The Republican Revolution is Dead

CFP ^ | May 13, 2005 | Alan Caruba

[MikeEdwards]

Back in 1994 when the famed Republican "Contract with America" captured control of Congress for the party, Newt Gingrich, one of its authors, noted that, "Washington is like a sponge. It absorbs waves of change, and it slows them down, and it softens them, and then one morning they cease to exist."

The Republican Party regained power in the House of Representatives after forty years of Democrat domination. They had a margin of 54 House seats. It had been the largest party swing since 1948. In the Senate, they gained control with the addition of eight seats, and added a ninth when Richard Shelby of Alabama switched parties. Like many Republicans, I can recall thinking that we could now look forward to changes in domestic and foreign policies that conservatives had yearned for throughout the Reagan years.

Even Bill Clinton thought so as well. In his 1996, State of the Union address, he said, "The era of big government is over." Perhaps he was thinking about the Contract with America because the newly elected Republican majority, in the first hundred days in office, passed legislation that did make changes.

They introduced real welfare reform and the first major tax cut in sixteen years. The Contract produced the first four consecutive balanced budgets since the 1920s and the first independent financial audit of the House. The Contract resulted in House committee meetings to be open to the public, required a three-fifths majority vote to pass tax increases, and a time limit on the terms of all committee chairs. The Contract’s broad promise was to "end…government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money." But that was a decade ago. . . . .

[G.Mason]

"People are just so overwhelmed these days - many folks are working 2-3 jobs and many households have both parents working. People are just exhausted between working, commuting, raising kids - where do we find time to control these yahoos as well? Most of them have betrayed us and revealed their true colors, especiallly in regards to immigration issues."

Agreed. You know what we did? When the town became full of undesireables we moved out and commuted an hour and a half to work. We had latch key kids, who came and went without proper supervision so we could make more dough. We forced government to force industry to provide daycare centers. We allowed the schools to take over the parenting obligation to the point that parents have no rights.

We could go on and on.

I hope the money was worth it. Though I'm afraid it was not.

I have no solution. Sorry.

[JoeV1]

"People are just so overwhelmed these days - many folks are working 2-3 jobs and many households have both parents working. People are just exhausted between working, commuting, raising kids -"

I would be interested to hear what a different Republican Party, one more to your (and my) liking could do to alleviate the parents having 2-3 jobs etc?

[Texas Federalist]

That's what happens when people who run on a platform of devolving away federal power gain the reigns of federal power. All of a sudden they ain't so interested in getting rid of what they just obtained.

That's why the founders drafted the 10th Amendment. Too bad we basically got rid of it half a century ago.

[jmaroneps37]

B.S.

[CyberAnt]

Good grief .. the repub revolution has just begun.

These people are continuing in their wishful thinking. They're out of power and they're trying to psyche people into thinking the democrats are still in charge.

Dream on!!

[blueblazes]

I dunno. Maybe things have gone so far that it can't be stopped. It comes down to a lot of things, partly just the high cost of living, affording a house (real estate values), high taxes, and raising/educating kids. Some of this might be changed by govt such as lowering taxes, especially locally (you just can't lower federal taxes and then increase local taxes to make up the difference) and improving public schools so people don't have to private school their kids. Maybe zoning laws or practices need to be changed - why are contractors building nothing but huge houses that are inherently expensive? I see big houses with nothing but a couple and maybe a kid or two in them. sometimes there's just one person. Cars have become much more expensive (and I think the quality has severely declined) frequently because of all the safety gizmos and enviromental doo-hickeys that have to be included now. When I was a kid we sat in the back of a station wagon and wrestled. Nobody ever got hurt. Can you imagine kids doing that nowadays?

There are some things the govt could do to stop this process, but why would they? It actually BENEFITS them as there's no one watching them anymore. They LIKE that.

[tahiti]

Oh, how remember election night in 1994. I was thrilled. My wife and I stayed up to 4 in the morning celebrating.

Well, the party was shortlived because by November of 1995 when the Republicans had to put their money where their mouth is, they deserted Newt, who led them to the majority status, when Newt, rightly so, took on Clinton and called his bluff to shutdown the government.

That is the date I quit calling myself a Republican. I was proud to be a Reagan Republican, up to that point.

"Today the federal government continues to increase regulations, adding $800 billion to the cost of everything Americans do. Its spending programs continue to increase. Its so-called "entitlement" programs are bankrupt. And expanding! There are more and more federal crimes added to the books."

Regulations violate Amendment V (nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.)

Mandatory Social Security participation, was originally found to be unconstitutional in RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD v. ALTON R. CO., 295 U.S. 330 (1935. The reason it is not unconstitutional now is because it is VOLUNTARY.

Interdiction laws, which are federal crimes, are unconstitutional because they violate Amendment IX. (The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.)

So, what is the position of the party that says they believe in limited, delegated authority government coupled with constitutionally protected rights, on these issues?

Status quo. Just like a Democrat.

"There is less and less power at the State level where the framers of the Constitution wanted it."

This is a correct statement, with respect to the founders desires.

But the founders vision was change permamently and properly with a constitutional amendment: Amendment XIV.

[tahiti]

"That's why the founders drafted the 10th Amendment. Too bad we basically got rid of it half a century ago."

I contend that the 10th amendment was rendered superfluous and in fact, for all intents and purposes, amended on July 9, 1868, when Amendmet XIV was ratified.

The good news is the "amendment" process is the correct constitutional procedure for making changes of such magnitude versus just the Congress enacted laws contrary to the covenants of the Constitution.

[Texas Federalist]

I contend that the 10th amendment was rendered superfluous and in fact, for all intents and purposes, amended on July 9, 1868, when Amendmet XIV was ratified.

Amendment XIV, as you know, subjected state lawmaking authority to the Bill of Rights and, thus affected the scope of state lawmaking authority. It did not affect the scope of federal lawmaking authority, which was still limited by Art. I Sec. 8 of the Consitituion and the 10th Amendment. Even after the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court struck down many federal laws as being beyond the scope of their enumerated powers. I was referring to the Wagner Act cases in which the Supreme Court "interpreted" the Commerce Clause to allow the federal government to pass almost any law on any subject.