The socialist principles of "equality" and "justice" sound like ideas we should all support, but the socialists' definition of equality is not equality of opportunities but an equality of outcomes. They are not speaking of equal justice under law. Socialists promote a more arbitrary "affirmative justice" government action to combat perceived discrimination or suspected prejudice.
The Republican Revolution of 1994 initially proved to be a good counterbalance to Clinton's attempt to expand government. The Republicans stopped Clinton's attempt to take over America's health-care system, forced him to sign a welfare reform plan (after two vetoes), and finally balanced the federal budget for the first time in decades.
The achievement of the balanced budget was short-lived (it was actually never even close to being balanced if you count what was being borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund) and more the result of America's economic expansion than anything done by the Republicans or Clinton.
Unfortunately the good economy and balanced budget created an excuse to increase spending dramatically.
The second President Bush had some good ideas, but he turned out to be a weak negotiator with the Democrats. Wasteful spending and earmarks expanded dramatically under Bush II and the Republican majority. The Bush tax cuts pulled the economy out of recession, but government spending and debt increased to historic levels. The number of Americans who were dependent on some government service reached the highest level in history. I began to question if President Bush and the Republican leadership shared my sense of urgency to stop America's slide toward socialism.
The result was a bloodbath for Republicans in the 2008 election and the installation of a powerful majority of Democrats who believed they were elected with a mandate to expand government regulation and control of the financial market. Democrats believed the financial and economic crisis was caused by deregulation and a failure of capitalism. They are now working to further centralize government power over the financial markets in the US and internationally.
By any business standard, the federal government is already bankrupt. Cash flow is negative and expenses are projected to outpace revenues for the foreseeable future. Debt is nearly half of total sales (tax revenues) and will surpass total sales within twenty years.
A "normal" person might scream, "What are you guys thinking?" It's taken me a while to figure it out, but I now realize why presidents and Congress continue to spend in the face of financial disaster. First, presidents, congressmen, and senators are rewarded for increasing spending and punished for opposing new spending bills.
My efforts to stop the bailout failed, in part because Republicans and Democrat leaders packed the bill with earmarks and targeted provisions for special interests. House and Senate leaders promised to pass a clean bill without unrelated measures and bot Obama and McCain urged swift action without add-ons. But after the House failed to pass the bailout on its first attempt, Senate leaders decided to go back to business as usual.
Conversely, when money goes to the government in the form of taxes, it increases the size of government and creates a permanent cost to taxpayers. Every dollar the government spends this year becomes part of the baseline budget for next year. All new spending is added onto last year's spending. So when the government takes a dollar in taxes, it eliminates the economic multiplier in the private sector and creates a permanent cost compounded over time by bigger government.
The various pieces of that-didn't-work-so-let's-try-this economic rescue legislation began with sending checks to selected Americans in the spring of 2008. Then more bailout money was appropriated for foreclosed homeowners, then home builders, then mortgage lenders, then Wall Street, then the unemployed, then road construction companies, then the American auto companies, then the auto unions. It was hard to keep trac of who was benefiting from all the knee-jerk legislation. Congress was just borrowing more money, throwing it at the wall and hoping something would stick. The American people didn't know all the details, but they knew enough to be angry.
The real question was whether to let the market work or have the government intervene. The answer was made more difficult by the fact that the government was already so involved that the market was not operating properly. Laws allowed labor unions to dominate the manufacturing industry, while government regulations added costs and reduced the competitiveness of American products. These factors contributed significantly to the problem of the American auto industry.
"Currently, we are on a path of unsustainable Federal Government spending. The main problem, and greatest threat to our nation's economic future, is the looming crisis of entitlement spending. The well-intentioned social insurance strategies of the past century--particularly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid--are headed toward financial collapse...compounding this problem is a tax code that discourages work, saving, and investment--and puts American companies at a significant disadvantage with business overseas."
While conservatives should no naively romanticize Reagan as the perfect leader, we can claim an important distinction between Reagan and other presidents of this generation: he made it clear the government was not the answer to our problems. The you-can-have-it-all-and-the-government will-guarantee-it political leaders since Reagan have fundamentally changed the American mind-set. Any interruption in our "having it all" elicits a knee-jerk response from federal politicians who promise to "bail us out" with more spending and debts.
| |||
| Candidates and political leaders on Budget & Economy: | |||
|
Retired Senate as of Jan. 2015: GA:Chambliss(R) IA:Harkin(D) MI:Levin(D) MT:Baucus(D) NE:Johanns(R) OK:Coburn(R) SD:Johnson(D) WV:Rockefeller(D) Resigned from 113th House: AL-1:Jo Bonner(R) FL-19:Trey Radel(R) LA-5:Rod Alexander(R) MA-5:Ed Markey(D) MO-9:Jo Ann Emerson(R) NC-12:Melvin Watt(D) SC-1:Tim Scott(R) |
Retired House to run for Senate or Governor:
AR-4:Tom Cotton(R) GA-1:Jack Kingston(R) GA-10:Paul Broun(R) GA-11:Phil Gingrey(R) HI-1:Colleen Hanabusa(D) IA-1:Bruce Braley(D) LA-6:Bill Cassidy(R) ME-2:Mike Michaud(D) MI-14:Gary Peters(D) MT-0:Steve Daines(R) OK-5:James Lankford(R) PA-13:Allyson Schwartz(D) TX-36:Steve Stockman(R) WV-2:Shelley Capito(R) |
Retired House as of Jan. 2015:
AL-6:Spencer Bachus(R) AR-2:Tim Griffin(R) CA-11:George Miller(D) CA-25:Howard McKeon(R) CA-33:Henry Waxman(D) CA-45:John Campbell(R) IA-3:Tom Latham(R) MN-6:Michele Bachmann(R) NC-6:Howard Coble(R) NC-7:Mike McIntyre(D) NJ-3:Jon Runyan(R) NY-4:Carolyn McCarthy(D) NY-21:Bill Owens(D) PA-6:Jim Gerlach(R) UT-4:Jim Matheson(D) VA-8:Jim Moran(D) VA-10:Frank Wolf(R) | |
|
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) | |||