Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Happened To Limited Government? (Why go along with democrats and liberalism?) Rush Limbaugh
rushlimbaugh ^ | May 21, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

Posted on 05/21/2003 7:52:37 PM PDT by TLBSHOW

What Happened To Limited Government?

The calls I took on Tuesday from guys in their 30's asking what happened to calls for limited government on our side have turned out to be quite prescient, folks - yet apparently they went unheard. Yes, as you can hear in the audio links below, the conservative intelligentsia in Washington D.C. (who only talk to other people inside the Beltway), doesn't think our 20 or 30 million strong EIB family exists and that nobody is making the argument for limited government. They see incremental liberalism (40% of what liberals want) as the new way in Washington.

A memo by Reagan official Donald J. Devine of the American Conservative Union: "Journalistic conservatism is silent about this growth of government, which is especially fueled by neoconservative dreams of empire and which threatens the whole project of American liberty." So fear not those of you who have gotten mad at me for criticizing the Bush administration and GOP Congress for spending more and growing government on the education bill, farm bill, etc., and saying that conservatives should be outraged that the federal budget spends $2.3 trillion a year. Apparently what I say doesn't matter.

Devine claims that "most conservative pressure ends up as simple cheerleading for the White House." I have said that Republicans are spending right along with Democrats, and that the president has gone along with them. I have demanded to know how in the world $50 billion in tax cuts so far equals a $400 billion deficit, yet spending $2.3 trillion somehow has no role in it - especially when tax cuts increase revenue. (See: dynamic scoring) I have said that the more of our money the government spends, the less money we have to spend and reminded everyone that CFR is an attack on the First Amendment and that the Constitution limits what government can do, not what individuals can do.

The Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, saw the need to leave all journalists alone - not just the New York Times, but the National Enquirer and guys like James Callendar who smeared for and against Thomas Jefferson. Ralph Z. Hallow cites this Divine memo and others in his Washington Times column headlined: "Activists on the Right Fear a Waning Influence." He makes this point that there is "nobody" carrying the banner for limited government. He cites conservatives who urged Bush to fight for Senate confirmation of judicial nominees, even those "moderates" from the Clinton administration.

That was the "new tone," and I've ripped it from day one! (But apparently I'm not heard in the Beltway.) I've said that you're nuts if you think you can get along with liberals. I guess people like you and me don't matter until it's election time - and then these Beltway blowhards come calling hat in hand and act like what you want matters. Since it's too far from Election Day, they just talk to each other and decide that they're all that matters. If only I had an address inside the hallowed boundaries of I-495, I could be a voice that the self-appointed conservative intellectuals would recognize. What a bizarre piece. Clearly these guys never heard that so long as I'm here, it doesn't matter where "here" is.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: liberalism; limited; overnment; rushlimbaugh

1 posted on 05/21/2003 7:52:37 PM PDT by TLBSHOW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Limited goverment= more individual liberty.

I'm glad this has entered the bloodstream of the political right. Cutting goverment is how I judge politcians. Most are failing.
2 posted on 05/21/2003 8:01:10 PM PDT by Finalapproach29er ("Don't shoot Mongo, you'll only make him mad.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Finalapproach29er
Limiting government will be the only way out of our structural economic problems. We need to become a lot more efficient than we are, and the only way to do so will be to systemically stuff the government back into its pre-New Deal cage.
3 posted on 05/21/2003 8:07:27 PM PDT by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
how in the world $50 billion in tax cuts so far equals a $400 billion deficit, yet spending $2.3 trillion somehow has no role in it -

Partly because people are mislead into thinking that they are paying for valuable "services" without which we would be an impoverished people.

Folks, the opportunity costs associated with high taxes and expansive government are real - we are inflicting harm upon our progeny by taking away the potential for future economic expansion.

4 posted on 05/21/2003 8:08:36 PM PDT by citizenK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I really liked these calls and Rush's response (in that he didn't defend the Republicans) The important thing is that the Democrats are not an obstacle, they are just an excuse. Besides spending cuts, which would be fought loudly by Democrats, there are two other ways Republicans can reduce government.

The first is unfunded mandates, which was a big part of the Contract with America. Unfunded mandates are obligations on businesses, but not paid for by government. If no money is spent by government, eliminating them doesn't cost the governemnt revenue, but reduces the burden on business.

