Posted on 05/04/2007 1:36:23 PM PDT by K-oneTexas
The truth is, neither party wants a smaller government By: Michael Hill | Submitted on: 05/04/07
EDITORIAL - After my recent rant on the Fair Tax, where I asked the question of why anyone would vote against something so beneficial to so many, I began pondering why it is that regardless of the speeches we hear every two years, and really loudly every four, nothing ever gets done to actually reduce the size of our federal government. The last time the federal budget was less than it was the year before was 1964-1965. And before then, post-war budget decreases happened after WWI, WWII, and Korea, which is to say, not all that often.
Conservatives, and plenty of historians as well, point to the extraordinary largess foisted upon us by FDR's New Deal, and LBJ's Great Society as the main harbingers of the situation we now find ourselves in. Problem there is that a cursory glance through a 5th grade history book reveals that the New Deal and the Great Society are a set of policies, and last I checked, policies are pieces or packages of legislation. Digging a bit further back into the mental archives, legislation is that mundane stuff that the House and Senate are elected to write, discuss, vote on, and send to the President every so often in an effort to run the federal government. And no matter how much the ideologues of either side of the political spectrum would like to believe different, their guys and gals have held office and majorities back and forth throughout all this expansion. And even during the much trumpeted "budget surplus" of the Clinton administration (and Republican Congress who actually wrote said budgets), the budget itself grew every single year.
What the New Deal and the Great Society did was simply let Congress know how many miles they can get out of every inch we give them, but we can really go back to the 16th Amendment and the permanency of the estate tax as precursors that gave FDR and his Congresses the idea to see just how much the American public will put up with, and it turns out to be quite a bit. And that's why we run deficits every year. That's why the budget never stops growing. That's why it seems like every single day Congress finds a new payoff or give-away that fits under the almost galaxy-sized catchall of "general welfare." We have examples all around us, and neither party wants to get rid of them.
Social Security is doomed. It was the day it became law. Very few people debate the doom part, just how long before doom comes, and those who think it is just fine fall into three groups: Congresspersons, Senators, and people who do the bidding of the neighbor's dog. Funny thing is, only the latter of the three has a valid excuse for being so misguided. The House and Senate have no excuse, because they write the laws, and they know all about the doom coming, no matter what you hear blasted forth from the stumps. Carter talked about Social Security, as did Reagan, GHWB, Clinton and our current President. It's been bad and getting worse going on its fifth decade now. Democrat and GOP majorities have come and gone, same with the White House, and we keep hearing about it, and it just keeps on staying broken, doomed and untouched by people supposedly charged with writing laws that benefit Americans. Ever wonder why? Even just a smidgen? Could it be that it makes for easy campaigning either way you approach it, and solving it might be a great thing for America, but would make politicians have to come up with something substantial to sell you on voting for them? Back in the day, offering solutions was called "having a platform" but we did away with that right around the time we all became mesmerized by who shot JR.
Anymore, a Democrat voter will vote for their candidate because they say they'll save this doomed antiquity, and no old people need starve or be forced to eat dog food in a back alley, or whatever. And a GOP voter will vote for their candidate because they promise to "take a hard look at" FDR's Ponzi scheme writ large. So one says they'll do nothing, and the other says they'll take a glance at nothing's direction before actually doing nothing, and amazingly, both get people to vote for them. Sad thing is that we have accepted this as valid politics, and it is our future, savings, retirement, and GDP they are sitting idly by and watching get closer and closer to the edge of a cliff.
That's one example, but it isn't like we would be batting a thousand if it weren't for Social Security. And just about every solution involves the taxpayer forking over more money, or what us common folk call "gettin' took." Math grades falling behind Japan? No sweat, let's dump a bunch of cash into the Department of Education. What budget should we cut to get the cash? Cut? Huh? Heck with that, just dump more cash there, move some numbers around, massage the deficit, and raise the gasoline and prepared food tax by half a percent, those chumps will never know. Still haven't solved that pesky axiom that dictates for every top wage earner, there must necessarily be a bottom wage earner? No sweat, raise the minimum wage, and have one of your staffers go search for the tree that actually does have $100 bills as leaves. When your staffer reports back that the money tree really is a fairy tale, I guess you go back to that tried and true way of finding billion dollar coins in the sofa cushions. It rhymes with "gettin' took" and we the taxpayers know it all too well.
The most hilarious examples are the Senators and Representatives running for President and their promises of all the stuff they are going to do if you would all be kind enough to buy a used car from them. Now get this, and let's see if we can find out if these people give anyone in America any credit for having intelligence - all of these people who are currently in positions to make laws and vote on them and the whole nine, haven't gotten around to actually writing any of the ones they like talking about, but they promise that after they get the job where they no longer have any Constitutional authority to write laws whatsoever, that they'll be right on top of making this law, and changing that policy and righting whatever legislative wrong they think you'll believe. See that? They figure we're all so foolish that we'll believe them. The only sort of truth I have heard so far is the "when I am President, I'll end the Iraq War" mantra from the Democrats, because the President can actually do that. Outside of that, you're being sold a lemon. And the budget will grow, and the deficit will stay, and the national debt will go ignored, and so on, and so on, and so on. They are telling you about what they'll take, but they're telling you which of the other party's bad guys' demise your money will buy. Watch the next debate with that in mind and tell me if I am wrong.
There is a solution though, and Thomas Jefferson wrote it, so make sure he gets your props. It is called the "educated and involved citizenry" and he mused that the grand experiment called the United States would depend heavily on educated and involved citizens. He also figured what would happen if we sat back and just let Congress do stuff without having to answer for it, and I would think things like Senator "Carry Me Out On a Stretcher" Stevens and his "Bridges to Nowhere" are sure signs of the citizenry abdicating their role in ensuring that the government stays small, efficient and effective.
Now I realize that by remaining party neutral, I may have put some people off who were hoping for a "conservatives rule, liberals drool" type of editorial, but no matter what your political philosophy, ask which of the glaring and massive problems facing the country has been solved by the folks you vote for. Social Security, taxes, pork spending, whatever. Pick any big issue in America, and try to see a solution that extends beyond "oh yeah, well the other party screwed it up" and if you can't, you're one of the voters the House and Senate love. You let them keep government huge, and they like it that way. They like the problems staying right where they are, but they work for you, and that's a truth that too many Americans need to re-learn.
Michael Hill is a professional software system developer and amateur political pundit/writer. He is also a veteran of Desert Storm and the NATO operations in the Balkans. He considers himself a conservative in the Buckley-Reagan mold, a staunch advocate of the Jeffersonian concept that the government that governs best is the one that governs the least, and firm believer that the free market and individuals operating within it will accomplish anything the government can economically, just faster, cheaper, and more reliably.
Also, the sky is blue; water is wet.
Although it’s usually:
Liberal-———————Conservative
It’s more valuable to judge the parties as:
Liberty-———————Authoritarian
As long as both parties continue marching to the right on the second continuum, we continue distancing ourselves from the free society envisioned by the Framers.
Personally, I favor larger Government, a lot larger.
I think that we should double the number of Congress Seats, and halve their pay. Heck, I say triple the number of representatives and cut all of their pay.
My great grandfather had better representation in that body than I have ever known in my life.
Four hundred and thirty five people representing 300 million is outrageous.
I will never vote for any incumbent unless they are term limited, and even then I have trouble with the notion.
Blah, blah, blah...I agree with you and I like the article but I’m kind of tired of hearing how screwed up it is. I’d like to see the people actually do something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.