Barack Obama has challenged Congressman Ryan's plan. His attacks have no real merit.
Both plans still factor in a growth of spending, which is unacceptable!
The most effective way to create spending reform in the United States Government would be to elect a Chief Executive with the fortitude and the skill to enact the necessary reforms.
Then McConnell and Caucus in the Senate can partner with the Boehner majority to repeal Obamacare. That will save billions as well as safeguard the freedoms of the American people.
Thomas Sowell's recommendation to end subsidies for the Agricultural Industry and end welfare for corporations and the rich would be even more welcome!
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Budget Crisis Averted for Now (?)
The two parties, the two houses of Congress, two branches of Government have agreed to a stop-gap measure.
To their credit, the Congress has made the biggest cuts to the current budget in its history. Suffice to say, previous budgets did not take meaningful steps to cut spending at all.
The bigger fights have yet to come, though.
The debt ceiling will have to be raised in the near future. Will the fiscal conservatives stick to their principles in the face of the looming threat of default, far worse than a temporary shut-down?
And then there's the budget for the 2012 fiscal year. Will Congressman Ryan be able to lead Congress according to his Roadmap, or will politician continue to drive this nation into the fiscal pit?
Paul Ryan's Roadmap promises significant cuts. It is understandable from a political stand-point that he does not attack entitlements head-on. To streamline the tax code, to raise the retirement age, to cut discretionary spending in the long-term with meaningful spending cuts, all of this is commendable.
All of this is a major help in assisting
We must not deluced ourselves into thinking, however, that the Budget Crisis has not ended. The United States still faces immense, no, gargantuan unfunded liabilities. Entitlement spending is simply out of control, and something must be done now to stop it from irrevocably encroaching upon us later!
To their credit, the Congress has made the biggest cuts to the current budget in its history. Suffice to say, previous budgets did not take meaningful steps to cut spending at all.
The bigger fights have yet to come, though.
The debt ceiling will have to be raised in the near future. Will the fiscal conservatives stick to their principles in the face of the looming threat of default, far worse than a temporary shut-down?
And then there's the budget for the 2012 fiscal year. Will Congressman Ryan be able to lead Congress according to his Roadmap, or will politician continue to drive this nation into the fiscal pit?
Paul Ryan's Roadmap promises significant cuts. It is understandable from a political stand-point that he does not attack entitlements head-on. To streamline the tax code, to raise the retirement age, to cut discretionary spending in the long-term with meaningful spending cuts, all of this is commendable.
All of this is a major help in assisting
We must not deluced ourselves into thinking, however, that the Budget Crisis has not ended. The United States still faces immense, no, gargantuan unfunded liabilities. Entitlement spending is simply out of control, and something must be done now to stop it from irrevocably encroaching upon us later!
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Response to Local Columnist: Military vs. Social Spending
The Following Question was posed in a recent e-mail:
"Why are the Republicans dedicated to cutting social programs in the name of fiscal responsibility while ignoring nearly $2 billion a day in military spending. Maybe you all can explain what all this spending has gotten us? Let me know."
The Response:
I think ALL spending should be on the chopping block, not just discretionary spending and entitlement programs!
The United States must give up on pretending to be Policeman of the World.
Let's protect ourselves, our own interests, and our own people.
Get the US out of Afghanistan! Get us out of Libya! Get us out of German and Korea!
I would only qualify our exit from Iraq. We instigated a conflict which previous foreign policy did not adequately plan for, although I am glad that Saddam Hussein is not in power, and the WikiLeak cables have confirmed that Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, the United States needs to rely more on soft power. Ronald Reagan helped bring down the Soviet Union without firing a shot and withdrew American Troops from certain failure in Lebanon. As soon as Reagan was elected President in 1980, the Iranian Mullahs released the hostages. He projected power and confidence, unlike the milquetoast Jimmy Carter.
In addition to relinquishing the role of Policeman to the World, however, the United States must also stop playing Nursemaid of the American People. This aggrandized role is draining the life out of our economy more than pork barrel projects and military spending. Social Security is an immoral entitlement, an elaborate Ponzi scheme robbing the working man to pay for the retired, with only an empty, unfunded promise to finance future retirees. Medicaire and Medicaid are vastly unfunded, due in large part to the rampant fraud corrupting the system. And then there's Obamacare, a government mandate which will frustrate markets, drive up health care costs, and limit access to quality health care.
