Big government

I am confused (not an altogether rare circumstance!): I was always under the impression that Republicans, as people of a conservative nature, believed in the people, in States' Rights, in strict constructionism, in smaller vs. larger government.

Yet, here we are with a Republican admninistration, both executive and legislative, yet centralized government, big government, Big Brother, have all been promoted and enacted.

It is under a Republican régime that we end up with the rape of the Bill of Rights, and a loss of most of our privacy from government intrusion.

The courts tell us that this is "reasonable", yet as I read the Constitution, I don't see any provisions for the abrogation of our freedoms in the name of that which might be "reasonable". Indeed, God given rights are absolute, not relative.

We have sold our freedoms down the river in fear of some Islamic fanatics.

Why did we not, instead, empower the people? Deputize all, for example, veterans? Aid the States in defending the homeland, while the federal government defends that which it is empowered to defend, our borders?

Whoa...Chillout dude.

Get a grip. Seriously. The last two years were ineffictive wholly due to DemoRAT obstructionism. Now, you have to wait until the new Congress gets in Office for anything to get done. Please understand that for Republicans to do something, they must first be in office. That hasn't occurred yet. So relax. have a beer. We've got a long up hill fight ahead of us.

It will take years to undo the damage done by the Clinton Administration. Plus, a whole Decade by the damage by Carter and maybe an entire Century to unravel the FDR actions. Let's not forget the horrible anti-individual activies of the 1913 congress!

So relax.

I'll believe that mainstream Republican representatives stand for smaller government if they would;

1. Cut the size of the govenment payroll by even 5%
2. Freeze spending at current levels until Federal government spending reached under 5% of GDP. No ifs, ands or buts about it. It could take 30 years to get there.

National disaster? Better start laying off the HHS, Dept of Education, IRS employees if you want money to give away to disaster victims. Not to mention the forementioned departments and giving money to disaster victims is unconstitutional anyway.

I ain't just me:

Homeland Security Is the Largest Federal Expansion in 50 Years
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

The administration and Congress put the finishing touches on the monstrous Homeland Security bill last week, creating the first new federal department since the Department of Defense at the end of World War II. Laughably, the new department has been characterized as merely a "reorganization" of existing agencies, even though I notice no department was abolished to make up for it! One thing we can be sure of in this world is that federal agencies grow. The Homeland Security department, like all federal agencies, will increase in size exponentially over the coming decades. Its budget, number of employees, and the scope of its mission will EXPAND. Congress has no idea what it will have created twenty or fifty years hence, when less popular presidents have the full power of a domestic spying agency at their disposal.

The frightening details of the Homeland Security bill, which authorizes an unprecedented level of warrantless spying on American citizens, are still emerging. Those who still care about the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th amendment, have every reason to be alarmed. But the process by which Congress created the bill is every bit as reprehensible as its contents.

Ironically, many in Congress who usually champion limited government were enthusiastic supporters of the largest federal expansion in 50 years. Twenty years ago President Reagan revitalized conservatives across the country by appealing to their Goldwater roots, promising to slash the size of government and eliminate whole departments. Yet the promise of a smaller government went unfulfilled, and today Congress passes budgets even larger that those of the Clinton years.

Of course the Homeland Security bill did receive some opposition from the President’s critics. Yet did they attack the legislation because it threatens to debase the 4th amendment and create an Orwellian surveillance society? Did they attack it because it will chill political dissent or expand the drug war? No, they attacked it on the grounds that it failed to secure enough high-paying federal union jobs, thus angering one of Washington’s most powerful special interest groups. Ultimately, however, even the most prominent critics voted for the bill.

The lesson learned from the rush to create a Homeland Security department is that the size and scope of government grows regardless of which party is in power. The federal government now devours a whopping 40% of the nation’s GDP, the highest level since World War II – and a massive new department can only make things worse. The Homeland Security bill provides a vivid example of the uncontrolled spending culture in Washington, a culture that views the true source of political power – your tax dollars – as unlimited.

November 26, 2002

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Ron Paul Archives

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.