GOP Should Give Spending Cuts a Chance April 9, 2003

CATO ^ | April 9, 2003 | Veronique de Rugy and Tad DeHaven

[AmericaUnited]

Of course you Johny One Notes with extreme tunnel vision only see the flawed speck.

Just like when Reagan spent big dollars to wipe out the Evil Empire, I believe Bush/Rove, etc. are spending $$$ to wipe out the Evil Party. The effects of it will be long lasting.

Small thinkers need not apply.

[mansion]

But the problem is they are spending OUR money to defeat the "evil party".

It is not the constitutional duty of the executive and legislative branches to "wipe out" the opposition party, any more than it is the duty of the intelligence committee to use government resources to bring down Bush! It isn't right when Democrats do it, and it is not right when the GOP does it.

It would be a very bad thing for Democrat party "wiped out". Now we're seeing what happens when the GOP gets all the power - it runs rampant, and virtually becomes the Democrat party. We need the Democrats to keep the GOP conservative. In fact, we need even more parties to keep these two honest, because right now they're just two sides of the same coin.

[TheStickman]

Agreed!

Btw, anytime I read the term *Bushbot* I start laughing at the use of a nonsensical, made up term, that's supposed to *describe* a Bush supporter. If liberals could use some of that *creativity* to come up with some genuine ideas for the country besides *tax the rich* and *we, the government know best* they might do something besides lose election after election.

[Zipporah]

"People who say this are either extremely ignorant or just flat out not being honest."..

Unfortunately, I believed the same.. just examine who is now in charge of the Republican party.. the lines are blurred as to who is conservative and the neocons. The policies the present administration ..prescription drugs for example... and the spending spree ..and you be honest and tell me how is that any different?

[The_Eaglet]

Does this mean that Peroutka is against U.S. military action in Iraq or that he thinks the action was correct, but proper procedures to authorize it were not done?

I believe the latter is the case, and this article appears to confirm:

• Actions of the President with which Peroutka disagrees include Bush’s use of the military in Iraq without a declaration of war, his huge deficit spending on unconstitutional social programs, his dangerous and illegal support of new world order programs propounded by the United Nations, and Bush’s support of the unconstitutional education initiatives of former President Clinton.

I have found the following interviews helpful in getting acquainted with Mr. Peroutka's background and his campaign, and I am glad to know that someone committed to Constitutional integrity is running:

Radio Liberty, December 15, 2003

Mickelson In The Morning.

[The_Eaglet]

I support the Constitution Party, but I am also in favor of keeping Constutionally-loyal Republicans like Congressman Ron Paul and even Roscoe Bartlett in office. Voting straight ticket is dangerous as candidates should be evaluated on the merits of their positions and performance in office (in the case of incumbents).

[RJCogburn]

anytime I read the term *Bushbot* I start laughing at the use of a nonsensical, made up term, that's supposed to *describe* a Bush supporter

A resident of Bushbotville, in the magical kingdom of Bushbotland is a Bushbot. A Bushbot is not simply a supporter of GWB, but someone who is unwilling to be honestly critical of any of his actions, beyond the obligatory...'well, I don't agree with everything...'

Once your hysterical laughter dies down, you might ask yourself who is the more honest in their thinking? Oh, I can guess your answer, for to answer otherwise might get you ticketed for wrong thinking or wrong speaking in the kingdom.

[RJCogburn]

I believe Bush/Rove, etc. are spending $$$ to wipe out the Evil Party. The effects of it will be long lasting.

Really silly if it were not so sad. They are spending big bucks, mine and yours, and worse, my kids', to have a total "makeover". Those political plastic surgical procedures are indeed expensive....and when it's over, they come out looking just like the dems! Unless you figure expanding the government more than anyone since LBJ is "conservative".

[Ahban]

and by investing and helping yourself you are also helping others who provide you the goods you desire. Everyone that serves well can win. The Constitution Party is all for that. The trouble is you just THINK you had that tax cut money to spend on your desires. Since government spending has actually gone dramatically UP what you thought was a tax cut is simply a deferment of payment, unless we default on our debts.

Tax cuts without spending cuts are harmful to liberty, just as high taxes are. The only small comfort is the loss comes later rather than sooner (yet is a greater loss when the bill finally comes due).

