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."
I meant "Republicans who support illegal immigration." I need another cup of coffee.
I agree in principle and in theory, but just what makes you think any real change is going to happen? In which direction have we been going for the last 6 years?
The "Republican" party has succumbed to the culture of RINOism and "moderation". Even the best of them have prostituted themselves to big government and big spending and pork.
I see no motivation for them to change. By their very actions they have demonstrated that they have had nothing but contempt for conservative values and ideals. We're all a bunch of "fringers" and "extremists" who they KNOW they can sucker into voting for them simply because we have convinced ourselves that 'Rats in power will be the end of the world.
But I'm no sucker. And I'm not afraid of "the end of the world".
Having any type of intelligent exchange with an individual who suffers the notion that there actually is a Democrat Party is a fools errand.
No intelligent discussion of the Republican plurality can even commence without the reality that there simply is no Democrat Party.
What remains is a goofy "Gumbo" of random action, hatred and puposelessness...blindness and Tourette syndrome obscenities.
Only fools will consider actually voting for any part of that insanity.
What would a conservative republican party look like? Thre would be more men like Duncan Hunter and fewer pansies like Adam Schiff and Chris Shays. Next Question.
People who steadfastly assert that they are "not afraid" are almost always lying.
No "Holy Grail" theory of conservatism, if one exists, would ever describe a specific platform.
Part of the problem of presenting ourselves is just that: we are not so pretentious, vain, and conceited as to push our own principles on others. That in itself is noble, but also exploitable by our enemies.
That is a dumb comment, I say.
What "changes" are there for the foreseeable future? The battle over illegals hasn't even begun at the legislative level. Where is the GOP's platform describing how they are going to fight to make the tax cuts permanent, reduce spending, fight to appoint as many conservative judges as possible, etc.? I would like it to be so but I don't see any evidence of what you suggest.
Is it time we threw the baby out with the bath water? And started clean.
Why do you say that?... When Clinton was in office - for 8 years!! - we (Reps) survived and I would even say we kept him in check pretty good. The party recharged its batteries, reformulated their main beliefs and went for it, the rest of history. How else can we expect any changes from those Reps we consider gone off the main path, unless we are willing to vote them out - in principle? How else?
So where has the Bush Administration "won" conservative victories?
First and foremost, it gets high marks for setting the example in "striking first BEFORE the threat is mobilized" in the WOT. Let's not kid ourselves - one of the reasons America has not been hit with waves of suicide bombers or other attacks is the threat of military retaliation.
Secondly, two Supreme Court additions insure the high court will lean conservative for the next 25-30 years.
I give Dubya high marks just for openly taking on the Social Security issue. Sure, his solution was rejected BUT the important thing is he DID take it on. The plan was logical. What it does is set the framework for another President to try to solve it. To keep ignoring that issue is to avoid reality. But the 2008 winner can deal with it.
He didn't allow Kyoto to be shoved down America's throats and its pocketbook.
The economy is humming despite the gloom & doomers pointing at the housing bubble, the cost of gas, etc. However, I have always contended government can only damage the economy, so the LESS involvement, the BETTER. So I give the Bush Administration credit for the tax cuts and basically staying away from it.
The Katrina fallout has been unfairly perpetuated by the malcontent extremists/opportunists, and aided by the media. But it DID show how stunningly unprepared the USA is for a major diaster (I'm thinking of the NEXT major terrorist attack).
Okay, now the negatives.
The Bush Administration has totally failed to reign in spending in the budgets. I fully understand the WOT costs. Why can't other departments be reduced to help defray that required expenditure? The unbridled pork that galls me to no end. Bush has the veto power. Why has he not used it?
The Mexico border issue and his cozying up to President Fox of Mexico absolutely flummoxes me. The immigration / border control issue must be vigorously addressed. That should have been handled during the days of 85% approval in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
The failure to revamp the existing tax code is a thorn in the sides of most Americans. The same energy and spirit used in the SS argument must be used. The IRS is a bloated bureacracy that needs a total overhaul. Creating a new tax system that is truly fair would truly unleash the economy and promote personal savings to record highs.
CAFTA will be another NAFTA. The trade issue is a bit of a concern for me. America should go with a "mirror" trade policy with foreign countries. Simply put, it means whatever controls you put on American goods entering your country will be reciprocated to the letter by the USA for your products. Also, if your country uses child/slave labor to produce goods, then the duty rate will be very high for those imports (assuming they are alowed entry at all).
His refusal to use the bully pulpit of his Office is curious as well. Too many times he has allowed just bizarre counter attacks/criticisms to pass. That bully pulpit could have been used much more effectively the past 6 years.
My main point is all Administrations are a convoluted mixed bag of results.
There are two vital keys to me. The FIRST key is to vote for CONSERVATIVE VALUES and not necessarily the party affiliation. Would you rather see Democrat (former senator)Sam Nunn or Joe Lieberman in the White House OR Republican John McCain or Lincoln Chaffee? Do NOT dump all Dems in the "liberal" bucket. And for damn sure don't dump all Repubs in the "conservative" bucket. Know your hot buttons and choose accordingly.
The SECOND key is to NOT donate money to a given party. Support the causes that are near and dear to you personally. Examples are the border fence, disaster relief charities, or specific CANDIDATES.
The moderates - you - have no principles and can, thus, be pursuaded anything. Open minds allow brains to fall out. Tagline...
"Can you name the top 20 elected officials of the Constitution party."
Can you name the difference between a Democrat and a Republican?
In France a Republican is a socialist.
My question was sarcastic. Yours is just stupid.
The Honorable John Conyers. vs. Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
If you can't see the difference it must require heavy deodorant where you're breathing.
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.