For the first one hundred years of the Republic, Americans earned their keep, saved their money, and took care of themselves. Since when did the Government get the foolish notion that it was their job to take a taxpayer's money and rescue the down and out with social programs that do not promote liberty, equality, or even financial stability?
You question the value of exorbitant military spending. In addition to military expenditures, I denounce the rapacious entitlements masquerading as "social programs" which are not promoting the General Welfare of this country.
Read the Preamble to the United States Constitution. In order to form a more perfect union, the United States Government must not arrogate to itself the right to extensive invasions into our daily lives. A government that tries to be all things for all people will do nothing well, and will bankrupt the nation in the process. That is hardly promoting the general welfare or securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves or to our posterity as intended by the Framers of the Constitution.
"Why are the Republicans dedicated to cutting social programs in the name of fiscal responsibility while ignoring nearly $2 billion a day in military spending. Maybe you all can explain what all this spending has gotten us? Let me know."
The Response:
I think ALL spending should be on the chopping block, not just discretionary spending and entitlement programs!
The United States must give up on pretending to be Policeman of the World.
Let's protect ourselves, our own interests, and our own people.
Get the US out of Afghanistan! Get us out of Libya! Get us out of German and Korea!
I would only qualify our exit from Iraq. We instigated a conflict which previous foreign policy did not adequately plan for, although I am glad that Saddam Hussein is not in power, and the WikiLeak cables have confirmed that Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, the United States needs to rely more on soft power. Ronald Reagan helped bring down the Soviet Union without firing a shot and withdrew American Troops from certain failure in Lebanon. As soon as Reagan was elected President in 1980, the Iranian Mullahs released the hostages. He projected power and confidence, unlike the milquetoast Jimmy Carter.
In addition to relinquishing the role of Policeman to the World, however, the United States must also stop playing Nursemaid of the American People. This aggrandized role is draining the life out of our economy more than pork barrel projects and military spending. Social Security is an immoral entitlement, an elaborate Ponzi scheme robbing the working man to pay for the retired, with only an empty, unfunded promise to finance future retirees. Medicaire and Medicaid are vastly unfunded, due in large part to the rampant fraud corrupting the system. And then there's Obamacare, a government mandate which will frustrate markets, drive up health care costs, and limit access to quality health care.
For the first one hundred years of the Republic, Americans earned their keep, saved their money, and took care of themselves. Since when did the Government get the foolish notion that it was their job to take a taxpayer's money and rescue the down and out with social programs that do not promote liberty, equality, or even financial stability?
You question the value of exorbitant military spending. In addition to military expenditures, I denounce the rapacious entitlements masquerading as "social programs" which are not promoting the General Welfare of this country.
Read the Preamble to the United States Constitution. In order to form a more perfect union, the United States Government must not arrogate to itself the right to extensive invasions into our daily lives. A government that tries to be all things for all people will do nothing well, and will bankrupt the nation in the process. That is hardly promoting the general welfare or securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves or to our posterity as intended by the Framers of the Constitution.
Mariah Carey and "True Fans"
Mariah Carey is about to have a baby with father Nick Cannon.
Like celebrities from years past, Carey is posing for the magazines with child, baring all before she bears her son.
Father Cannon is very uncomfortable with the whole scheme. "I don't think kids should be looking at naked people that early in life." He is the father; his input matters.
Still, Carey is going to pose for the camera.
Her reason: "I want to share this moment with my true fans."
The very idea of "true fans" is very troubling. What constitutes a "true" fan, one who isfor one day, week, month, year, fanatic about a celebrity, will move on to another obsession in a short time.
Fans by their nature follow ephemeral things: fads, trends, and people. Mariah Carey's fans love her for her music, her image, and her trend-setting, all of which will change in time.
Motherhood, however, is a status beyond stardom, a responsibility which cannot be shared. The intimacy which Carey presumes between herself and her "true" fans is simple unfounded and nonsensical.