I wish you continued success in your endeavors.

[Ahban]

I hope you are not arguing that President Bush should be given a pass on his encroachments of our personal and finacial liberty just because he is directing a war against some of the world's evil people. Here is a quote I want to share with you.....

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
— Julius Caesar

[Ahban]

"The Constitution Party is our only hope".....agreed, as much hope as can be placed in a political party at any rate. The CP are openly Christian, and it is in Him that our true hope lies.

[CWOJackson]

Did Caesar make that statement before or after becoming dictator?

[TheStickman]

*Oh, I can guess your answer, for to answer otherwise might get you ticketed for wrong thinking or wrong speaking in the kingdom.*

Too funny. I can think of a few items I didn't agree with Bush on. The Farm Bill of 2001 1st comes to mind. More recently the CFR Bill. However, Bush43 is still getting my vote in 2004. The DNC's candidate, IMO would be VERY bad for the country, based on the 9 running right now. Maybe Zell Miller will throw his hat in the ring...I could vote for him happily.

Bushbot=more made-up nonsense by liberals who have nothing to offer.

[RJCogburn]

Bush43 is still getting my vote in 2004. The DNC's candidate, IMO would be VERY bad for the country,

Well, supporting GWB because he is a less bad choice is legitimate, but hardly Bushbotian.

Regards.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

First off, your Julius Caesar quote is an urban myth. Caesar didn't say it, nor did Shakespeare write it. It does not appear to have been written until 2001. (See http://www.snopes.com/quotes/caesar.htm )

As for the rest, willingness to defend the country is a prerequisite for being President, IMO, because relative safety is necessary for the free exercise of our other rights. I don't mean this is a moral or philosophical way -- I mean it in a practical, real-world way.

As for the Democratic candidates, the only two who I think meet this prerequisite are Lieberman and maybe Gephardt. Lieberman has a bad record on civil liberties, IMO; he is too given to censorship and the nanny-state. While I have problems with Gephardt's economic and trade policies, some of his socially liberal views appeal to my libertarian streak. I probably wouldn't vote for him, but I'd give him serious consideration.

The Libertarian Party leadership has basically joined the Deanite left on Iraq. They're out for this election. It's unclear where the Constitution Party stands on it -- whether they're objection is a matter of procedure or of the actual action (I haven't had the chance to check the radio interviews). But the social conservatism doesn't appeal to me in any case.

In short, I don't see any serious choice for President, except Bush.

However, I may give consideration to non-GOP candidates in the Senate and House of Representative races. My Congressman, Cliff Stearns, is pretty much a shoo-in for reelection. The Florida Senate race, though, is open. While I don't see myself voting for a Democrat, I may consider third party.

However, I see an opportunity coming to knock those on the left who don't believe in defending America out of the mainstream political conversation. If Dean is nominated, he will likely lose in a landslide and may take much of the Democratic Party -- or at least their left-wing -- with it.

I don't think defending the country should be a subject of debate; I think it should be a given, with any debate being how it is best achieved. When we have two major parties that believe in that, then it will be far easier for me to find candidates who support rolling back the government in both our financial and personal lives.

But until the Democratic Party either comes to its senses or is replaced as a major party, the GOP pretty much has my automatic vote at the federal level. I wish that were not the case -- I wish there was a real and realistic choice -- but I don't see any serious alternative at this time.

[CWOJackson]

An excellent post...and a very interest name there.

[Ahban]

Fair enough. If social conservatism does not appeal to you then I think you are right. For those to whom social conservatism does appeal, the Constitution Party would be an alternative.

[The_Eaglet]

It is hard to swallow that fact and still think of the GOP as the party of fiscal responsibility.

Which is why fewer and fewer people do.

Prior to 9/11/2001, President Bush and the Republican Congress were still expanding federal programs (for example, the faith-based initiatives). I am a Christian, but the Constitution does not authorize federal redistribution of income to religious organizations, whether they be Christian, Muslim, or Wiccan; rather, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[The_Eaglet]

Unless you figure expanding the government more than anyone since LBJ is "conservative".

It is neither conservative from a fiscial perspective nor from a Constitutional perspective given the budgets Congress has passed under the Bush, Clinton, and Bush administrations.