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
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

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