Besides, some realities are simply to intimate too be understood on a public scale; in most cases, it is just inappropriate to share them.
Like celebrities from years past, Carey is posing for the magazines with child, baring all before she bears her son.
Father Cannon is very uncomfortable with the whole scheme. "I don't think kids should be looking at naked people that early in life." He is the father; his input matters.
Still, Carey is going to pose for the camera.
Her reason: "I want to share this moment with my true fans."
The very idea of "true fans" is very troubling. What constitutes a "true" fan, one who isfor one day, week, month, year, fanatic about a celebrity, will move on to another obsession in a short time.
Fans by their nature follow ephemeral things: fads, trends, and people. Mariah Carey's fans love her for her music, her image, and her trend-setting, all of which will change in time.
Motherhood, however, is a status beyond stardom, a responsibility which cannot be shared. The intimacy which Carey presumes between herself and her "true" fans is simple unfounded and nonsensical.
Besides, some realities are simply to intimate too be understood on a public scale; in most cases, it is just inappropriate to share them.
Bristol Gets Bank for Baby; Sarah Pays for the Privilege
When Sarah Palin's baby had a baby named Tripp, the reactions were diverse, if not controversial.
How could a gung-ho family-based conservative raise a daughter who would end up giving birth out of wedlock? The whole thing reeked of hypocrisy.
Although ultimately we cannot blame the Mamma Grizzly for the immature decisions of her cub, Sarah Palin's seeming inability to impress abstinence on her daughter raises some concern.
When Palin allowed he daugher to compete in "Dancing with the Stars", she gave the impression that Mother Palin was treating the crisis of unwed-motherhood more lightly than was called for.
Bristol's explicit dancing turned heads. They also undermined Palin's qualifications to represent conservative interests, since Mammy Grizzly took no offense at her daughter's shameless performance.
Now, Bristol Palin has received a considerable sum as a US Government advocate warning against teen pregnancy.
In the final analysis, the country has to ask: Did Bristol Palin do anything wrong in having a fling with another man, not her husband, and by no means able to support a family?
With all the stardom, endorsements, and celebrity that have rained down on Palin's wayward daughter, it would appear that Ms. Bristol Palin has found her way in life.
In the midst of all her stardom and salaries, her advocacy on behalf of teen awarenesss is rather contradictory. Bristol's life reeks of success because of her unexpected, unconjugal pregnancy. Why, then, would teens throughout the United States take her message of abstinency, responsibility, and family planning seriously?
Sarah Palin has failed as a dutiful mother. She has compromised core conservative values, especially regarding the integrity of the family. Worst of all, the inadvertent focus on Bristol has glamorized the terrible consequences of unforseen, unprepared, unwed pregnant minors.
Would that the media highlighted the trials that await young couples, or rather young mother, who bring a child into this world before they have stopped being children themselves.
How could a gung-ho family-based conservative raise a daughter who would end up giving birth out of wedlock? The whole thing reeked of hypocrisy.
Although ultimately we cannot blame the Mamma Grizzly for the immature decisions of her cub, Sarah Palin's seeming inability to impress abstinence on her daughter raises some concern.
When Palin allowed he daugher to compete in "Dancing with the Stars", she gave the impression that Mother Palin was treating the crisis of unwed-motherhood more lightly than was called for.
Bristol's explicit dancing turned heads. They also undermined Palin's qualifications to represent conservative interests, since Mammy Grizzly took no offense at her daughter's shameless performance.
Now, Bristol Palin has received a considerable sum as a US Government advocate warning against teen pregnancy.
In the final analysis, the country has to ask: Did Bristol Palin do anything wrong in having a fling with another man, not her husband, and by no means able to support a family?
With all the stardom, endorsements, and celebrity that have rained down on Palin's wayward daughter, it would appear that Ms. Bristol Palin has found her way in life.
In the midst of all her stardom and salaries, her advocacy on behalf of teen awarenesss is rather contradictory. Bristol's life reeks of success because of her unexpected, unconjugal pregnancy. Why, then, would teens throughout the United States take her message of abstinency, responsibility, and family planning seriously?
