The Era of Super-Sized Government

Cato Institute ^ | June 2, 2005 | Stephen Slivinski

[pfony1]

You seem to be angry that the modern Republican party does not march in lock-step with YOUR favorite policies and programs.

I am not aware of just what YOUR policies and programs might be.

Would you please share that information?

[mysterio]

Sure. A smaller, less intrusive government that sticks to the Constitutional principles that limit it. I want to see unconstitutional laws and policies tossed. Nanny-statism and out of control spending aren't what I want.

[pfony1]

OK. We agree on the goal.

It follows that any differences we may have relate to the "means" to get to the goal.

IMHO, to get to the goal we need to elect more "real" Republicans, so we can tame our activist judiciary. As an example, imagine what the following Supreme Court ruling would do to the U.S. Department of Education:

"Public Education is not a Federal matter. All educational funding and educational policies are reserved to the respective States and to the subdivisions thereof."

Poof! A leaner, less intrusive Federal government!


If we assume, for the sake of discussion, that you would like to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, what means would you use to do that?

[reelfoot]

"when you strip away spending on defense, homeland security and entitlement programs and adjust the rest for inflation Bush still ranks as the biggest spending president in 30 years -- only Nixon is a bigger spender. Bush actually outspends Johnson by this criterion."

Republican does not mean smaller government. That's obvious. If you are interested in smaller government, you'll have to look elsewhere. The two major parties are both big government parties.

The two party system:

Republicans = The party of big government
Democrats = The party of even bigger government

[mysterio]

Yeah, we basically agree on the outline. I don't think putting Republicnas in the majority is ever going to do it, though.

Bush was presented in 2000 as the small government, pro-Constitution candidate. Ok by me. I voted for him. Almost straight ticket Republican that year.

So we get the tax cut. Bravo. I'm very happy, and I think he's a great guy.

9/11 happens. The guy is strong, I mean strong. And then what does he do? The "patriot" act. Reactionary legislation that DOES damage the Bill of Rights. And people around here (who would have screamed bloody murder if Janet Reno had asked for the same legislation under the same circumstances) are cool with it. I'm thinking, what?

So already by that point I'm having some serious buyer's remorse. I really disliked Clinton for reactionary gun legislation and other anti-Constitutional activity. And now Bush has followed with a reactionary piece of legislation that will take generations to get rid of, if it ever is gotten rid of.

And then the budget starts going up. And up. And up. And not just on war things. On pork things. And he doesn't veto anything!

More and more states elect Republicans. And they start with new smoking bans, safety laws, raising taxes, and everything else the dems did when they were in power.

Bush's supreme court nominee. He doesn't even support your rights to be protected against searches on the highway with no reasonable suspicion. You might have drugs on you or something, so let's just have a look around. And by the way, your papers, please. Let's see that national ID.

So I'm left to think Republicans don't act like Republicans much. We can call a few of them RINOs, but what about the rest? And abolishing the Department of Education? Only if there's a hell of a lot of pork for their respective states in the bill, along with a new even bigger department to replace it.

I don't think the Republicans are going to get us where we want to go. And I KNOW the dems aren't. I don't think a third party has a chace, granted. But that's not enough to keep me from voting third party, and hasn't been in a few years. I'm tired of plugging my nose to vote for the lesser of two evils and then kicking myself when the newly elected candidate turns out to be a big government nanny statist.

But don't get me wrong, I still do like Republicans like you that still believe in smaller government. And I like it here. At the very least, there's intelligent debate and still a lot of people that think the way I do. And I hope you're right about the Republican party turning it around. And if you are, I may consider voting that way again.

[pfony1]

Agreed.

Good discussion.

Another way a less-liberal Supreme Court could help would be by reversing its position on the Line Item Veto, which was declared "unconstituional" in 1998.

As a result, it seems the President faces the same "hold-your-nose" choice you do, each time Congress sends him a bill.

For example, the new Energy Bill is full of waste, but it DOES restart our nuclear energy program and DOES reduce the power that enviro-nazis have exercised to block any energy project that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
In my opinion, GWB was right, when he signed that pork-laden bill into law.

Hmmmm...

This raised a new thought. Do you think that our lushly-funded enviro-nazi groups might be getting some of their "walking-around-money" from the Arabs?