The second is the regulations in the federal register, which isn't even voted on by congress, they are entirely part of the executive branch. "Stroke of the eraser, law of the land gone. Kind cool." should be Bush's motto.

5 posted on 05/21/2003 8:17:05 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Finalapproach29er
Most are failing.

All are failing. Even the ones who are genuinely trying are failing.

6 posted on 05/21/2003 8:18:55 PM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
most conservative pressure ends up as simple cheerleading for the White House

And there has been an awful lot of that here at FR

Any politician (or anyone else for that matter) that does not support limited government is not conservative

7 posted on 05/21/2003 8:33:39 PM PDT by Ford Fairlane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
God bless Rush.
8 posted on 05/21/2003 8:35:35 PM PDT by manic4organic (An organic conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
The link didn't work? I listen to Rush and haven't heard him criticize Bush barely at all for months. Is this an essay on his website or a transcript of his show?
9 posted on 05/21/2003 8:49:19 PM PDT by Agricola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
If I were President, I would:
...eliminate the Department of Education;
...eliminate the Department of Agriculture;
...eliminate the Department of Energy;
...eliminate the Department of Homeland Security;
...impose a flat tax on income;
...means test Social Security payments;
...eliminate extensions of unemployment benefits;
...eliminate the Border Patrol and have the Department of Defense patrol the U.S. land borders instead;
...and numerous others.

Which is why I'm not the President, I guess ;-)

10 posted on 05/21/2003 8:49:47 PM PDT by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty" not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manic4organic
I would vote again and again and again for any politician that ends up getting rid of his job!
11 posted on 05/21/2003 8:50:55 PM PDT by Frohickey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Agricola
try this one,,,,there is audio links....

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052103/content/cutting_edge.guest.html
12 posted on 05/21/2003 8:54:41 PM PDT by TLBSHOW (the gift is to see the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Another way to cut the size of government - Executive Branch hiring freezes. Democrats can't prevent the heads of various agencies from implementing a hiring freeze, publically announced as such, or not.
13 posted on 05/21/2003 9:02:09 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
Don't forget the EPA!
14 posted on 05/21/2003 9:04:23 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
"Which is why I'm not the President, I guess ;-) "


Which is why you aren't George Bush and the spendthrift Republican party, you mean.

The Taxcut and Spend Party.
15 posted on 05/21/2003 9:09:03 PM PDT by Jesse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Interesting. He says that he is critical of Bush and not of the Beltway and yet calls the article he mentions "bizarre"? I listen to him and he is barely ever critical of Bush or the GOP nowadays except in tactical tones. Rush has lost his conservative edge IMHO.
16 posted on 05/21/2003 9:11:03 PM PDT by Agricola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I have said that the more of our money the government spends, the less money we have to spend and reminded everyone that CFR is an attack on the First Amendment and that the Constitution limits what government can do, not what individuals can do.

Well said, Rush.

17 posted on 05/21/2003 9:11:39 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
The bulk of "CFR" was struck down by the SC recently- as any casual observer of the SC could tell you it would be. Rush is hardley a prophet on this not did he take a big stand against Bush since even Bush knew it would be struck down.
18 posted on 05/21/2003 9:18:51 PM PDT by Agricola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Agricola
The bulk of "CFR" was struck down by the SC recently.

I wasn't aware that the SC had ruled on the current CFR law.

Are you thinking of a lower federal court that recently ruled on CFR, but then put a hold on implementation of their own ruling?

19 posted on 05/21/2003 9:34:53 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
No- I don't think so? I am talking about the McCain Feingold law that was struck down about a month or two ago by the SC?
20 posted on 05/21/2003 9:36:54 PM PDT by Agricola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Actually- most of the law was struck down- not all of it- from what I read.
21 posted on 05/21/2003 9:37:42 PM PDT by Agricola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Yep- your right- just checked it out on the web. Sorry.
22 posted on 05/21/2003 9:40:33 PM PDT by Agricola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Rush, feeling a paradigm shift, adjusts his message.

Same as it ever was.

23 posted on 05/21/2003 9:41:11 PM PDT by nunya bidness (It's not an assault weapon, it's a Homeland Defense Rifle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
He cites conservatives who urged Bush to fight for Senate confirmation of judicial nominees, even those "moderates" from the Clinton administration.

