Skip to comments.'Limited government' is dead
Posted on 07/04/2004 7:33:03 AM PDT by Mikey
It's popular to talk about limited government these days. Paying lip service to the idea of a smaller federal government is not revolutionary anymore. Everyone talks about it now, but no one follows his or her rhetoric with action. Everyone from Tom Daschle talking about fiscal responsibility to Constitution Party presidential nominee Michael Peroutka, talking about a government that could function in a moral way, is using the monster of a federal government as a means to submit his or her politically beneficial solution.
We've got to face reality and see that the term "limited government" has been worn out and no longer holds power, emphasis or really any meaning.
There are at least two reasons why this term is dead. First, those who stand for a perceived smaller government have committed adultery. I'm not talking about a random liberal who spouts off about fiscal responsibility. I'm talking about conservatives who make a commitment to smaller government and talks the talk about such things, but doesn't actually do anything. Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest orators and supporter in favor of limited government, but his administration didn't greatly decrease the size of the federal government. Another example is the Republican takeover of Congress during the Clinton administration followed by their failure to eliminate countless, wasteful federal departments.
The second reason the "limited government" term is dead goes hand-in-hand with the first. "Limited government" has yet to be defined. Thus, anyone can talk about fewer taxes, eliminating government waste and limiting government, but they can't be called on the carpet about their statements, because no one really knows what limited government is. Or maybe politicians don't want to admit the real definition of limited government in this nation.
Limited government is a constitutional government. This is plain and simple on the federal level, because the nitty-gritty services of government are done on the state and local level. The federal government was expected to be small and limited.
Still, we can talk about the Constitution all day long and it won't make a difference. Conservatives, if they want a shot at real limited government, need to quit talking.
Thus, conservatives need to stay united on at least on issue: limited government. But the biggest question is this: How do we return to a constitutional government? There are countless things wrong with our federal government, and they can't all be tackled at the same time which, I believe, is one of the reasons our task of reform in America seems to be impossible.
We need to concentrate on taxes. The flow of money into the beast of the federal government allows for the funding of all the socialistic and immoral departments we gripe about.
Further, we need to do more than just cut taxes; we need to eliminate some taxes altogether. Cutting taxes is good, but all it does is eventually increase the budget when the economy is spurred.
The battleground for conservatives is in true fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, neither presidential candidate will push this agenda.
Politicians can speak heavy rhetoric and activists can reiterate the need to decrease the size of our federal government and pay off the national debt, but the only way do to anything about it is cut off the flow of cash into the budget, thus requiring extensive elimination of federal departments and programs.
Yes, education reform is needed, we should leave the United Nations, foreign aid should be eliminated, Social Security and Medicare must be reformed, and various other issues must be resolved, but we're going nowhere if we're still funding the beast.
Limited government is about eliminating taxes. That should be the focus of conservatives.
In Kyle Williams' book, "Seen and Heard," America's youngest national columnist takes on the establishment, offering clear evidence that a leftist agenda is at work in our nation. His lively, energetic analysis of current events is both informative and entertaining and will leave readers with a better understanding of the daily attacks against traditional family values. Order your copy now in ShopNetDaily.
Kyle Williams is 15 years old and lives in a rural community in America's heartland. In addition to his weekly weekend column on WorldNetDaily, Kyle also has a daily blog at OklahomaConservative.com.
Even the private Christian schools teach little or nothing about our constitutional representative government.
It does my heart good to see a 15 year old who goes beyond the class room to learn the truth and has the guts to print the truth. This young man inspires me to continue the fight for liberty.
We started out as Free and Independent states (each having a Constitution prior to the Federal government. But we needed prior a National Army, a National Monetary system and a National Court and National Powers. But the states came a beggin' and the thing blew up. So now mucho money goes to the Fed and BACK to the states. It would be nice to go back to go!!
I'm a RINO because I still believe in limited government, and the republican party clearly doesn't any more.
The so called money your referring to isn't constitutional money. Its not even evidence of wealth, its evidence of debt.
The Constitution for the United States says 'No state shall make anything but gold and silver a tender in the payment of debts.'
The Coinage Act of April 2, 1792
(1 Stat. 246)
Mint established at the seat of government.
Chapter XVI.--An Act establishing a Mint, and regulating the coins of the United States.
Section I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, and it is hereby enacted and declared, That a mint for the purpose of a national coinage be, and the same is established, to be situate and carried on at the seat of the government of the United States, for the time being; and that for the well conducting of the business of the said mint, there shall be the following officers and persons, namely, --a Director, an Assayer, a Chief Coiner, an Engarver, a Treasurer....
Section 9. And be it further enacted, That there shall be from time to time struck and coined at the said mint, coins of gold, silver, and copper, of the following denominations, values and descriptions, viz.
Eagles --each to be of the value of ten dollars or units, and to contain two hundred and forty-seven grains and four eighths of a grain of pure, or two hundred and seventy grains of standard gold.
Half Eagles--each to be of the value of five dollars, and to contain one hundred and twenty-three grains and six eighths of a grain of pure, or one hundred and thirty-five grains of standard gold.
Quarter Eaglesc--each to be of the value of two dollars and a half dollar, and to contain sixty-one grains and seven eighths of a grain of pure, or sixty-seven grains and four eighths of a grain of standard gold.
Dollars or Units--each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver.
Half Dollars--each to be of half the value of the dollar or unit, and to contain one hundred and eighty-five grains and ten sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or two hundred and eight grains of standard silver. Quarter Dollars--each to be of one fourth the value of the dollar or unit, and to contain ninety-two grains and thirteen sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or one hundred and four grains of standard silver.
