Posted on 11/20/2005 10:17:34 AM PST by KCRW
REP. CHARLIE BASS says it’s time for “a more moderate form of leadership” in Washington. He says that public dissatisfaction with Republicans shows that America wants to be governed from the middle. He is completely wrong.
In a Gallup Poll conducted over the weekend, President Bush got low marks on every issue. His lowest, however, was “controlling federal spending,” with 71 percent disapproving of his performance on that point. A CNN/USA Today poll found the same thing. Bush scored lowest (26 percent approval) on “immigration” and “controlling federal spending.” On both of those issues, Bush is decidedly unconservative. Bush got his highest rating, 48 percent approval, on “terrorism”.
Public dissatisfaction with Republicans in Washington comes not from the GOP being too conservative, but from the GOP not being conservative enough.
What, exactly, have Republicans done that is so conservative? They’ve tightened Washington’s grip on education policy, expanded the welfare state, enhanced unnecessary farm and corporate subsidies, passed a campaign finance “reform” law that lets the federal government silence citizens’ political speech, refused to control immigration, grown the federal budget faster than President Clinton did, and exploded the deficit.
About the only thing they have done that could be labeled “conservative” is cut taxes and take hawkish stances on foreign policy — and taxes and foreign policy are where Republicans still get the highest marks.
Too many Republicans in Washington have campaigned as conservatives but governed as moderates. No wonder the people don’t trust them. Had they actually governed as the conservatives they pretended to be — the conservatives Americans thought they were electing — they would not be in such a mess right now.
(Excerpt) Read more at theunionleader.com ...
Congress critters are in touch for a short time every two years and the Senate is in touch every six years for a short period of time.
I don't know, even then I have to question how in touch they are. Keep in mind that GOP candidates also get "fear" votes too.
They're in touch (hand to hand) when asking for financial support to win reelection.
You missed this important post:
Ron Paul - Too Little Too Late
House Web Site ^ | 11-14-2005 | Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
Posted on 11/15/2005 1:28:08 PM EST by jmc813
Congress is poised to consider a budget bill this week in a vote both parties consider critical, but in reality the bill is nothing more than a political exercise by congressional leaders designed to convince voters that something is being done about runaway federal spending. Having spent the last five years out-pandering the Democrats by spending money to buy off various voting constituencies, congressional Republicans now find themselves forced to appeal to their unhappy conservative base by applying window dressing to the bloated 2006 federal budget.
Ignore the talk about Congress "slashing" vital government programs in this budget bill, which is just nonsense. This Congress couldn't slash spending if the members' lives depended on it.
Remember, this is a Congress that has increased spending by 33% since President Bush took office in 2001. And we're not talking about national defense or anti-terrorism spending. We're talking about a one-third increase in garden variety domestic spending. This is also a Congress that passed the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the single largest increase in entitlement spending since the Great Society programs of the 1960s. So there's not much credibility to be found on Capitol Hill when it comes to reducing the federal budget.
The proposed bill calls for such tiny reductions in spending that frankly it's shameful for Republicans to claim it represents a victory for fiscal conservatism. And it's equally preposterous for Democrats to claim it represents some great threat to precious entitlements. The dollar amounts contained in the bill are so insignificant that both parties are guilty of meaningless grandstanding.
The budget reconciliation bill reduces spending by a mere $5.6 billion in a 2006 budget of nearly $2.5 trillion. This represents just a fraction of one percent, a laughable amount. Does anyone seriously believe the federal budget cannot be trimmed more than this? Consider that the federal budget was only about $1 trillion in 1990, a mere 15 years ago- and government was far too large and too intrusive then. After all the talk about deficit spending, this is the best a Republican congress and Republican president can come up with? What a farce.
Projections of big savings beyond 2006 because of this bill are pure fiction. Congress has no authority to pass budgets or appropriate money beyond the next fiscal year. Future Congresses will not pay one whit of attention to this bill, and its hopeful predictions will be forgotten.
Furthermore, we need to get our budget cutting priorities in order. Why are we cutting domestic programs while we continue to spend billions on infrastructure in Iraq? In just the past two weeks Congress approved a $21 billion foreign aid bill and a $130 million scheme to provide water for developing nations. Why in the world aren't these boondoggles cut first?