Sarah Palin has failed as a dutiful mother. She has compromised core conservative values, especially regarding the integrity of the family. Worst of all, the inadvertent focus on Bristol has glamorized the terrible consequences of unforseen, unprepared, unwed pregnant minors.
Would that the media highlighted the trials that await young couples, or rather young mother, who bring a child into this world before they have stopped being children themselves.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
"Cut it or Shut it!"
The grim-gridlock reality of the United States' current budget crisis is unavoidable. The Democrats are committed to the growth of government because they believe that government is the answer to the nation's ills. They also insist, even in the face of imminent bankruptcy, that it is the government's responsibility to take care of its citizens, to provide for their needs, and to make all arrangements for their comfort. The Republicans, at least in word, refute these positions, demanding smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and individual freedom.
The Republicans can and must take control this debate. For too long the Republicans have been "Democrat-lite", cutting bits of spending here and there, while allowing big-ticket items like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to grow with abandon. On March 31, members of the TEA Party caucus, headed by rising star Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota), are demanding an end to Republican dithering. The Republican Party returned to power in the House of Representatives for the most part because of the TEA Party populist surge. On the steps of the capitol, they rallied, "Cut it or shut it!": cut the budget, or let the government shut down without one. House Speaker John Boehner would do well to heed the demands of this very vocal block of the party.
Republicans and Democrats will never see eye-to-eye on balancing the budget, the Republicans will just have to call the President's bluff and let the government "shut down" without a budget.
In reality, if the United States goes without a budget, the government will not literally "shut down". The military will still stand guard, social security checks (gasp!) will still be issued, and when a budget is finally passed, federal employees will be compensated retroactively. In effect, the vast number of frivolous pork projects and entitlement spending will go unfunded, the expressed intent of the fiscal hawks taking back their runaway, spendthrift government. If nothing else, the American People will see once again that they can live, breathe, and have their being without a fully-funded federal government wasting tax-payer to the tune of $4 billion dollars a day.
If the United States Congress, committed with promoting the General Welfare of this country, will not face facts and make the necessary drastic cuts, then they have no right to represent us, and that includes the newly empowered Republicans. This current Congress must slash the bloated budget in earnest. If they cannot achieve that, then the government should shut its doors.
Congressmen, enough with the penny-ante sparring over billions of dollars. There are trillions of dollars in unfunded domestic spending threatening the economic future of this country. Do your job, cut the budget, or shut your doors once and for all.
In other words: Cut it, or SHUT IT!
The Republicans can and must take control this debate. For too long the Republicans have been "Democrat-lite", cutting bits of spending here and there, while allowing big-ticket items like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to grow with abandon. On March 31, members of the TEA Party caucus, headed by rising star Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota), are demanding an end to Republican dithering. The Republican Party returned to power in the House of Representatives for the most part because of the TEA Party populist surge. On the steps of the capitol, they rallied, "Cut it or shut it!": cut the budget, or let the government shut down without one. House Speaker John Boehner would do well to heed the demands of this very vocal block of the party.
Republicans and Democrats will never see eye-to-eye on balancing the budget, the Republicans will just have to call the President's bluff and let the government "shut down" without a budget.
In reality, if the United States goes without a budget, the government will not literally "shut down". The military will still stand guard, social security checks (gasp!) will still be issued, and when a budget is finally passed, federal employees will be compensated retroactively. In effect, the vast number of frivolous pork projects and entitlement spending will go unfunded, the expressed intent of the fiscal hawks taking back their runaway, spendthrift government. If nothing else, the American People will see once again that they can live, breathe, and have their being without a fully-funded federal government wasting tax-payer to the tune of $4 billion dollars a day.
If the United States Congress, committed with promoting the General Welfare of this country, will not face facts and make the necessary drastic cuts, then they have no right to represent us, and that includes the newly empowered Republicans. This current Congress must slash the bloated budget in earnest. If they cannot achieve that, then the government should shut its doors.
Congressmen, enough with the penny-ante sparring over billions of dollars. There are trillions of dollars in unfunded domestic spending threatening the economic future of this country. Do your job, cut the budget, or shut your doors once and for all.
