Republicans and Big Government.( GOP, Never a Small Gov Party )

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | February 19, 2002 | James Ostrowski

[Paladin2]

GOP -> Government Oppressing Party.

[Paladin2]

GOP -> Governed Oppressing Party.

[TADSLOS]

Bi-partisanship in action.

[rabscuttle385]

What is happening now is a textbook example of how government grows. Government intervenes into some aspect of life, domestic or foreign, where it doesn't belong. It screws it up good, creates problems that would not otherwise exist, and then uses its powerful propaganda machine to disguise the true cause of the problem and convince people that even more government action is required. To paraphrase Ludwig von Mises, government creates its own demand.

Well, DUH!

[rabscuttle385]

FTA:

Now for the welfare part of the welfare/warfare state. Lyndon Johnson was less interested in fighting a socialist state abroad than he was in creating a socialist state at home, but he fought the Vietnam War anyway to appear tough on communism, protect his right flank, and stay in power. Bush is the opposite. These days, Bush is focused on foreign policy. But to win in '04, he must protect his left flank and dole out the welfare. So, he recently said:

I support extending unemployment benefits and direct assistance for health care coverage. We need to prepare our children to read and succeed in school with improved Head Start and early childhood development programs. We must upgrade our teacher colleges and teacher training and launch a major recruiting drive with a great goal for America: a quality teacher in every classroom. Americans know economic security can vanish in an instant without health security. I ask Congress to join me this year to enact a Patients' Bill of Rights, to give uninsured workers credits to help buy health coverage, to approve an historic increase in spending for veterans' health, and to give seniors a sound and modern Medicare system that includes coverage for prescription drugs.

Even FDR would be blushing at this point in the speech.

Wilson and McKinley would have applauded Bush's "progressive" foreign policy, and FDR and LBJ would have applauded Bush's "progressive" domestic policy.

[Landru]

You go, my friend.
In all the years I've been here you've e been spot-on concerning things political.
This, is just one more example. ;^)

[streetpreacher]

Thanks for this article. It was spot on but probably wouldn’t have survived FR scrutiny back when it was written. Patriotism and Partisanship can be blinding.

[GeronL]

W. was not a movement conservative, thats obvious.

Sane libertarians would better serve their cause by joining the GOP conservatives and trying to take over the party. Join the Palin Putsch!!

[elpadre]

the devil is in the details. Most of the NEW spending under GB was the new Medicare prescription program and the buildup of the military, the war on terror and Homeland Security. After 9/11 much was needed and I concur with that spent for the protection of the nation.

Today we need to fight a socialist program being installed, and wannabe Marxist president and out of control congress.

direct your attention to the problem at hand!!

[pallis]

It’s true that the establishment Republicans, the Rockefeller and eastern elites are big government, but times have changed, and the Republican Party needs to change with them. This nation has gone as far down the big government, socialist road as it can go and still claim any connection to the freedom and liberty our Founders delivered to us. It’s time to turn back, and most Republicans are on board with that. For the sake of this nation, our children and grandchildren, the rest of the GOP better get their fingers out of government pockets, and join conservatives.

[Leisler]

"When we strip away defense, homeland security and entitlements and adjust for inflation, leaving only discretionary domestic spending, George W. Bush has grown the federal government at a faster pace than Lyndon Baines Johnson," Viguerie writes. "His record for profligate spending is outmatched (for the time being) only by another Big Government Republican, Richard Nixon. And when Bush's second term is over, there's every reason to expect that Bush will hold the record as the president who's grown the federal government at its fastest pace in modern times." ( August 03, 2006 )

[sickoflibs]

Thanks. Your post has my name on it.

The drum beat Bush-neos (Levin, Hannity even Rush) refuse to admit that Bush opened the treasury on domestic spending to win the 2004 election in spite of declining popularity. Iraq was already getting unpopular by 2004 and Bush needed to buy off votes from certain groups.

The Myth is Bush would have won 2004 by running on ‘Rebuild Iraq, not America’. That is what they claim to this day. Their #1 priority was to get GW Bush re-elected.

[sickoflibs]

Not to defend them, but the press and the clueless voters demand presidents solve big problems, meaning grow government and spend more and more. And presidents #1 want re-election, as GWB did in 2004.

This is why I have serious reservations about another republican president anytime soon.

[gorilla_warrior]

W. was not a movement conservative, thats obvious.
Sane libertarians would better serve their cause by joining the GOP conservatives and trying to take over the party. Join the Palin Putsch!!

I believe that Palin is smart enough not to get sucked into the GOP. I can't think of a bigger waste of time than trying to "reform" the GOP into a conservative party. It's a fool's errand. Conservatism will never be respected by the GOP elitists. Far better and far easier to destroy the GOP and build a conservative/libertarian party over its grave. There is simply too much money, power, corruption, and institutional mass in the GOP to reform it. At its core, the GOP is elitist and always has been. It is an anachronism, totally inadequate to conquer and destroy the mortal danger of liberal fascism.

[stephenjohnbanker]

I agree with almost all of this with the exception of Reagan. Reagan was in an adversarial position with Congress(as opposed to Bush who had the world at his finger tips, and pissed it all away).

Reagan had to rebuild our military, as Carter had all but destroyed it. That cost plenty of money. He also cut the top individual tax rate from 70% to 28%, causing me to work 60-70 hour weeks, and making enough dough that I could have retired in 1989, at the age of 35.

Reagan made 2 promises; to slash our taxes, and stop the spread of communism. He did both. Name another POTUS who made 2 major promises, and kept them?

Sure he made mistakes. a number of them. He should have followed through on abolishing the Dept. of Education. He should never have signed amnesty, thinking that the laws would be followed. But he deserves more than 2 lines of half truths.

[rabscuttle385]

Name another POTUS who made 2 major promises, and kept them?

Try James K. Polk.

He promised to serve only one term, and he voluntarily retired after only one term.

The four goals on his agenda--including tariff reductions, the re-establishment of the "Independent Treasury System" (which was later replaced by the now-infamous Federal Reserve System), and the acquisition of California, New Mexico, and parts of the Oregon County--were all accomplished.

Ironically, he was a Democrat (from Middle Tennessee)...but a Jacksonian Democrat.

[rabscuttle385]

He should have followed through on abolishing the Dept. of Education.

At least he didn't create any new departments, something which can't be said of Bush, Nixon, or Eisenhower.

[stephenjohnbanker]

You have me on Polk. In all candor, do you think he could have accomplished this during Reagan’s term? Or anything much at all? Since the mid 70’s Congress has been nothing but a criminal left wing enterprise.

[Landru]

Not entering this one, my friends.
Most of what we all see, politically speaking, are illusions. POTUS' included.