We don't need to excerpt Reuters and Yahoo News.
Here is the full text:
Okay, Campbell. Now we know you don't like the Bush plan. Tell us YOUR plan, and how it differs from Gilchrist's.
http://www.jimgilchrist.com/issues.php
On average, the government consumes 50.4% of the income of every taxpayer. This means that in more than half of your work days, you are working solely to fund the government.
Much of your tax money, of course, is wasted. This year, Congress bloated the budget with 14,000 new "pork" projects, compared to 1,400 a decade ago. To cover these unnecessary expenses, Congress has nearly tripled pork-barrel spending, from $10 billion in 1995 to an unprecedented $27.3 billion in 2005.
Politicians treat your hard-earned money like an endless cash flow from a communal spigot. They can hardly resist the temptation to sprinkle the money around. Even when they approve budget caps, somehow more dollars manage to drip out of that leaky faucet for more pet projects.
And the real, Constitutional duties of the federal government, limited and essential as they are -- like securing our national borders against foreign invasion, and protecting America's national sovereignty against foreign subversion -- get pushed aside in the floodtide of pork-barrel expenditures.
Government spending needs a shut-off valve!
I believe our elected officials have forgotten what it means to be accountable to the people, and to adhere to the standards of responsible self-government. The federal government has grown to towering levels, well beyond the control of everyday citizens. The more it grows, the less responsible it becomes. Government serves best when it is closer to the people.
Republican Party leadership, those of my old political party, are acting little different than the "tax-and-spend" liberals of the Democrat Party. Bill Clinton once said that "the era of big government is over." Unfortunately, in the nine years since this declaration, the opposite has been true. Federal spending on the whole is rapidly increasing, and now has reached its fastest growth rate in 30 years. The 2004 fiscal year gave us the largest budget deficit in U.S. history: $520 billion. This year, Congress spent $22,039 per household, but will recover only $18,248 per household in taxes. The remaining $3,791 will be saddled on the backs of our children to pay in debt, plus interest. By the end of 2005, our national debt will likely reach $8 trillion. That's a debt increase of $1 trillion in just two years.
Much of the federal spending increases are for corporate welfare, farm subsidies, medical research, education, unemployment benefits, and numerous low-priority programs. Combined, these add more to the budget than national defense.
We need to cut government largesse, eliminate waste, rethink programs, improve bureaucratic efficiency, and carve the federal government down to a manageable -- and constitutionally authorized -- size. Only then will it truly be responsive to citizens.
It's your government spending your tax money. Isn't it about time Congress remembered that?
As a moral conservative, I stand firmly on the words of the Declaration of Independence in defending the right to life. I do so proudly, without equivocation or exception.
According to the Declaration, there can be no right to abortion, since abortion means denying the most fundamental of rights to human offspring in the womb. The Declaration states plainly that we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator with our basic human rights, including the right to life.
If human beings -- whether legislative bodies, courts, mothers, or anyone else -- can choose who is human and who is not, the doctrine of God-given rights upon which rests all the rule of law is utterly corrupted. We then become a nation governed by the arbitrary rule of those with privilege and power.
There can be no question that abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life -- and thus a breach of the fundamental principles of human equality and justice enshrined in our public moral creed and our Republic's most respected institutions.
Some people talk about "viability" as a test to determine which human offspring have rights that we must respect, and which do not. But might does not make right. So the mere fact that the person in the womb is wholly in its mother's physical power, and thus completely dependent upon her for sustenance, gives her no right whatsoever to extinguish that human life, since the mere possession of physical power can never confer such a right to kill.
Medical procedures deliberately resulting in the death of the unborn child are therefore impermissible. Medical intervention to save the mother's physical life that has the unintended consequence of failing to also save her unborn child is not abortion, per se, but rather a human tragedy.
Not only does the Founding philosophy of our great nation preclude us as a society from destroying innocent human life, but it also precludes us from engaging in embryonic stem cell experimentation, and other medical technology practices that violate the dignity and humanity of life at its earliest, most vulnerable stages.
As for the so-called "right to suicide," and related practices such as euthanasia: whatever emotional arguments may be made to defend such practices, they represent a violation of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and for that reason alone I reject them.
Our rights, including the right to life, are unalienable. If we intentionally kill ourselves or consent to allow another to do so, we both destroy and surrender our right to life. We act unjustly. We usurp the power that belongs solely to the Creator, and deny the basis of our claim to human rights.
Yep, sounds like a single-issue candidate to me. These "moderate" RINOs will say anything to get elected.