In other words: Cut it, or SHUT IT!
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Congressman Ryan's Ten-Year Plan
Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wi) has revealed his ten-year plan to restore the United States to fiscal sanity. Using his roadmap, Congress will slash around $6 trillion dollars of fiscal liabilities from the national debt. Yet fiscally and morally, Ryan's budget proposal does not go far enough in curtailing the wasteful largesse undermining this county's financial house.
In order to instill institutional monetary solvency for the good of the entire nation, present as well as future generations must sacrifice. Beneficiaries must accept not reaping the same retirement and security benefits as their predecessors. The elderly-no-longer-working have no right to cannibalize the young-who-are-still-working. Analysts and economists have confronted baby-boomers with the crass handouts entitled to them, which not only impoverish the current workforce, but will not be afforded them when they retire. Retirees shrug their shoulders, acknowledge the injustice of the whole scheme, and go back to their golf games.
What else does Congress need to do? Ryan and his caucus must apply the hurt to the 55-and-up constituency.
Social Security needs to be curtailed, limited, and ultimately phased out. The original entitlement, sprung from FDR welfare-state mania, was never intended to bank-roll indolent retirees for thirty years after their last day of work. Social Security has enabled workers to grow old without growing wise, spending all without saving for the future. Dependence on the state is just a ruse for the unproductive leaning on the productive. Having concluded as much, one must acknowledge the immorality of the state in depriving the working man of a portion of his pay to subsidize the retirement of a retreating work force.
The whole concept of retirement is ludicrous. Nations and civilizations for centuries worked and saved until the dropped dead or preserved a hefty inheritance to support themselves. The United States Congress must wean individuals off its dole, however gradually.
With Medicare and Medicaid, the same fundamental problem persists as with Social Security. The federal government should not compel current workers to pay into a reserve tapped by current non-workers. Instead, the government must release itself from the costly obligation of transferring wealth and shoring up obligations beyond its capacity to honor.
In order to instill institutional monetary solvency for the good of the entire nation, present as well as future generations must sacrifice. Beneficiaries must accept not reaping the same retirement and security benefits as their predecessors. The elderly-no-longer-working have no right to cannibalize the young-who-are-still-working. Analysts and economists have confronted baby-boomers with the crass handouts entitled to them, which not only impoverish the current workforce, but will not be afforded them when they retire. Retirees shrug their shoulders, acknowledge the injustice of the whole scheme, and go back to their golf games.
What else does Congress need to do? Ryan and his caucus must apply the hurt to the 55-and-up constituency.
Social Security needs to be curtailed, limited, and ultimately phased out. The original entitlement, sprung from FDR welfare-state mania, was never intended to bank-roll indolent retirees for thirty years after their last day of work. Social Security has enabled workers to grow old without growing wise, spending all without saving for the future. Dependence on the state is just a ruse for the unproductive leaning on the productive. Having concluded as much, one must acknowledge the immorality of the state in depriving the working man of a portion of his pay to subsidize the retirement of a retreating work force.
The whole concept of retirement is ludicrous. Nations and civilizations for centuries worked and saved until the dropped dead or preserved a hefty inheritance to support themselves. The United States Congress must wean individuals off its dole, however gradually.
With Medicare and Medicaid, the same fundamental problem persists as with Social Security. The federal government should not compel current workers to pay into a reserve tapped by current non-workers. Instead, the government must release itself from the costly obligation of transferring wealth and shoring up obligations beyond its capacity to honor.
Fiscal Discipline is a Core Value for the Entire Party
The Republican Party is defined by three affiliating coalitions:
1. National (Military) Conservatives
2. Social Conservatives
3. Fiscal Conservatives
Because of TEA Party insurgence, the fiscal conservatives are getting more attention than ever before. The United States needs to get its fiscal house in order.
Pundits within the party and commentators from within have pointed out the rift that is widening among the three communities. Fiscal conservatives are pressing for fiscal sanity, some claim, that they would readily cut military spending and ignore fundamental social issues about the survival of the family and the integrity of the culture.
Yet fiscal discipline incorporates interests vital to the agendas of social and military conservatives.
