George F. Will: Freedom vs. Equality (RIP small-government conservatism)

Town Hall ^ | February 1, 2004 | George F. Will [Washington Post Writers Group]

[staytrue]

You can't have tax cuts and huge spending increases at the same time, no matter how "supply side" the tax cuts are. Sooner or later, our means will force a choice, and the temptation will just be overwhelming to sacrifice the tax cuts to the increased spending.

Just like you can't have open borders and a welfare state---the temptation is ultimately overwhelming for politicians to extend welfare benefits to immigrants---whether legal or illegal---, and for immigrants to avail themselves of the welfare benefits instead of jobs.

They may try to have tax increases to pay for increased spending, but that will fail because tax increases will simply result in less economic activity and less revenue. Then they will have to cut spending.

I agree with your comment about open borders and welfare. However, my preference is for getting rid of welfare and having open borders, while most everyone else is in favor of continued welfare and closed borders. I also suspect that 1/3 of those for closed borders do so for purely racist reasons and if the illegals were english, they would be all for welfare and open borders.

[staytrue]

The three million Reagan amnestied became an instant and activist voting bloc for Demonrats and jointly they have given us the massive invasion we have now.

The exits polls showed hispanics spliting 65-35 for gore in 2000.

[staytrue]

Don't act like the GOP is a helpless victim to Democratic ideals

I did not say they were not. I offered true statements and facts to counter geronL's one sided, biased half truths and partially incorrect statements.

[rhinohunter]

Bush wouldn't be supported by a liberal if he raised the minimum wage to 100 dollars an hour and put Che Guevara on the one dollar bill.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

So true... oh so true.

[WOSG]

"You seem to be assuming that the president can control an oppositional congress."

You seem to think Kerry, who if he wins will probably bring seom Democrats with him, likely enough to make a Dem majority in Congress, has to 'control' Congress to do Liberal things.

I make no such assumption. I just recount what happened when Clinton was in power - lots of liberal stuff happened on his watch, even with Republican majorities in Congress.

[sphinx]

How about a conservative solution? 1. Educational vouchers for all students. parents decide on how they get educated, and can choose from public or private schools. 2. Health care provision for the needy only, from Govt subsidy, via insurance that people can choose from. The Govt run version could "wither on the vine" in Newt's words, if it is not as efficient/effective. 3. Social Security system broken into 2 parts - one, a basic system for the indigent elderly 'safety net'; two, a funded pension plan that workers can choose from, or they can choose to send the money into other retirement savings accounts they own.

Exactly. Add pro-savings tax reform, and we would have a system in which a generous safety net would be present, but very few people would need it. The enemy is collectivism, not a social safety net. The left assumes that only a collectivist approach can provide security. That is not correct, but we need an intelligent and principled reengineering of some basic institutions.

[ServesURight]

They simply will not accept the fact that successful politics is a series of compromises

Why do WE (conservatives) have to compromise all the time?

You don't see Democrats out there proposing tax cuts, pro-life measures, or cutting gov't.

[goldstategop]

Exactly. We want a CONSERVATIVE welfare state. The fact Americans want to assauge people's needs doesn't necessarily mean they want a one size fits all solution to it, which is what the Democrats favor.

[WOSG]

Thanks and dittos. I like this - quotable quote: "The enemy is collectivism, not a social safety net."

[lentulusgracchus]

More than nine years of a Republican-controlled Congress and we end up with socialism-lite... what a failure

Blame the Clintons and Tom Daschle -- especially Daschle, who is the one who stirred Clinton up to fight during the budget/shutdown controversy in 1995. (I don't know what role Hillary played, but I think she was helping Daschle persuade Clinton to shut down the government.)

That incident was where Clinton showed the People who was boss. That's when he hurt them and made believers out of them, that's when he cowed them and made them State thralls.

I know two women who live together who voted for Reagan twice who can't hold a logical discussion of the government shutdown, it really got to them and taught them to fear the Republicans -- even though it was Slick who hurt them and scared them. He scared them to death: years later, they still get pie-eyed and their voices rise as they damn the Republicans over that affair, they're still afraid of becoming beggars unless the Welfare State is there to help them.

I'll personally have a hard time forgiving Newt and Bob Dole for mishandling that crisis. Dole was too busy thinking about campaigning for the White House himself, and Newt in the crunch was a babe in arms, he let Clinton lie to him and manipulate him. The Republican Congressional leadership failed miserably in the crisis Clinton precipitated to decide whether we would be a nation of free men, or an empire. Statism, vanguardism, and empire won.

[The Raven]

I know that's where we're headed...but the government is involved in all scenerios. What's wrong with no government?

That's the problem.....and we'll end up with nothing should we continue this path (the road to poverty)

[lentulusgracchus]

George Will's neocon colors are showing.

I think Will has decided that conservatism is dead, and he's shopping around for something a little trendier and more salable.

A guy's gotta eat, after all.

[lentulusgracchus]

ACLU-type liberal activist Judges would get into the Supreme Court, like happened under Clinton.

No, I think that that old constitutional deference is dead. The 'Rats have killed it, and the Congressional Republicans would respond to liberal appointees by driving stakes through their hearts one after another.

[WOSG]

"What's wrong with no government?"

That solution is favored by maybe 5% of people, so it wont get implemented in a democracy.

"That's the problem.....and we'll end up with nothing should we continue this path (the road to poverty)"

America itself has disproven this. We have generous welfare and yet survive.

[kitkat]

BUMP

[The Raven]

>>That solution is favored by maybe 5% of people

The Constitution is designed to limit government and it needs to be enforced. We're not a democracy. We don't go by the people's will - except for the House of Representatives.

[The Raven]

Whoops - and the Senate (although not originally)

[Map Kernow]

They may try to have tax increases to pay for increased spending, but that will fail because tax increases will simply result in less economic activity and less revenue. Then they will have to cut spending.

They will not cut spending. You're dreaming if you think an entitlement program like Social Security is ever going to pay for itself or have its spending cut.

I agree with your comment about open borders and welfare. However, my preference is for getting rid of welfare and having open borders, while most everyone else is in favor of continued welfare and closed borders.

Yeah, well, guess what? No one's going to get rid of welfare. And immigration both legal and illegal simply gives politicians new clientele for their handouts.

I also suspect that 1/3 of those for closed borders do so for purely racist reasons and if the illegals were english, they would be all for welfare and open borders.

Yeah? Based on what, other than your knee-jerk PC desire to slander as "racist" your fellow citizens who are concerned about the massive problems out-of-control immigration is causing our country? Are you saying that none of those problems would exist if millions of English were entering into our country? Then I'm afraid you're the "racist," aren't you?

[staytrue]

Based on what, other than your knee-jerk PC desire to slander as "racist" your fellow citizens

I said "I suspect" not "I can prove". However, if my fellow citizens are not racist, why do I have racist comments said to my face about 4-6 times a year. Further, if my fellow citizens are not racist, why does this forum list as rules for posting "no racist comments"? Further, it is plain and obvious to me that the democrat black leadership is biased against whites. Are you so sure of the moral purity of the other races, that a small percentage like 10% is not also racist ? As recently as 1964, there were laws that banned interracial marriage in 24 states. That would be state sanctioned racism. Are you so sure that in the last 40 years, racism has been eradicated from the US ?

[lepton]

How does one "offer incentives" to become more self-sufficient?

Tax-free savings plans...as example.