A message to Republicans

[chauncy republicans]

Just Say No To Big Government
By Jack Hunter
Published 05/29/09

http://s7.addthis.com/button0-share.gif (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php) Printer-friendly version (http://www.campaignforliberty.com/functions/printfriendly.php?article=91)

Frustrated with Gov. Mark Sanford's refusal to accept $700 million in federal stimulus dollars and his opposition to the state budget, S.C. Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell addressed the governor in an open letter this month, writing, "Time and again, you have failed to address problems in a constructive manner and proactively work with the Legislature to find solutions."

Noting Sanford's constant opposition to the Republican-dominated state legislature, McConnell added, "While the attacks you have launched may have been intended to build your national image as a reformer, in the final analysis, the work of a true reformer is measured not by words or TV ads or by press releases, but by what he or she has been able to accomplish."

McConnell has a point. But it's also nearly impossible to accomplish anything when there's only one reformer.

There are two types of "conservative" Republicans. The first type believes that government is broken, but simply needs Republicans to better manage it, while the other believes we need to actually reduce government. The first type can enjoy long careers by peppering their continuing support for the status quo with conservative-sounding language. The second type tends to make fewer friends because their career-long language consists of telling Democrats, Republicans, and even their constituents one word: "No."

Texas Congressman Ron Paul earned the name "Dr. No" in the House of Representatives for opposing most legislation brought to the floor. During his tenure in Congress, Sanford joined Paul in saying "no" more than any other congressman. Would America have been better served if Paul and Sanford tried to work more with the rest of the legislature to help bring us to our current state? Or might we have been better off if there were more leaders willing to consistently say "no" to more laws, more spending, and more government in general?

Consider the example of New Mexico's own "Dr. No," former Republican Gov. Gary "Veto" Johnson, who earned his nickname for vetoing 750 bills from 1995 to 2003, more than all the vetoes of the other 49 governors combined. Johnson also cut the growth of his state's government in half, privatized half of the state's prisons, reduced state employees by 1,000, oversaw the longest period without a tax increase in the state's history, and left office with a budget surplus. No doubt, New Mexico leaders wanted to spend as much money as South Carolina's legislature or any other state government. But Johnson constantly said "no," and was able to do some good.

The bloated budget and massive debt that continues to plague the state of South Carolina is a microcosm of the bloated budget and massive debt that continues to plague the entire United States. Everyone from across the political spectrum will generally agree that such reckless behavior is a problem and we cannot go on forever conducting business as usual. Yet when any leader dares to reverse course by saying "no," such leaders will invariably find themselves being attacked for daring to obstruct business as usual. The same state legislature that created our current economic woes are the same leaders who are now saying Sanford is the problem, as if a more cooperative gubernatorial extension of themselves would be preferable and somehow produce different, better results.

When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, the new president hung a portrait in the White House of his hero, President Calvin Coolidge. Author Ivan Eland described Coolidge as a president who believed the United States had too many laws. He once said, "We would be better off if we didn't have anymore ... The greatest duty and opportunity of government is not to embark on any new ventures." But as it was in his own time, Coolidge's conservative philosophy remains unpopular today, where "good" or "great" leaders are always defined as those who expand the power of government to accomplish certain goals. The opposite is also true, and it was for this reason that Time magazine once felt compelled to declare Sanford one of America's "worst governors" for his habit of constantly opposing government.

I'm often criticized for bashing Republicans, but I do so because it's hard to take most of them seriously. Any Republican who talks about "fiscal responsibility," yet spends as much as any Democrat, whether at the national or state level, is completely worthless. Unfortunately, this description fits the bulk of the Republican Party. Most Republicans aren't the least bit serious about their conservative rhetoric.

And as America continues to spiral downward the longer spending goes upward, the few, serious conservatives willing to say "no" to government will always get the loudest "yes" from me.

[wildcat]

if all states balanced there budgets then they would not need any federal money. Time those states follow the example of the Gov Johnson. Currently we have a nany state with the elected nanys pushing more nanying, as far as I can tell we are heading more and more into trouble. The Greed whether financial or for power of current politicians is scary, to me it seems they start of with good intentions, but as soon as they enter into the political scene they get sucked into the game. For a politician to succeed he needs to be corrupt, and greedy, it cost now how much to be come president? $1 billion.

The hole system is broken and will not change until the people wake up, and I don't see that happening, the writing is on the wall, we are heading towards a large socialist government where the rights of the state come before the rights of the people. All I can do is vote my conscience.

[Soldat_Américain]

Republicans haven't been about Small Government since Jackson...and he was a Democrat...there I said it. Only president to ever pay off the national debt...basically we've been going to **** since 1838.

Granted his Democratic Party was much different than todays.

[sinophile]

Baby steps... the Republican Congress under Newt made some progress on the commitments below. As much as they could under the threat of a Clinton Presidential Veto.

REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA

As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives. That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.
This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.
Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act "with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right." To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves.
On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:



FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress;
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;
EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.
1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses. (Bill Text) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/fiscrespb.txt) (Description) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/fiscrespd.txt)
2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, "good faith" exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer's "crime" bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools. (Bill Text) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/safetyb.txt) (Description) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/safetyd.txt)
3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility. (Bill Text) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/persrespb.txt) (Description) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/persrespd.txt)
4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children's education, stronger child ****ography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society. (Bill Text) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/familiesb.txt) (Description) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/familiesd.txt)
5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief. (Bill Text) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/amdreamb.txt) (Description) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/amdreamd.txt)
6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world. (Bill Text) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/defenseb.txt) (Description) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/defensed.txt)
7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years. (Bill Text) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/seniorsb.txt) (Description) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/seniorsd.txt)
8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages. (Bill Text) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/cre8jobsb.txt) (Description) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/cre8jobsd.txt)
9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: "Loser pays" laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation. (Bill Text) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/legalrefb.txt) (Description) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/legalrefd.txt)
10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators. (Description) (http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/termlimd.txt)
Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills.
Respecting the judgment of our fellow citizens as we seek their mandate for reform, we hereby pledge our names to this Contract with America.