Fiscal sanity is a social issue. The United States is burdened by crippling debt in part because of the United States' immoral imposition into the daily lives of its citizens. The welfare state has aided and abetted delinquency and dysfunction in families, especially in minority communities. The Government monopoly of education has robbed children in poor neighborhoods from seeking an education in more stable and affluent communities. Without spending a dime, Congress may relax its hold on issues which belong within the sphere of local and state governments, enhancing the freedom and quality of individuals. The current Congress' attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, for example, reduces spending and sanctified the lives of the unborn, issues dear to the fiscal and social conservatives.
As for the national conservatives, this nation's continued binging on foreign debt leaves us at the mercy of hostile, specifically China. By slashing, not trimming, excessive spending and military forays around the global, the United States can design a more concentrated foreign policy to protect our borders and provide coherent, qualified assistance to out struggling allies around the world. By engaging less in military operations around the world, the United States can save time, money and resources while also shoring up its defenses.
Fiscal conservatives need not compromise their goals in order to draw in support from other wings of the Republican Party. Rather, their mission coincides with the long-range goals of their conservative colleagues. As in their mission to persuage the general voting public, the Republican Party needs to adopt a more persuasive presentation of their views to resolve Republican intra-party schisms in their favor.
1. National (Military) Conservatives
2. Social Conservatives
3. Fiscal Conservatives
Because of TEA Party insurgence, the fiscal conservatives are getting more attention than ever before. The United States needs to get its fiscal house in order.
Pundits within the party and commentators from within have pointed out the rift that is widening among the three communities. Fiscal conservatives are pressing for fiscal sanity, some claim, that they would readily cut military spending and ignore fundamental social issues about the survival of the family and the integrity of the culture.
Yet fiscal discipline incorporates interests vital to the agendas of social and military conservatives.
Fiscal sanity is a social issue. The United States is burdened by crippling debt in part because of the United States' immoral imposition into the daily lives of its citizens. The welfare state has aided and abetted delinquency and dysfunction in families, especially in minority communities. The Government monopoly of education has robbed children in poor neighborhoods from seeking an education in more stable and affluent communities. Without spending a dime, Congress may relax its hold on issues which belong within the sphere of local and state governments, enhancing the freedom and quality of individuals. The current Congress' attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, for example, reduces spending and sanctified the lives of the unborn, issues dear to the fiscal and social conservatives.
As for the national conservatives, this nation's continued binging on foreign debt leaves us at the mercy of hostile, specifically China. By slashing, not trimming, excessive spending and military forays around the global, the United States can design a more concentrated foreign policy to protect our borders and provide coherent, qualified assistance to out struggling allies around the world. By engaging less in military operations around the world, the United States can save time, money and resources while also shoring up its defenses.
Fiscal conservatives need not compromise their goals in order to draw in support from other wings of the Republican Party. Rather, their mission coincides with the long-range goals of their conservative colleagues. As in their mission to persuage the general voting public, the Republican Party needs to adopt a more persuasive presentation of their views to resolve Republican intra-party schisms in their favor.
The Conservative Dilemma: Gerald Ford's Misappropriated Wit and Wisdom
"The Government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it away." -- Gerald Ford.
This quote has been oft misattributed to Thomas Jefferson, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and even Abraham Lincoln.
This misappropriation of a meaningful message could no better symbolize the incongruity of the ideas of a conservative with his inability to articulate them in a coherent message.
Thomas Jefferson, early President far more famous for his Declaration of Independence, did what he said he would: he shrank the size of government, reduced the size of the military, and impounded funds appropriated by Congress when he deemed the appropriations unconstitutional.
Barry Goldwater, the Father of the Modern Conservatism, characterized the domestic overspending as a greater threat to the United States than the Soviet Union. Despite a proper appreciation of the threatening nature of government largess, Goldwater's exaggerated outrage against budget should not have crowded out the national concern over the menacing threat of Soviet dominance.
