The Republicans Are Not The Party Of Big Government
They're the party of GINORMOUS government, while calling themselves the party of small government. Sullum writes at reason:
In fact, says Veronique de Rugy, a senior research fellow at George Mason University's Mercatus Center, "President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ." Republicans controlled Congress for six of Bush's eight years, and their fingerprints are all over Bush's budget busters, including the trillion-dollar wars to replace dictators with democrats in Iraq and Afghanistan.The Medicare prescription drug benefit, enacted in 2003, is expected to cost something like $800 billion during its first decade, further darkening Medicare's already dire fiscal outlook. It passed the Senate with 42 Republican votes and the House with 207.
The Troubled Asset Relief Program, which the Republicans now promise to "cancel" because it exemplifies the "bailouts" that have "rightly outraged" the public by "forc[ing] responsible taxpayers to subsidize irresponsible behavior," received 34 Republican votes in the Senate and 91 in the House. The yeas included House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)--all of whom are pictured in the Pledge to America as models of fiscal rectitude and all of whom also supported the reckless Medicare expansion.
As of last week, however, the Republicans pledge to "make the decisions that are necessary to protect our entitlement programs for today's seniors and future generations." Such as? Sorry, that's all you're getting before the elections.
"Let's not get to the potential solutions," Boehner said in a Fox News interview on Sunday. "When you start down that path, you just invite all kinds of problems." Aren't solutions that invite problems what Congress is all about?
Boehner's insistence that an "adult conversation" about entitlements need not include any discussion of what to do about them suggests a certain lack of seriousness. Likewise the Pledge to America's complaints about Obama's "massive Medicare cuts" and its treatment of anything pertaining to "seniors" (one-third of the budget) as a sacred category.
The Democrats are the party of REALLY HUGE GINORMOUS
government.
Nick at October 3, 2010 9:51 AM
Right now, though, the GOP is the lesser of two evils. The lesson of the last 20 years is don't give one party control of both Congress and the White House; having different parties control those two branches of government increases the likelihood that the system of checks and balances as envisioned by the Founding Fathers will actually work and forces both sides to seek common ground and moderation instead of extremist positions.
Tony at October 3, 2010 10:21 AM
This is why I'm no longer a Republican. I hope the Tea Party has a positive affect and will bring some fiscal responsibility to DC, but I doubt it.
If the options are Republicans (bigger government and more control over your life) or Democrat (biggest government and most control over your life) then I'm not sure where that leaves me.
JFP at October 3, 2010 11:02 AM
I've got a friend who keeps referring to me as 'one of his Republican friends', even though I've been yelling at that party for longer than he has; he's got that stuck in his head that 'conservative/libertarian bent = Republican'. And it seems like a lot of the Stupid Party bigshots have the same problem.
Which is why a lot of these clowns have been told "You have one last chance to act the way you're supposed to; otherwise, third party for everyone who's sick of you and the Democrat Party both." We'll see if they A: are smart enough to believe it and B: have brains enough to act on it.
Firehand at October 3, 2010 11:15 AM
Tony put said it very well: "Right now, though, the GOP is the lesser of two evils."
I don't believe there's one conservative or one Tea Party member who supports Bush's growth of government.
With the realization that both political parties are out-of-control "statists", such folks had two choices:
1. Create a 3rd Party.
2. Take back the Republican Party.
They've embarked on course #2 and I hope they're incredibly successful!
Robert W. (Vancouver) at October 3, 2010 12:03 PM
It's just as I was thinking: the Pledge is just a return to the status quo ante TARP.
Too bad about Paul Ryan supporting TARP. I donated him some money in this election cycle, thinking he was fiscally responsible. I won't do that twice.
mpetrie98 at October 3, 2010 1:35 PM
@Robert: As I've said elsewhere on the Intarwebs, the conservatives cannot just run their GOP-brand candidates against establishment contenders in the primaries. They also have to take over the GOP from within, and at all levels.
I would love to have a job, the schedule of which would allow me to serve as a member of a GOP Central Committee. I would show those establishment scum a thing or two!
mpetrie98 at October 3, 2010 1:38 PM
'MPetrie98' - The senatorial fight in Delaware is a perfect example of the corrupt GOP establishment. While Christine O'Donnell is far from the perfect candidate, what reasonable conservative could ever argue that supporting Mike Castle makes even the tiniest amount of sense? After all, he consistently voted Left-Left-Left. So who cares that he had an "R" after his name?!
On a completely different point, if you'd like to see those opposing Tea Partiers, just watch this video shot yesterday by Reason.TV in DC.
Robert W. (Vancouver) at October 3, 2010 2:26 PM
> The senatorial fight in Delaware is a perfect
> example of the corrupt GOP establishment.
> While Christine O'Donnell is far from the
> perfect candidate...
All this from a Canadian.
Listen, do you pay attention to your school board? I mean, like, why do you care so much? How is it you think this has so much to do with you? Are you 10% as attentive to Canadian politics?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 3, 2010 8:54 PM
what reasonable conservative could ever argue that supporting Mike Castle makes even the tiniest amount of sense?
Castle had a very good chance of winning (O'Donnell does not), and would caucus with the Republicans, thus increasing the likelihood of a Republican being Senate Majority leader and giving the Republicans the power to set the agenda there.
Christopher at October 4, 2010 5:07 PM
Leave a comment