toga!
Posted on 05/06/2006 4:15:33 AM PDT by Born Conservative
Well, that's exactly what Indiana Representative Mike Pence and 100 fellow House Republicans are out to answer -- how to make the Republican Party the home of constitutionality and conservatism once again.
That's not to say there's no conservatism in the GOP. As the titular head of the Republican Party, President George W. Bush has distinguished himself as a conservative when it comes to foreign policy and -- all importantly -- in restoring the judicial branch to its proper constitutional role through the appointment of constructionist-minded judges to federal benches. That said, President Bush has failed dismally when it comes to restoring, or even holding, government to its proper constitutionally limited role.
At present, Republicans control the executive and legislative branches of government, yet the size and regulatory role of the central government has grown unabated since President Bush took office. Of course, our nation's vigorous response to the 9/11 attacks and our pre-emptive military response to Jihadis in the Middle East and elsewhere are responsible for some of that growth, but those necessary -- and we might add, constitutionally mandated -- expenditures have not been offset by spending cuts to domestic programs as Mr. Bush once promised would happen.
Today, the federal government spends $2.47 trillion -- that's 2,470 billions of dollars -- each year. Adjusted for inflation, that's 50 percent larger than the big-government Clinton-era budgets of only a decade ago, about which Republicans constantly complained. Of that, only 21 cents of every taxpayer dollar goes to national defense and homeland security. By contrast, 54 cents goes to entitlements like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and 8 cents goes to servicing the federal debt.
Meanwhile, the federal deficit will grow another $423 billion this year, raising the national debt to $8.28 trillion! While we're not exactly "The sky is falling!" deficit hawks, it's worth noting that big budgets and big deficits tighten the money supply, increasing the costs of investment and slowing economic growth and prosperity.
Enter the Republican Study Committee.
Founded in 1973 by Rep. Phil Crane to reinvigorate the GOP as the party of constitutional constructivism and social conservatism, the RSC became the premier mobilizing agent for House conservatives, dedicated to "a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government, a strong national defense, the protection of individual and property rights, and the preservation of traditional family values."
In 2005, Rep. Mike Pence became the Committee's chairman for the 109th Congress. He and his fellow conservatives have rallied around principles outlined in a speech last fall, "Another Time for Choosing," picking up the central theme of Ronald Reagan's famous 1964 speech "A Time for Choosing".
Today, under Pence's leadership, the RSC is the originator of the Contract with America: Renewed, created by Representatives Pence and Jeb Hensarling, with the aim of reviving the legislative agenda of Newt Gingrich's original 1994 Contract with America. It was that agenda, readers will recall, that catapulted Republicans into control of Congress for the first time in over 40 years.
Under the FY 2007 Contract with America: Renewed budget proposal, overall spending would be reduced by more than $700 billion and a balanced federal budget realized by 2011. The RSC proposal would make real reductions in discretionary spending (without silly and unconstitutional inventions like a "line-item veto"), rein in entitlement spending and undergird the U.S. economy with sound, pro-growth tax policy. Under the RSC plan, more than 150 other federal programs would be eliminated outright. Foreign aid -- which should serve as a tool for U.S. security and interests abroad, but often falls prey to special interests -- would be cut by $31 billion over five years. The ignominious six-year Highway Bill, pork-laden with roads and bridges to nowhere, would be repealed. Medicare, whose trustees this week announced will go broke in 2018, would be limited to a more sustainable growth of 5.4 percent annually -- a necessary first step in getting the federal government out of the entitlement business altogether.
As was the case in 1994, today's Contract isn't just about a return to fiscal conservatism; it includes a strong focus on social conservatism as well. Take, for instance, the Contract's objectives with respect to the three sacred cows of taxpayer-funded social liberalism: The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts -- not reduction, elimination.
And that's just the beginning.
In 1994, when the "Gingrich Revolution" launched the original Contract, Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, and the nation was in the grip of the Clinton presidency. The Contract nationalized the election around its agenda. It proved a monumental success in capturing both Houses for the GOP, promoting increased trade, reforming welfare and containing the advance of big-government entitlement schemes under the Clinton regime.
Now, 12 years later, with Republican control of the Senate and the Presidency, true conservatism is again set for takeoff -- so what's keeping this would-be juggernaut on the launch pad?
Democrats? No, not really. In a word, it's the leadership of the Republican Party.
Indeed, DC scuttlebutt says that Pence was told his Contract: Renewed would be DOA when it hit the House floor. Sadly, the party in control is all too vulnerable to Lord Acton's famous maxim ("Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."), using earmarks, pork-barreling and other budgetary quid pro quos to stay in power. As evidence, the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) 2006 Congressional Pig Book identifies 9,963 pork projects in 11 appropriation bills, totaling $29 billion for FY 2006 alone. Since 2003, says CAGW, congressional pork has increased by a staggering 29 percent.
Crusading reformers while out of power, the GOP in power seems seduced by Washington's tax-and-spend status quo. To make us feel better about it, it's now called "compassionate conservatism" -- an agenda thoroughly embodied in President Bush's 2005 Nanny State of the Union.
Where's the Republican leadership? It's a mixed bag. In the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist has a 92 percent overall approval rating by the American Conservative Union (ACU). Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has a 96 percent ACU rating. Both have 95 percent ratings from Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). In the House, where members are more responsive to their constituents, Speaker Dennis Hastert has a 100 percent ACU rating, as does the new Majority Leader, John Boehner. The ACU gives House Whip Roy Blunt a 96. Their ATR ratings are 100, 100 and 95, respectively. That's the good news.
