Will Republicans Save Us?

Townhall.com ^ | August 18, 2010 | Walter E. Williams

[Kaslin]

Democrat control of the White House, House of Representatives and the Senate has produced an unprecedented level of political brazenness and contempt for the limitations placed on the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. As such, it has raised a level of constitutional interest and anger against Washington's interference in our lives that has been dormant for far too long.

Part of this heightened interest and anger is seen in the strength of the tea party movement around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen receive when they return to their districts and at town hall meetings. According to the most recent Gallup poll, only 20 percent of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, but that's up from a March 2010 low of 16 percent.

The smart money suggests that there will be a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives and possibly the Senate. The question is what can liberty-minded Americans expect from a Republican majority? Maybe a good starting point for an answer might be to examine how Republicans have handled their majority in the past.

Democrat President Lyndon Johnson's term of office saw massive increases in federal spending. When Johnson was elected into office in 1964, federal spending was $118 billion. When he left office in 1968, federal spending was $178 billion, a 66 percent increase. Worse than the massive increase in federal spending, his administration and Democratically controlled Congress saddled us with two programs that have helped fuel today's fiscal disaster -- Medicare and Medicaid.

The 1994 elections gave Republican control of both the House and Senate. They held a majority for a decade. The 2000 election of George W. Bush as president gave Republicans what the Democrats have now, total control of the legislative and executive branches of government. When Bush came to office, federal spending was $1.788 trillion. When he left office, federal spending was $2.982 trillion. That's a 60 percent increase in federal spending, closely matching the profligacy of Lyndon Johnson's presidency.

During the Republican control, the nation was saddled with massive federal interference in education through No Child Left Behind. Prescription drug handouts became a part of the Republican-controlled Congress' legacy. And it was during this interval that Congress accelerated its interference, assisted by the Federal Reserve Bank, in the housing market in the name of homeownership that produced much of the financial meltdown that the nation suffered in 2008.

During the last two years, Democrats have amassed unprecedented growth of federal government power in the forms of bailouts, corporate takeovers, favors to their political allies and nationalization of our health care system. My question is how likely is it for Republicans to behave differently if they gain control? Their past behavior doesn't make one confident that they will behave much differently, but I could be wrong.

If Republicans win the House of Representatives, there are measures they should take in their first month of office, and that is to undo most of what the Democratically controlled Congress has done. If they don't win a veto-proof Senate, they can't undo Obamacare but the House alone can refuse to fund any part of it. There are numerous blocking tactics that a Republican-controlled House can take against those hell-bent on trampling on our Constitution. The question is whether they will have guts and principle to do it. After all, many Americans, including those who are Republicans, have a stake in big government control, special privileges and handouts.

Ultimately, we Americans must act to ensure that our liberty does not depend on personalities in Washington. Our founders tried to do that with our Constitution. Thomas Jefferson offered us a solution when he said, "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then."

[stephenjohnbanker]

She is a populist/opportunist, and always has been.

[DoughtyOne]

...still trying to figure out how to get my name on the byline...

;^)

[DoughtyOne]

Sadly, I agree.

[DoughtyOne]

Sadly, I agree with this too.

[Gene Eric]

>> Title: Will Republicans Save Us?

Will AZ reelect John McCain?

The question should be: “Will WE Save Ourselves?”

Despite all the trauma we’re suffering, the Country is not yet willing to reset.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Post 56 was so well reasoned, I saved the darn thing.

[Night Hides Not]

I asked you over an hour ago what party can save us and so far no answer from you, just like I figured.

Did you not read #22 you pompous a$$?

Let me spell it out for you: neither political party can or will save us. It's up to an informed and engaged citizenry to handle that task.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree. I didn’t save it though. If I didn’t look at the from name, I’d think you or I wrote it. ;^)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2572822/posts?page=70#70

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

bump

[NFHale]

“...Is electing Republicans over Democrats going, in the aggregate, have a more positive effect on this country than continuing to run third party candidates to split the vote and put Dims into office? Yes....”

We already KNOW where the democrat socialists want and are trying to take us.

Remove their ability. Stop the bleed. Slam the brakes on and the door in their faces, and then HOLD the Republicans responsible for starting the long road back.

If not, there is only one last option, and it is not pretty. That is the reality of where this political class of people have put us.

Personally, I’m sick of the Hobson’s Choice that we have with these two parties. But it is, for now, the reality that we have to deal with. So we need a RINO purge and replacement with people who will drive the party back towards conservative principles and discipline - and HOLD it there.

Sounds simple, I know...

[DoughtyOne]

NFHale, I can here the longing in your post. Sadly, I think you’ve come to the conclusion I have.

We all talk real big when it comes to removing the RINOs, and then election time comes around and we return the McCain’s to Washington, D.C.