At least once an election period I hear a sound in the wilderness that I can relate to. Not much has changed in Washington from the Klintoons. Many of his rascals are there awaiting their time to pounce on my types. This president had a chance to rid us of these types & also the bag lady & her impeached so-called husband but that apparantly was too radical for him & Rove etc. So now we must contend with these anti-Americans who reached the portals of the senate spewing hatred for Judeo-Christian values no less our Constitution. But his father had NO problem ridding Washington of the Reagan era. Two years & that was totally gone. No, my friends here at FR I believe you have gotten the biggest snow job with Dubya. He seems a good man & good American & did the correct thing in Iraq but other than that he is as big of a disappointment as his daddy was to true conservativism. Sadly this is the best this old Goldwaterite will ever see again in his lifetime & pity the poor sheeple in the next few decades.

24 posted on 05/21/2003 9:41:21 PM PDT by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
If you are running for any political office you certainly have my vote.
25 posted on 05/21/2003 9:45:09 PM PDT by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Agricola
No problem.

Look, if I had to bet, I'd bet that SC will throw most of it out.

However, you never know for sure how the SC will rule.

If I had my way, I'd have them reject the whole damn package on the grounds of First Amendment violations.

26 posted on 05/21/2003 9:56:22 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
fyi
27 posted on 05/21/2003 10:01:41 PM PDT by TLBSHOW (the gift is to see the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Quote of the Day by Teetop
28 posted on 05/21/2003 10:02:57 PM PDT by RJayneJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
My read as well. I can't think of a more frightening bill since Jefferson.
29 posted on 05/21/2003 10:07:08 PM PDT by Agricola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Agricola
Rush has lost his conservative edge IMHO.

Maybe he is getting wiser as he gets older. Republicans are targeted by Political Correctness (PC) from the Left and by Ideological Correctness (IC) from the Right. PC will likely backfire on the Democrats but IC is a boon to the Left.

Ideological Correctness dogma: big government, labor unions, teachers unions, bureaucracy, etc....are all bad. Result: The Left owns it all — lock stock, and barrel — and we just bitch about it and continue to be victimized by it (even across party lines).

As long as those potent institutions exist, then I don't want Liberals controlling them. Why did we ever allow that to happen? If people want or need to be dependent on government, then I don't want Liberals answering their needs because it exacerbates the problem. And allowing the Liberals to control academia, i.e., the education or uneducation of our children, is self subjugation and masochism at its worse. How could we do this to our kids?

That's just my take on it.

30 posted on 05/21/2003 10:17:19 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Digger
Well Said Digger. Agree with all your points. Getting rid of Conservatives seems to be the first order of business in the Bush Political Family.
31 posted on 05/21/2003 10:17:50 PM PDT by WRhine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Agricola
I listen to him and he is barely ever critical of Bush or the GOP nowadays except in tactical tones.

Then you must NOT have been listening after CFR. Rush did indeed SLAM the President for signing and the Republcians for voting for it.

There have been several times when Bush gave Dems 1/2 of what they wanted and I screamed. Rush did too but said that with the new tone it would take away their issues.

it did too, we won in 2002.

Once the economy grows some and we WIN BIGTIME in 2004 then they better start cutting back but there is no reason for us not to send our letters TODAY telling them that we want it. They will need the 18 months for it to sink in that we really do want limited government.

32 posted on 05/21/2003 10:28:13 PM PDT by The UnVeiled Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: The UnVeiled Lady
He is critical of Bush but never in a harsh way. Rush supposrts every major policy of Bush. He quibbles and snipes on the sidelines but he is never a threat to Bush. I never thought Rush would be a hypocrite as the Left always is but Rush is when it comes to WMD and Iraq. Before the Iraq war Rush was lambasting all those who said Iraq didn't have WMD's as liars and left wingers. Then- just before the war and during the war he said it was always about "regime change: and those who said different were idiots (this after months of him saying how Iraq had WMDS and we needed to defeat him).
33 posted on 05/21/2003 11:00:35 PM PDT by Agricola
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Don't forget that Bush put 60,000+ new employees ( airport)on the backs of the taxpayers, in addition, he has spent close to a Trillion$ of New spending. That does not spell limited government.

As for his tax cuts, just don't be surprised if those "cuts" will be negated by additional taxes on gas and other items. Smoke and mirrors.