Ronald Reagan, embodiment of Conservative resurgence, essentially won sixteen years later the election that Goldwater had lost. In eight years, Reagan closed one federal office. At the same time, the budget deficit increased dramatically because of much-needed tax-cuts without the necessary spending cuts. Surging military spending may have bankrupted the Soviet Union, but the crushing debt accrued may end up bankrupting the United States. For all of his Reagan's popularity as small government advocate, Columnist George Will recalls that for all of Reagan's blusterous anti-government rhetoric, his conservatism gave the American people permission to hate government yet love it at the same time.
The final misattributed origin of Gerald Ford's caution, Abraham Lincoln would by today's standard be (justifiably) branded a RINO (Republican In Name Only). A big spender who increased the size and scope of government, he instituted an income tax and imposed national hegemony at the expense of states' rights. In furtherance of civil war against the seceding states, Lincoln illegally misappropriated monies without Congressional approval, suspended habeas corpus, expelled a dissenting Democratic Congressman from the Union. He even instituted a draft, which sparked protests throughout the United States, culminating in the New York Draft Riots, forcing him to call federal troops to quell the insurrection. If nothing else, Abraham Lincoln was all "big government" without the "conservative".
Leaving aside the Chief Executives who did not caution against Hand-Out government, President Gerald Ford (and by extension Thomas Jefferson) represents the quiet the fiscal restraint desperately needed in this country, and the message essential to long-term success and integrity for conservatives in the long-term. They were small government conservatives. These executives resisted the temptation to throw money at domestic problems through executive order or Congressional intimidation.
In the annals of United States History, Gerald Ford does not figure prominently. Yet executives who advocate restraint will not be prominent (Fellow small-government President Thomas Jefferson held his tenure as President in such low esteem that he did not even include his Administration on his tombstone as one of his chief accomplishments. He placed precedence on his role as founder of the University of Virginia!). The Presidents who make the history books are the Presidents who did too much, who expanded the power of the Presidency at the expense of Congress, who ruled more as autocrats vs. constitutional representatives.
If Conservatives want to achieve any long-term success, they must stick to their principles. That begins with attributing ideas to their proper sponsors, and understanding the errors that will ensue in failing to do so.
This quote has been oft misattributed to Thomas Jefferson, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, and even Abraham Lincoln.
This misappropriation of a meaningful message could no better symbolize the incongruity of the ideas of a conservative with his inability to articulate them in a coherent message.
Thomas Jefferson, early President far more famous for his Declaration of Independence, did what he said he would: he shrank the size of government, reduced the size of the military, and impounded funds appropriated by Congress when he deemed the appropriations unconstitutional.
Barry Goldwater, the Father of the Modern Conservatism, characterized the domestic overspending as a greater threat to the United States than the Soviet Union. Despite a proper appreciation of the threatening nature of government largess, Goldwater's exaggerated outrage against budget should not have crowded out the national concern over the menacing threat of Soviet dominance.
Ronald Reagan, embodiment of Conservative resurgence, essentially won sixteen years later the election that Goldwater had lost. In eight years, Reagan closed one federal office. At the same time, the budget deficit increased dramatically because of much-needed tax-cuts without the necessary spending cuts. Surging military spending may have bankrupted the Soviet Union, but the crushing debt accrued may end up bankrupting the United States. For all of his Reagan's popularity as small government advocate, Columnist George Will recalls that for all of Reagan's blusterous anti-government rhetoric, his conservatism gave the American people permission to hate government yet love it at the same time.
The final misattributed origin of Gerald Ford's caution, Abraham Lincoln would by today's standard be (justifiably) branded a RINO (Republican In Name Only). A big spender who increased the size and scope of government, he instituted an income tax and imposed national hegemony at the expense of states' rights. In furtherance of civil war against the seceding states, Lincoln illegally misappropriated monies without Congressional approval, suspended habeas corpus, expelled a dissenting Democratic Congressman from the Union. He even instituted a draft, which sparked protests throughout the United States, culminating in the New York Draft Riots, forcing him to call federal troops to quell the insurrection. If nothing else, Abraham Lincoln was all "big government" without the "conservative".
Leaving aside the Chief Executives who did not caution against Hand-Out government, President Gerald Ford (and by extension Thomas Jefferson) represents the quiet the fiscal restraint desperately needed in this country, and the message essential to long-term success and integrity for conservatives in the long-term. They were small government conservatives. These executives resisted the temptation to throw money at domestic problems through executive order or Congressional intimidation.