It just baffles me. If the RP doesn’t have the stone to replace a guy like McCain, we’re all a bunch of idiots if we think removing the RINOs is the solution to our party’s problems.

It’s time for a new party.

There is a real hunger out there. Clear back to Perot, people have been looking for something better, and Perot’s early campaign showed just how quickly that party could take off.

Perhaps it’s starts with a shadow party, co-existing with the Republican party at first. Perhaps it starts with a solid charismatic that has sound principles. Perhaps it has already started with the Tea Party.

One way or another, the Republican party is dead.

What we need right now is an education arm that warns our youth that the Republican party DOES NOT stand for what it says it does. That would be a very good step.

We have the Leftist controlled Democrat party, the Leftist controlled Republican party, and a whole bunch of people who have come to the realization that Saturated Liberalism (democrat), and Grade AA Liberalism (republican) are just about the same thing.

It’s time to break out of that mold, for the rescue of our nation. Otherwise we simply continue to be had and whine about it.

[Liz]

......... we need a RINO purge and replacement with people who will drive the party back towards conservative principles and discipline........

That's where the Tea Parties come in---the people thumbing their noses at Rinos and establishment Repubs---the Repubs who sneered at so/cons, who barely tolerated us in the party, only b/c we brought MANY votes.

As sickoflibs posted: ”Almost two-thirds of Americans believe the economy will worsen before it gets better, up from 53 percent who felt that way in January, the poll found. Nearly six in 10 of those surveyed said the country is headed in the wrong direction, a percentage that has held steady in NBC/WSJ polling throughout the year.”

We got our chance for what progressives call a ‘teachable moment.’ To teach once again that Obama's Marxism-corporatism does not work. It is failing Democrats as it failed Republicans. Time for a real debate......(might have to shoot the RINOs first).

" Ai gotda vunny veeling dah Reepublucan Potty tinks RINOS
are pure crapola. Chonny, Rhooty undt mhe ghonna ghet jops ass
Val-Mart greetahs, Home Depot paint mixahs, McD's ketchop pumpahs,
undt Ved Lopstah vaitahs .......vhen ai loosses mai jop ass govnah."

[stephenjohnbanker]

” So we need a RINO purge and replacement with people who will drive the party back towards conservative principles and discipline - and HOLD it there. “

That is up to US.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” If I didn’t look at the from name, I’d think you or I wrote it. ;^) “

Yeah, no kidding ;-)

[servantboy777]

Where you guys been all my life.... :)

[MaggieCarta]

Will Republicans Save Us?

No. Next question?

I'm starting to get depressed again...

[DoughtyOne]

LOL

Right cheer on this bar-stool. Hick-up...

[CutePuppy]

My colleague Jay Cost made a critical point a few days ago: Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson made use of an ingenious social insurance system - promoting the idea that we all pay in today to take out tomorrow. It was consistent with American individualism. It was simple. It was intuitive. It was bipartisan.

Author makes some good points, but also some mistakes. Inherently collectivist pension plan, administered by the government and designed by Otto von Bismarck in late 19th century to coincide with then-average mortality age, is NOT "consistent with American individualism". It's a derivative of Ponzi scheme (FIMO - First In Most Out), and given that the original Ponzi scheme unraveled around the time Social Security was established, more people should have understood then that the government has taken Ponzi's idea and ran with it.

Everyone, from the poorest member of society to Bill Gates, has some stake in Social Security and Medicare...

And that's why Democrats keep trying to reform SSS into a welfare / transfer system, which is now partially served by SSI.

In any case, Obamacare violates so many constitutional tenets, including unfunded mandates and 10th Amendment (which author implies), that it should not be able to pass muster in any reasonable court, and be declared "unconstitutional" in the words of recent decisions by Judge Bolton and Judge Walker.

After it's mortally wounded, if not dead, in the courts, the repeal should be just a matter of formality and/or a club to beat the Dems with all the way into 2012. It will be their political "Iraq of 2006-2008," only the one that was truly based on lies, and without any redeeming consequences (for them) that Operation Iraqi Freedom and the demise of Saddam had.

After this fiasco, there will be a long time / several generations, before they will try any other sweeping socialist ideas on national scale. States or cities that want to implement version of it (Massachusetts, San Francisco, etc.) are welcome to bankrupt themselves or keep losing productive people to other states and serve as examples to other states and national electorate.

[Liz]

After the fiasco of Obamavare, there will be a long time / several generations, before they will try any other sweeping socialist ideas on national scale. States or cities that want to implement version of it (Massachusetts, San Francisco, etc.) are welcome to bankrupt themselves or keep losing productive people to other states and serve as examples to other states and national electorate.

Nice take.

[SuzyQue]

I like much of what you’re saying, but remember, when we “...starve the beast”, we go hungry too.

Maybe that’s why everyone’s having a hard time doing much but complain, myself included.