34 posted on 05/22/2003 12:35:00 AM PDT by poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer
Actually there are a lot of spending cuts
that Democrats would hard pressed to fight
and if they did it would undermine them.

All the government money that goes to big business
like the Department of Commerce and
the part of Farm subsidies that go to big corporations.
Which happens to be the vast majority of the Farm bill.

But Republicans not even considering cutting anything
anywere but instead are fighting for massive
new spending.

35 posted on 05/22/2003 1:27:22 AM PDT by Princeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
I have said that Republicans are spending right along with Democrats, and that the president has gone along with them. I have demanded to know how in the world $50 billion in tax cuts so far equals a $400 billion deficit, yet spending $2.3 trillion somehow has no role in it - especially when tax cuts increase revenue. (See: dynamic scoring)

Rush should know that they're doing dynamic scoring now, but unfortunately it doesn't show that tax cuts would increase revenue. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation have done macroeconomic analyses of the proposed tax cut, and not one of the many economic models they use shows that the tax cut would result in increased revenues. All show some positive macroeconomic feedback, but all conclude that the tax cut loses revenue over time.

If you dig through Cato's website you will find a piece from the mid- to late-1980s by William Niskanen and Stephen Moore (no less!) that acknowledges that the 1981 tax cut did not increase revenues to the federal government. Also, check out Bruce Bartlett's archive on townhall.com for his December 31, 2002 column on the same mythology.

36 posted on 05/22/2003 1:49:49 AM PDT by mdwakeup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Agricola
Rush has lost his conservative edge IMHO.

Rush is talking about conservative issues so how can you say Rush has lost his "conservative edge" by introducing conservative issues?
37 posted on 05/22/2003 2:26:17 AM PDT by jwh_Denver (Please donate to my favorite charity at jwh_Denver.com.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Agricola
the truth about this govt is its keeping the clinton liberal agenda going and Bush helps that goal a lot.

question is a big WHY?
38 posted on 05/22/2003 5:32:58 AM PDT by TLBSHOW (the gift is to see the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
And don't forget what one caller said. For every dollar sent to DC, we get back about 28¢. The rest supports the bureaucracy.
39 posted on 05/22/2003 5:53:05 AM PDT by mathluv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mdwakeup
Rush should know that they're doing dynamic scoring now, but unfortunately it doesn't show that tax cuts would increase revenue.

At least three Reagan economists wrote books on the Reagan economic program, and all denied that revenues to the Treasury increased due to the rate cuts. The point of the rate cuts was to stimulate economic growth, and the Reagan economists had predicted that the resulting economic growth would recoup a portion of what would be lost to the Treasury with lower rates. Lawrence Lindsey's study found the amount recouped to be fully two-thirds of the loss predicted by static analysis, so the actual reduction to the Treasury amounted to but a third of the amount predicted by static analysis. But a loss there was, which is why Reagan asked Congress for offsetting spending cuts. Only capital gains cuts resulted in an actual increase of revenue by the Treasury.

40 posted on 05/29/2003 11:52:35 PM PDT by Pelham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
impose a flat tax on income

5%, no writeoffs.

41 posted on 05/29/2003 11:54:24 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Is the Tax Cut for Real?
"The Bush administration inherited a federal budget of $1.86 trillion, and now proposes to spend $2.3 trillion in 2004, for a whopping 23.6 percent increase in federal spending in this short period. The Bush presidency has far outspent Clinton's in every category. As Cato's Chris Edwards says, "[B]ased on his first three budgets, President Bush is the biggest spending president in decades." To close the gap between spending and revenue, said a report commissioned by the US Treasury, would require an "immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase."


LIMITED GOVERNMENT


President George W. Bush - Biography

SOURCE: http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html

"George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. Formerly the 46th Governor of the State of Texas, President Bush has earned a reputation as a compassionate conservative who shapes policy based on the principles of limited government,..."


DON'T BE FOOLED AGAIN

42 posted on 06/02/2003 10:21:18 AM PDT by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
bttt
43 posted on 06/15/2003 9:52:04 PM PDT by TLBSHOW (the gift is to see the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Bttt
44 posted on 06/15/2003 9:53:27 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Bill
Limitless government, I think. BTTT
45 posted on 06/15/2003 9:55:27 PM PDT by Fred Mertz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mathluv
bttt
46 posted on 06/16/2003 6:50:23 AM PDT by TLBSHOW (the gift is to see the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson