue that it’s worth investing over the long-term in a system aimed at protecting the American taxpayer from a repeat of 2008′s financial meltdown.

There’s also a fairly simple solution for finding the funds necessary to implement the bill, in a time of necessary fiscal restraint, if they can’t be found elsewhere: a bank tax. Remember, Republicans scuttled such a tax during the last-minute negotiations over Dodd-Frank, which left Democrats scrambling for another way in which to make the bill’s resolution authority deficit neutral (which they found). Since we’re talking millions that are needed for Dodd-Frank implementation, but billions are able to be raised via a bank tax, the rest could be used to reduce the deficit or be dedicated to job creation programs.

A regulatory system only works if regulators have the resources to do their job and if their pay is adequate enough that they actually attract people who can competently go head-to-head with Wall Street’s finest minds. Refusing to fund enhanced regulations is an implicit show of support for the previous regulatory framework, which was a stupendous and spectacular failure.

As they attempt to grapple with budgets decimated by the Great Recession, lawmakers in states across the country have largely chosen one of two tracks. Some, like Wisconsin and Oregon, have paired spending reductions with responsible revenue increases — asking their wealthiest citizens and businesses to sacrifice a bit so that vital programs can be preserved — while others, like New Jersey and Virginia, have slashed social safety net spending to the bone and adamantly refused to find additional revenue.

According to the Idaho Statesman’s Dan Popkey, Idaho legislators have a slew of options on the table for dealing with their 2011 budget shortfall, including raising the state’s “relatively low tobacco and beer and wine taxes.” But one other option that Popkey reports is under contemplation is cutting tax credits that help Idaho’s poorest residents afford food:

One possibility, though no legislators want their name on it yet: Ending the grocery-tax credit, which saves taxpayers $100 million. That would mean conflict because it would hit the poor hardest during hard times.

The credit is intended to refund some of the state’s sales tax to its poorest residents, as, unlike in many other states, the Idaho sales tax is levied on groceries. In an editorial, the Lewison Morning Tribune slammed the notion of cutting grocery credits, writing that “when it’s time to cut taxes, it’s Idaho’s wealthiest who get the breaks. When there’s a tax to be paid, it’s the people on the bottom rungs who get soaked.”

And Idaho already has an inequitable tax system, with its richest five percent of taxpayers paying a small percentage of their income in taxes than any other segment of its population. In fact, someone in the richest one percent pays more than two percentage points less, on average, than someone in the poorest 20 percent of the state. But, aside from maybe raising sin taxes, it doesn’t seem that other revenue increases are in the cards. “There’s no appetite for a general tax increase,” said the state’s House Assistant Leader, Scott Bedke (R).

Citizens for Tax Justice wrote that “limiting the grocery credit to low- and moderate-income households, those who are most impacted by the regressive nature of the sales tax, is a smarter approach than outright eliminating the credit.” But given Idaho’s regressive system, an income tax on the very wealthiest earners would be an even more equitable way to raise some revenue without taking food out of the mouth’s of the state’s poorest residents.

There’s been an ongoing campaign amongst supporters of President Bush’s 2005 Social Security privatization scheme to rewrite the history books and claim that they were never in favor of such an idea. Former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA), for instance, asserted in August that “I’ve never said I favor privatizing Social Security. It’s a very misleading — it’s an intentionally misleading term.” But when Bush released his plan, Toomey reacted like this: “I have been arguing for many years in favor of Social Security personal retirement accounts…I’m thrilled that the President is taking up this critical issue.”

Another advocate of privatization who is now running away from the term is former Bush budget director Rob Portman, who is campaigning for the open Senate seat in Ohio. During a debate last night, Portman claimed that it’s “just not accurate” to say that he supports privatization:

In terms of the attack a moment ago, another partisan attack by my opponent that’s just not accurate. I do not support privatization of Social Security. What I do support is strengthening Social Security for the future.

Watch it:

Following the debate, Portman’s spokesman said that those claiming he supports privatization are “clearly lying.” But if anything is clear, it’s that Portman was an unabashed supporter of privatization, calling private Social Security accounts “the greatest force in the universe” and lauding Bush for his “political leadership and courage on this issue”:

“There’s also Social Security ideas there, including private accounts…which over the long haul results in a higher rate of return for that program. So that’s something that does actually over the long haul deal with the solvency issue.” [Human Events Online, 4/9/08]

“I mean, this is what Einstein talked about, the magic, the greatest force in the universe, the power of compounding interest. That’s what we’re talking about here.” [House Budget Committee Hearing, 2005]

“President Bush has demonstrated political courage and leadership on this issue. We must develop sound policies now, to reduce the rate of growth and put these programs on a sustainable footing for the future.” [OMB swearing-in ceremony, 6/6/2006]

Contrary to Portman’s pronunciations that privatized accounts are safe and will certainly result in a higher rate of return, such accounts impose new risks on seniors, create new administrative costs and benefit reductions, and won’t even set the Social Security system on a path to solvency. And instead of trying to fashion a workable proposal, Portman simply denies that his idea is what it is.