By: Red Phillips

Red Phillips — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:52:48 +0000

I have seen increasing calls for "limited government." This is a good thing, but I wonder if the language of "limited government" might not be part of the problem. "Limited" to what? "Limited" by what? Limited to 2 trillion a year? Limited to x% of the GDP? Limited to increasing no more than the rate of inflation? etc. The only legitimate limit on the federal government and federal governement spending is what spending is authorized by the Constitution. And those limits are routinely ignored and have been almost since the beginning. If we were only spending on things authorized by the Constitution, 80-90% of the governemnet would disappear over night. (A good guess.) Name a program, any government program, and chances are it is not authorized by the Constitution. It is true that the GOP is losing touch with its base on spending and that may cost them because elections are often decided by who turns out their base. But they have not lost touch with most of the voters who are perfectly happy with unconstitutional spending that benefits them. The fact is that cutting spending is hard and lavishing money is easy. After all these years the promise of something for nothing still sells with fallen man. If the GOP suffers significant loses this year, it will be because the base is unhappy about spending, but also because the middle is unhappy with the war. Conservatives need to comes to grips with the fact that following the limits placed on the governement by the Constitution is not a negotiable position. Real conservatives can not "come to terms" with big governement or embrace the "New Deal" and "Great Society" and all the other unconstitutional spending. (The only Republican who understands this that I know of is Ron Paul.) Since the masses like their spending programs, a call to radically downsize governement to its Constitutional size is not an election winner. But is is the only position that can legitimately claim to be conservative.

By: honker

honker — Wed, 19 Apr 2006 14:45:06 +0000

Good Post. I agree that the GOP has lost touch with its base. I firmly believe if a Dem was in the White House we would have less spending than we do today. Let me repeat that, I believe a Dem would spend less money than GWB has approved. How humiliating. The reason would not be the desire of a Dem to spend less, its just this rubber-stamp form of government restraint would be prevented. An argument, discussion, and debate would be involved in spending issues because Republicans know that demonizing the spending habits of Dems is a winner. The Dem would bring forth the ridiculous pork which Congress passed without a hiccup from GW. The Dem would use it as ammo if not blackmail to get what he/she wanted. Spending used to be a defining difference in the parties. That issue is what ol GWB loves to say "off the table." I will never forget how GW systematically took Dem issues and made him his own, like the Teddy Kennedy Educational Bill, or the massive Medicare Drug Benefit. He proudly exalted how he has taken these issues from Dems leaving them no agenda. As will be proven in November, the Dems will not have an agenda and will win the election not on what they have to offer, but on how GWB and the corrupt congress betrayed the principles which define conservatism. His arrogant attempt to grab the middle of the road voter needs to be done on principle, not bribery, whcih is what he is offering. He has destroyed the confindence of the Reagan Democrats and set the fiscal concerns of this party on a one way path to destruction. I for one need a party of Conservatism to believe in. If the GOP is nothing more than Liberal Light, I will not waste my time supporting this once proud party. Is this what happened to France?

Comments on: Whatever Happened to Limited Government?

By: Red Phillips

By: honker