Home (http://www.house.gov/Welcome.html) | What's New (http://www.house.gov/house/WhatsNew.html) | House Directory (http://clerkweb.house.gov/mbrcmtee/mbrcmtee.htm) | Write Your Representative (http://www.house.gov/writerep/)
This Week on the House Floor (http://www.house.gov/house/floor/thisweek.htm) | Currently on the House Floor (http://clerkweb.house.gov/floor/current.htm) | Committee Schedules (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/hcomso.html)
Member Offices (http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.html) | Committee Offices (http://www.house.gov/house/CommitteeWWW.html) | Leadership Offices (http://www.house.gov/house/orgs_pub_hse_ldr_www.html) | Other House Organizations, Commissions, and Taskforces (http://www.house.gov/house/Party_organizations.html) | Media Galleries (http://www.house.gov/house/mediagallery.htm)
House Operations (http://www.house.gov/house/Orgops.html) | Educational Links (http://www.house.gov/house/Educat.html) | Visiting the Nation's Capital (http://www.house.gov/house/Visitor.html) | Government Links (http://www.house.gov/house/govsites.html)

[RxOnco]

Problem is...there isn't a Newt to be found in Congress these days.

[Umbro2914]

Baby steps... the Republican Congress under Newt made some progress on the commitments below. As much as they could under the threat of a Clinton Presidential Veto.


... if your notion was true, then they should have been able to implement them with ease under GWB.... no?

The real answer is we need to elect NEW people to Congress, people that actually represent the core Republican values, and not these phonies that say their R but act nothing like it.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/

[XShipRider]

Republicans haven't been about Small Government since Jackson...and he was a Democrat...there I said it. Only president to ever pay off the national debt...basically we've been going to **** since 1838.

Granted his Democratic Party was much different than todays.

According to this site (http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm) the national debt has never been paid in full. Came close in 1830s but never actually reached zero since initial incursion 1791.

[sinophile]

... if your notion was true, then they should have been able to implement them with ease under GWB.... no?

The real answer is we need to elect NEW people to Congress, people that actually represent the core Republican values, and not these phonies that say their R but act nothing like it.

http://www.randpaul2010.com/

No. Why? Because 9/11 changed national priorities.

[Umbro2914]

No. Why? Because 9/11 changed national priorities.
Thats the most ridiclious statement I have ever heard. An attack, no matter how horriffic and unprecedented, should NEVER force the United States to abandon its principles and ideals, because then, we lose, and the attackers win.

Using 9/11 as an excuse for not acting upon promises, and for abandoning everything a party once stood for it is unheard of, and rather foolish thing to do.

[sinophile]

Thats the most ridiclious statement I have ever heard. An attack, no matter how horriffic and unprecedented, should NEVER force the United States to abandon its principles and ideals, because then, we lose, and the attackers win.

Using 9/11 as an excuse for not acting upon promises, and for abandoning everything a party once stood for it is unheard of, and rather foolish thing to do.

My response to your indignance. USGOV can be seen doing below what it should be doing... spending money to keep its citizens safe. Rather than spending money to promote mass home ownership.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/americas/06/sept_11_in_graphs/img/defense_629x228.gif

[Umbro2914]

Sinophile im sorry but your logic has no foundation... since when does $$ translate directly into security....
How does getting involved in Iraq make the U.S. safer?
Correct me if I'm wrong.. but doesnt greater defence spending increase the defecit and thus makes the United States ever weaker financially speaking?

You should read the Constitution and find out what the USGOV's role is, because its sure as hell not just supposed to shell out our money under the banner of defence

[JJC]

"Personal Responsibility Act" is the dumbest idea ever, and maybe that's the part where Republicans should change if they want voter appeal. Teenagers don't sit there and ponder to whether have a baby or not because there is welfare. Stupid teens and hormones result in teenage pregnancy. I don't know what politician can look at a child of a single teenage mom and support a bill to deny them assistance? Such a bill will not deter teenage pregnancy but will only create more poverty for children who had no control over their teenage mothers' mistakes.

[sinophile]

You should read the Constitution and find out what the USGOV's role is, because its sure as hell not just supposed to shell out our money under the banner of defence

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I've posted aplenty on the real reason the US did Iraq. You can look up my old posts if you've got a genuine interest in the matter. My guess is you won't because you're trolling.

[Walter Sobchak]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I've posted aplenty on the real reason the US did Iraq. You can look up my old posts if you've got a genuine interest in the matter. My guess is you won't because you're trolling.

X2+

Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot!

[skipperbob]

Problem is...there isn't a Newt to be found in Congress these days.

Thank God for small favors!

[Henry's Fork]

Thank God for small favors!

Bahahah
Sometimes we the people get lucky.

[khaz]

"Personal Responsibility Act" is the dumbest idea ever, and maybe that's the part where Republicans should change if they want voter appeal. Teenagers don't sit there and ponder to whether have a baby or not because there is welfare. Stupid teens and hormones result in teenage pregnancy. I don't know what politician can look at a child of a single teenage mom and support a bill to deny them assistance? Such a bill will not deter teenage pregnancy but will only create more poverty for children who had no control over their teenage mothers' mistakes.

Where in the Constitution does it say the rest of the country has to pay for the teens mistake.

Every bill in Congress should be required to identify the Constitutional authority enabling the proposed law.