The spending culture in Washington creates an attitude that government can solve every problem both at home and abroad simply by funding another program. But we've reached a tipping point, with $8 trillion in debt and looming Social Security and Medicare crises. Government spending has become a national security issue, because unless Congress stops the bleeding the resulting economic downturn will cause us more harm than any terrorist group could ever hope to cause. And we're doing it to ourselves, from within.
Congress is running out of options in its game of buy now, pay later. Foreign central banks are less interested in loaning us money. Treasury printing presses are worn out from the unprecedented increase in dollars ordered by the Federal Reserve Bank over the past 15 years. Taxpayers are tapped out. Where will the money for Big Government conservatism come from?
Congressional Republicans and Democrats can posture until doomsday, but the needed course of action is clear. Declare an across-the-board ten percent cut for the federal 2006 budget, and focus spending on domestic priorities. If congressional leaders cannot take this simple step toward balancing the 2006 budget, they should at least not attempt to delude the American people that serious spending cuts are being made.
Actually, MANY -- but Corruptzine and Lousybugger don't seem to pay too much attention to my opinion!
Cajones and a backbone would be helpful also.
"Cajones and a backbone would be helpful also."
Boxes/crates and a backbone would be helpful also?
I don't understand.
Ron Paul? The Libertarian? Yeah, right- like I am going to listen to anything Paul says. Paul is only a Republican when he wants their money to run for re-election.
The Libertarians support abortion,they are against every war, and their idea of foreign policy is to completely ignore foreign governments unless they can make money thru free trade.
As long as Paul considers himself a Libertarian- he is the most completely useless republican in government.
TADSLOS,
You're close but no cigar.
I'm trying to encourage you to go to the dictionary and find the correct word once and for all.
Cajones means cigar? Who knew?
I'm sorry you feel that way because this particular article nails it. It's obvious you didn't read it.
Sadly it's your loss because it is loaded with information for us conservatives.
Rethink your stance and read the article. I promise there is no ouch or hurt.
Stinker. :)
I could care less what the Ron Paul says- I've met the man and I wasn't impressed. Statesmen like Ron Paul is precisely the reason I posted this article. As long as Ron Paul still supports the party that supports abortion- he is not real conservative.
Paul is a Republican fake. No, the GOP does not need Libertarians in their party.
Well what can I say. Every time you say, "Hopefully, this past week's events are a good sign. With the $50 billion spending cut bill passing and the rejection of pulling out of Iraq- we are moving in the right direction," you come across as uninformed. But that is your choice and business. Enough said.
Well, Bass is what the New Hampshire Voters in the 2nd District voted for. His part of New Hampshire is pretty Left Wing.
On the contrary. This is one of the most "moderate" administrations (and Congresses) in decades. Its dwindling support comes from the fact that it is too MODERATE, not that it is too CONSERVATIVE. Bush has played fast and loose with his base; the quisling senators we all know and hate (McCain, Hagel, Chaffee, Snowe, Specter, Collins, et. al.) have compromised away any numerical advantage we might have had in that body; 25 GOP reps just struck the ANWR drilling provision from the House budget bill.
The LAST thing we need is more "moderates." We need a healthy dose of backbone.
Does Charlie Bass really believe Americans want to continue to be beholden to the Middle East for their fuel, or that they enjoy paying higher prices for fuel?
Is that his rationale for voting against drilling in ANWR?
Sununu may be one of the best Senators in Washington, but his election also reflects the nature of the First District (where he once served from as Congressman). The first is comprised of Rockingham, Hillsbrough, Caroll, and Belknap Counties, the most Conservative Counties in all of New England. However, the Second Congressional District is comprised of the more liberal counties of Chesire, Grafton and Sullivan, which have large numbers of College Students and Wanna-be-Vermont-Liberals. Bass's first election was in 1994, and therefore had he ran in any other year it would be unlikely he would have won, and the seat would remain Democratic today (under the Son-in-law of Tom Lantos).
No, most NH voters consider themselves lovers of the outdoors and the environment, and one way Mr. Bass wishes to prove himself as an "environmentalist" is to vote against ANWR. (Though environmentally this position makes no sense, seeing that drilling in ANWR would effect at most, less than 1/10 of 1% of the land up there)
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.