Shaila Dewan, in the Upshot, notes that a number of Republican governors are proposing tax increases — but that in every case the tax hike would fall most heavily on those with lower incomes, and many are proposing simultaneous tax cuts for business and/or the wealthy.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I can’t take talk about “reform conservatism” seriously.

If you look for an overarching theme for overall conservative policy these past four decades, it definitely isn’t liberty — by and large the GOP has been enthusiastic about expanding the security and surveillance state. Nor is it in a consistent fashion smaller government, unless you define military and homeland security as not government. Instead, it has been about making the tax-and-transfer system harsher on the poor and easier on the rich. In short, class warfare.

Now, I don’t expect a conservative reformer to declare that we must reverse all of this, and start redistributing down again; that would make him a liberal. But what reform is supposed to be about is some combination of compassion and realism — some concern for the less fortunate, and a willingness to consider policy options that may not fit supply-side dogma.

So, can anyone show me an example of a prominent Republican politician proposing anything that would reduce after-tax-and-transfer inequality? Bank shots don’t count — saying that slashing food stamps will help the poor by making them less dependent, or that cutting capital gains taxes will bring the confidence fairy to everyone’s door, don’t qualify. On the other hand, I’m not demanding that every part of a politician’s program reduce the Gini coefficient, or even that the overall program have that effect. I just want to see one significant piece that goes in that direction.

Maybe there’s something out there, but if so, I haven’t heard about it. Even when there’s something that sounds like it might be in that direction — say, Paul Ryan proposing that the EITC be extended to childless workers — there’s no talk of an increase in funding, so it’s coming at the expense of current recipients.

As I see it, this is the acid test — not because redistribution is always the most important thing, but because it’s how you see whether reformicons (no, spell check, I do *not* mean “reform icons”) are willing to do anything beyond putting the same old pro-plutocratic policies in new bottles. Show me the downward-flowing money!