Dismes--each to be of the value of one tenth of a dollar or unit, and to contain thirty- seven grains and two sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or forty-one grains and three fifths parts of a grain of standard silver.
Half Dismes--each to be of the value of one twentieth of a dollar, and to contain eighteen grains and nine sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or twenty grains and four fifths parts of a grain of standard silver.
Cents--each to be of the value of the one hundredth part of a dollar, and to contain eleven penny-weights of copper.
Half Cents--each to be of the value of half a a cent, and to contain five penny-weights and a half a penny-weight of copper.
It continues as to shape of coin, what's to be imprinted on it etc.
Then may I assume that you will make the only moral choice and vote for Michael Badnarik for President?
Surely Bush is not a small government president and Kerry is the biggest govt guy around. There is no lesser evil here among the big 2.
It is just too dangerous to let another 4 years go by with a big government president, even if the congress is of the opposite party. A true small govt person MUST win this time. We cannot allow the freedom loving vote to be split up among 2 or 3 candidates. Every freedom lover should overlook the small differences and vote for the candidate with the best ballot access position, the Libertarian.
As I stated many many times before and will continue to state, the republicans and democrats have merged into one party which I call the Republicrats.
Theres little difference between them anymore.
All I ever heard when I was growing up is how the democrats and / or repub's would moan and groan and such about how they'd love to change gov if only their party had complete control of both the presidency and the house, then things would get done. Well the republicans have complete control of the house and a republican president. So what gives here?
the real problem is as follows. Instead of applying republican or democrat agenda's, why doesn't each party follow the rule book (i.e., the Constitution for the United States)
The government isn't supposed to have an agenda at all. Its supposed to follow and uphold the Constitution, that's it.
LOL, I'm glad you didn't put this under "Breaking News".
I might even be willing to stomach big government if it was CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT!!!!
Limited Government, in concept, has been set aside ever since the Civil War.
There are some obvious limits to government, but apparently we just haven't reached them yet, or circumstances have not occurred that have led the electorate to express them.
When limits are again put on Government, if they ever are, it will be a traumatic event that will once again define our nation.
Merely limiting taxes does not prevent excessive Government. The Bush Administration has succeeded in limiting taxes--at least for the moment--but is totally out of control, both on extending Government and in squandering money.
Nor should our past failures dissuade us from future efforts. The oaths that we take--at various times in our lives to uphold the Constitution--do not contain an escape clause which gives us the out to say it is just too hard too do. Those of us who have pledged to Almighty God that we will uphold the Constitution have acknowledged a duty that does not dissolve because this generation of political mountebanks do not choose to listen, nor obey their own oaths.
As a conservative libertarian, I would like to believe that Badnarik is an option. I voted for Marrou in '92, Browne in '96 and 2000. The fact is that 80% of Americans will not have even HEARD of Badnarik by November 2. And even if there were awareness of his candidacy, he would not win, since the majority of people in this country want big government. I have come to believe that our only hope is to reform the GOP from within, getting libertarian policy (such as moving to a NST, or SS reform, or deregulating the FDA drug approval process) enacted through GOP legislators.
I think the differences between Bush and Kerry are small, but significant, and I support Bush this time, both politically and financially. I consider my support of the corporatist Bush a rear-guard action against Kerry's outright socialist domestic policy.
This is the all-defining statement of the discussion. Politicians will always go where the votes are. It makes no sense to rant against politicians who are simply trying to get elected -- because there is no point at all in being a politician if you are going to lose every election. You will just lead a wasted life (! that's meant to be a touch of humor, there).
The big point, that everyone ignores in their drive to "recruit" to third parties, or in their drive to "reform the G.O.P. from the inside" is that both efforts are pointless. Maybe 5% of the electorate (tops, absolute tops) is interested in limited, smaller government as defined by "libertarians" or "Constitutionalists". Why create or reform a party so that you lose every election from now until doomsday by huge margins?
As our society gets more and more urban -- and as people get packed closer and closer together (geographically), the desire for big government that inserts itself into the personal lives of the voter's neighbors is going to get greater and greater. As we live closer and closer together (physically), the desire for a big government to control your nasty neighbors (who do things you disapprove of) and take care of the human refuse squatting under your bridges and living in your urban dumpsters gets greater and greater. Extremely busy people living in urban settings want someone to call to take care of their nasty problems, because they don't have the time or means to.
That's why so many cities vote overwhelmingly socialist. And that's where most people live nowadays. Limited, small government works wonders in rural or low population settings, where life is a bit slower and time not quite so crunched -- and where the people are less stark-raving-mad. But that's not how the great majority of voters live anymore. And that's why the great majority doesn't go for limited government any longer.
Peroutka is a libertarian with a religious flavor. He will scare away people who will consider him a christian Ayatolla. It is very foolish for him to run with a nearly identical platform as the Libertarians and split the vote. We need a single clear freedom loving candidate to get all the freedom loving votes.
Why the Libertarians, because we have the organization and the BALLOT ACCESS to do this.
If you love this country, you must vote for Badnarik. Bush has made a lot of progress toward making this a police state and in a second term, he will not have to worry about reelection and will be able to finish the job.
If Bush would get on national TV and admit that he made a mistake by signing the CFR bill, the medicare prescription drug plan, and the "Patriot Act", I might vote for him again after all.
In effect, he's already admitted he screwed up by federalizing the airport screeners.
Again, you efforts to split the Conservative vote across a bunch of loser Third Parties is very transparent.