But when it comes to government waste the story takes a different turn. CAGW gives Frist and McConnell a 66 and 69, respectively, while in the House, Hastert, Boehner and Blunt line up with scores of 50, 75 and 65. That's an average score of 65 -- an "F" -- for the Republican congressional leadership. With government waste out of control even among the otherwise moderate-conservative leadership, and no leadership on fiscal conservatism coming from the White House, the RSC agenda faces a tough, maybe insurmountable, hill to climb.
In Rep. Pence's words during the latest round of budget negotiations, "We must not let this moment pass. The American people long for Congress to reaffirm our commitment to fiscal discipline and reform and House conservatives are ready to stand with our leadership to do just that."
SCOTUS is of course very important. But it alone is not enough to get me to vote for another rino.
Considering McCain is more of a conservative than the alternative, I'd vote for him against ANY Democrat. Sure he's off the plantation on a number of things, but WOT, abortion and a few other key issues, he's a lot saner than any DUmmie.
Or ANY Third Party candidate.
Third parties simply take too long to get together enough political power in our current times for a new one to arise with the support on the state and congressional level to mean anything. I'm 40 years old, I can't afford to wait till I'm dead for a new "conservative" party to arise and have the country flushed down the tubes by the democrats.
It's like this: no matter what you tell the Republican party, as soon as you say "but I'll support you in the election" you've told them to 'disregard all before'. Think of vote refusal as practicing 'tough love', or as 'shaping the platform in 2008'.
The Republic can survive Democrats in power for a while, it has before.
Not liberals, moderates. Moderates are those who think for themselves, rather than have to be told how to think.
Me too, but it sure would be unpleasant. I truly hope it doesn't come to that.
Whatever you wish to call them I will not support them one bit.
Thus the birth of FreeRepublic. We may be disgusted with invertebrate Republicans, but we can't let them continue to fall either. We need to reach out and lead them.
As far as the rats, hang 'em.
Based on the comments on this thread, I'd have to say conservatism is not a big issue for a large number of Freepers.
Well said.
A simple change like getting rid of earmarks could do wonders for the party.
Um...no. Moderates have no beliefs. Thats why they can't come down on one side or the other.
toga!
Nothing, absolutely nothing on Earth would ever get me to vote for that evil, vile despicable man. If McCain was President, in four years our Republic would be so screwed that Republicans at all levels would be voted out of office. Those who cherish Liberty should go on record as stating that they would never vote for McCain. The powers that be should realize many of us will NOT hold our nose and vote for this disgusting person, because of who runs against him. I will gladly sit out this election. Our party can survive Hillary, it cannot survive a McCain Presidency. He in a very unstable, bitter and vile man. It would be quite dangerous to have him in charge (I know the same can be said of Hillary, but I think she will be defeated)
Absolutely, especially this:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=277
Nice hypothetical.
Since it will never happen, why bother?
One party systems (which is what we have by the defacto abandonment of "The Game" by the bankrupt Demoscats.) almost always becomes a haven for all persuasions, being the only game in town.
{Are you "getting any of this"? }
One-note Whackos have a hard time dealing with the realities of life in general,much less the confusion that attends to an egalitarian reality... control freaks are by nature "unfun folks" to be around.
Moderates have no beliefs.
Us despised moderates have a lot of thought systems rather than belief systems.
Third Parties are a waste of time in the National arena. They are more useful in affecting local politics, where third party candidates in sufficient numbers will force the two bigger parties to examine and adopt parts of the third party platform in order to co-opt the voter base for the third party.
We've seen how national third parties affect elections. In the 1990s, we lost to Clinton twice because of Ross Perot. In 2000, we won narrowly by virtue of Ralph Nader. In 2004, Ralph Nader wasn't even on the radar.
My amateur analysis is that we should be very careful at the national level when dealing with third parties. If you vote for a third party on the national level, you usually get the opposite of what you wanted, and the lag time between elections ensures that any lessons you thought you were teaching to your Republican, former representative will be lost in the struggle to oust the liberal, because by then the only lesson learned is that even a RINO is better than a Liberal.
This isn't directed at you DW. I just thought I'd ride your post and tack on my 2 cents.
We have a problem with career politicians in elected office. Our guys look weak because they're exactly that and not ideological brethren. The Left has an advantage over us, in that they've somehow managed to get ideological liberals elected. In any battle, the side that believes in itself the most has the advantage of being willing to go to extreme lengths to achieve their goals. We've seen this with the Liberal Left with great dismay. We have yet to see large numbers of Republicans willing to put their jobs on the line in favor of advancing the conservative agenda.
If we want to teach our national leaders a lesson, we need to start by building up the smaller third parties at the local level. Electing responsible, conservative local representatives will also be the most effective way of controlling the effect of government in our lives. We live in a Federal republic. If this were France, the focus on the national level would be justified, but this is the United States, and the best way to reign in the Federal Government is to elect conservative State and local governments. However, if an opportunity arises to select conservatives in the upcoming primaries for national seats, do you best to help, but not at the cost of handing a seat over to the Democrats.
We seem to have a shortage of ethical people willing to stand up to the scrutiny and hostility of a liberal press. There is only so much vilification a good person can take before deciding the prize isn't worth it. If ever there was a RICO qualified scam taking place, it is the media's use of free speech to dishonestly destroy candidates they don't like, only to have those stories revealed as false or unprovable at a later date. Intimidation is how our enemies operate, be they Al Qaeda, or Democrats. Accurate, timely, and accessible information is the key to defeating both.
Ah well, enough is enough... Time for bed.
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.