While the American people may have soured on the Republican Party because of the “last eight years,” the last eight weeks have helped reaffirm my commitment to the GOP. Perhaps, had the president adhered to his party’s principles and held the line on federal spending, people would better appreciate the philosophical differences between the parties.
I wonder how much attention the American people are paying to the Democrats’ talk of increasing federal spending should Barack Obama win next week. Or are they just focused on voting against the party in power?
Do people know that Obama’a party favors a spending package (they call it stimulus) of $150 or $300 billion depending on which report you read? And this with a budget way out of balance. Do they know that the Chair of the House Financial Services Committee favors “a 25 percent cut in military spending.” And this at a time when we face threats abroad and are fighting two wars (though one does seem to be in the mopping up stages).
Are they aware that when Obama proposes reducing taxes on 95% of households, as many as 44 percent don’t pay any federal income tax. That’s not a reduction in taxes, but a redistribution of wealth. And Obama has long favored such redistribution, spreading the wealth around in the vernacular of the 2008 campaign.
Just take a listen to what he said in 2001:
As Michelle Malkin, who alerted to the video put it, summarized, he’s not asking whether to redistribute wealth, but how.
Listening to Barack Obama, I become more of a Republican because my party, in principle at least, favors a less intrusive federal government and more freedom. We don’t believe in economic policies which redistribute the wealth, but which increase the size of the pie so all benefit.
With the Democratic Party breaking from the Clintonian ideal of “reinventing government” (by which the Administration would focus on making existing federal programs work better) and replacing it with a commitment to expanding government, the GOP stands as a bulwark against the encroaching power of the state.
In rhetoric at least over the past few weeks, we’ve heard a renewed Republican commitment to free enterprise and opportunity. We know the state cannot solve our problems.
It’s too bad that for the last eight years, George W. Bush did little to contain the size of the federal government and did not build on the good work Ronald Reagan had begun. If people do vote against Bush’s party next month, they’ll be voting to accelerate his spendthrift ways. And to delay even further the vision the Gipper had and the fulfillment of our party’s ideals.
Whatever the result of the election, conservatives must use the next two years to recapture the party from the “big government conservatives”, target some of their own and run more fiscally conservative candidates against them. Jerry Lewis (R-CA), ranking member of the appropriations committee, if accounts I have heard are correct, would be a great place to start.
I blogged on Jerry’s woes here.
West Hollywood Gays Display Sarah Palin mannequin with noose around her neck. Stay classy, gay left.
V, that is classy… by, ah, Gay Left standards.
GPW, said it before and here it is again: Bush-Cheney-Rove has been a disaster on domestic policy, throwing money at every problem and for apologetic and contradictory reasons, which only (1) further grows the Federal government and (2) emboldens the Left.
Cheney said, early in the Bush administration, something like ‘Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.’ Talk about about drawing the wrong lessons. We (America) have abused the dollar’s position as a reserve currency these last 45 years, issuing more and more debt (that foreigners dutifully buy) while we go on various spending sprees.
I have a feeling that is about to change. I think we are nearing the point soon where foreigners will stop buying our debt, at which point, the dollar will crash (even more) and the IMF will be here to impose fiscal discipline. Problem is, Obama will handle it by (a) tax increases and (b) military spending cuts… the exact wrong things, as you point out.
Not exactly. It did once, and I hope it does again.
“It’s too bad that for the last eight years, George W. Bush did little to contain the size of the federal government…â€
Are you suffering from BDS? Its not just Bush but the whole conservative movement who allowed the fed to expand, listen to our calls, enter into 2 unfunded ground wars, and run up huge debts. The grassroots cheered them on and if you dared to question these efforst you were called treasonous.
[No, not the whole conservative movement. Conservative blogs and editorial pages frequently took the president and congressional GOP to task for their spendthrift ways. I’ve been doing so for at least three years. –Dan]
ILC- What would you suggest we do to pay off our debt and balence the budget? Cut medicare? Not gonna happen. Cut Social Security? Not gonna happen.
This audio should be played in key battleground states. Let Obama answer to his own statement.
A twenty-five percent reduction in military spending would be a disaster.
“A twenty-five percent reduction in military spending would be a disaster.”
Why? What would happen?
Grassroots conservatives have been appalled at Bush’s spending. That’s why they abandoned the party in 2006 and some have only reluctantly returned.
And when Bush wasn’t governing like a fiscally profligate liberal Democrat, he did attempt some spending reforms. Bush tried to reform social security, but he was blocked by Democrats. (Maybe a few billion in liquidity from people investing some of their SS in the stock market would have precluded the need for a bailout, or at least one so large.) Bush tried 18 times to reform Fannie and Freddie, but was blocked by Democrats each time.