In the annals of United States History, Gerald Ford does not figure prominently. Yet executives who advocate restraint will not be prominent (Fellow small-government President Thomas Jefferson held his tenure as President in such low esteem that he did not even include his Administration on his tombstone as one of his chief accomplishments. He placed precedence on his role as founder of the University of Virginia!). The Presidents who make the history books are the Presidents who did too much, who expanded the power of the Presidency at the expense of Congress, who ruled more as autocrats vs. constitutional representatives.
If Conservatives want to achieve any long-term success, they must stick to their principles. That begins with attributing ideas to their proper sponsors, and understanding the errors that will ensue in failing to do so.
Why did the 1995 Shutdown Shut Down the Republican Revolution?
The United States Government appears headed toward another shut down.
This is déjà vu all over again, as Yogi Bera would say.
Rewind to December 1995. Newly-installed House Speaker Newt Gingrich faced off against centrist Bill Clinton, a president humbled by the Republican Revolution.
Facing a Republican House and Senate, it appeared that Clinton would have to fold and accede to more cuts than he was willing.
Yet the President and the media spinned the impasse to make it seem as if Gingrich's arrogant childishness terminated any meaningful compromise. The media especially had a heydey with the allegations that Gingrich stalled on talks because he was snubbed for preferential seating on Air Force One during negotiations.
All of these petty points of dispute mask the underlying problem: The Republicans failed to articulate a coherent message spelling out the need for real government reform in taxation and spending. They failed to make the legimate sell to the American People that the United States could not continue borrowing and spending beyong its means.
This argument requires rigorous simplicity and tenacity, beyond Congressman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) prolix display boards and Glenn Beck's ranting and raving. The citizens of this country deserve to understand that hemmoraging budget deficits, enormous national debt, and wasteful entitlements hurt the productivity of the American Economy, impoverishing current generations and dooming our future.
Today, now more than every, the Republicans must press the immorality of deficit spending in all facets of government, which has grown far beyond its constitutional scope.
Despite the handicap of controlling one chamber of Congress, the dire necessity of take charge of the outlandish federal budget is even more pressing. With the surge of TEA Party activism and civic outrage at bailouts, handouts, and corruption, House Speaker John Boehner and his caucus have greater leverage to force more cuts and demand long-term fiscal responsibility from the United States Government.
Let's hope that they do not lose focus as the Republican majority did fifteen years ago.
This is déjà vu all over again, as Yogi Bera would say.
Rewind to December 1995. Newly-installed House Speaker Newt Gingrich faced off against centrist Bill Clinton, a president humbled by the Republican Revolution.
Facing a Republican House and Senate, it appeared that Clinton would have to fold and accede to more cuts than he was willing.
Yet the President and the media spinned the impasse to make it seem as if Gingrich's arrogant childishness terminated any meaningful compromise. The media especially had a heydey with the allegations that Gingrich stalled on talks because he was snubbed for preferential seating on Air Force One during negotiations.
All of these petty points of dispute mask the underlying problem: The Republicans failed to articulate a coherent message spelling out the need for real government reform in taxation and spending. They failed to make the legimate sell to the American People that the United States could not continue borrowing and spending beyong its means.
This argument requires rigorous simplicity and tenacity, beyond Congressman Paul Ryan's (R-WI) prolix display boards and Glenn Beck's ranting and raving. The citizens of this country deserve to understand that hemmoraging budget deficits, enormous national debt, and wasteful entitlements hurt the productivity of the American Economy, impoverishing current generations and dooming our future.
Today, now more than every, the Republicans must press the immorality of deficit spending in all facets of government, which has grown far beyond its constitutional scope.
Despite the handicap of controlling one chamber of Congress, the dire necessity of take charge of the outlandish federal budget is even more pressing. With the surge of TEA Party activism and civic outrage at bailouts, handouts, and corruption, House Speaker John Boehner and his caucus have greater leverage to force more cuts and demand long-term fiscal responsibility from the United States Government.
Let's hope that they do not lose focus as the Republican majority did fifteen years ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)