Maybe gillie can explain how his Obamassiah is going to put 47 million on Medicaid, spend 85 billion every year in “Global Poverty Act” relief to third world dictators, create universal pre-K, increase college tuition subsidies, vastly increase the budgets for education and “science,” and spend hundreds of billions in infrastructure projects inspired by Obama’s admiration for Chinese Communists, give tax welfare checks to the 40% of Americans who don’t pay any Federal income tax … and pay for it all with only marginal increases on the top 5% of taxpayers. Even gutting the military like Barney Frank wants to do won’t pay for even a tenth of the expenditures The One has promised.
A twenty-five percent reduction in military spending would be a disaster.
No kidding. A reduction of that scale would cost the jobs of tens of thousands people employed in the defense industry… especially hard hit would be states like Colorado and Virginia.
There would also have to be a considerable reduction in U.S. Forces. Maybe you can pull it off if you pulled entirely out of Western Europe, Japan, and Korea and let them defend themselves. But there is no indication Obama would be willing to do this.
With a defense reduction of that level, the US would be unable to maintain levels of training and readiness. During the Clinton and Carter years, massive military cuts meant that planes and equipment could not be maintained, spare parts were unavailable, and lives were lost… as at Desert One for example. And those cuts were not as severe as the ones Barney Frank is proposing.
A 25% reduction in the military means that soldiers lives will be lost, tens of thousands will be unemployed, and America will not have the resources to defend her interests abroad. Barney Frank must really hate America. and our soldiers, to be even proposing this.
“A reduction of that scale would cost the jobs of tens of thousands people employed in the defense industry”
So military programs are just a version of welfare? This is exaclty why Ike warned agianst the industrial military complex.
“Barney Frank must really hate America. and our soldiers, to be even proposing this”
See exactly what I what I talking about. To suggest that perhaps having an enormous and ever growing military is a bad idea makes you treasonous.
What’s that you said about “classy?”
Ignore both defense and entitlements for the moment (though yes, I would certainly reform/cut entitlements)… Just look at non-defense, discretionary spending… Bush has been the biggest spender in modern history, even bigger than Lyndon Johnson. (7.1% real annual growth in non-defense discretionary spending in his first term, vs. Johnson’s 3.9%.) Merely reversing that – taking us back to the Clinton-Gingrich baseline – would be of great benefit.
Interestingly, Nixon and Ford were also bigger domestic spenders (non-defense, non-entitlement) than LBJ. Only Reagan reduced non-defense, non-entitlement spending in real terms.
The United States has the only military in this world that can operate anywhere, within the matter of days. They keep the sea lanes open. They are there after a tsunami or some other natural disaster. We also have the only fleet of heavy lift aircraft that can place forces there equipment where it needs to be. Yeah, cut the defense budget by 25% and see what happens.
Why? What would happen?
Here’s one example.
Basically put, you would be cutting tens of billions of dollars in business revenue and hundreds of thousands of jobs that pay, on average, better than most other jobs.
And that’s in just one state.
Why does Obama want to cut
Would anyone like to take a bet that no one in the MSM will ask Obama about this audio?………………….If McCain or some group that really believes in McCain doesn’t put out this audio immediately in battleground states they shouldn’t be in the business of politics.
VTK,
The Dems will still build equipment because Obama’s UNIONS will protect those jobs and therefore the contracts associated with them. I suspect it will be the soldier’s benefits and salaries that will be the target of cuts.
My son is in Iraq on his 4th tour and relates stories of impending doom felt by those that have chosen the military as a career.
Our nations security depends on experienced military personnel and retention of quality troops which is NOT a priority of the Dems. Recall they attacked McCain for tying length of service to post service benefits.
Jeb n Tex
Jeb, imagine how much better the military could use that $85 Billion the One wants to spend on “Global Poverty.” (i.e. lining the Swiss Bank Accounts of the Baby Docs, Mugabes, and Odingas of the world).
And of course, we haven’t heard word one from The One on why he and his fellow Democrats won’t stop the idiotic bureaucracy and lax enforcement that enables Medicare to be bilked annually to the tune of $60 billion.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 10/27/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
why articles like this are bad signs for republicans:
ctrl + f “mccain” not found.
#15 – Jeb, from a fellow Houstonian, tell your boy “bravo zulu” from another service brat.
Regards,
Peter H.
Agreed, but to be even more accurate, we must remember that a great majority of congressional Republicans opposed much of the expansion of government and much of it passed only because of Democrat + a minority of Republican support.
You want to know where the GOP screwed up most over the past 8 years? Mostly with RINO’s like Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, et al.
Oh, and in more than one case, John McCain.