Posted on 03/15/2005 5:33:57 AM PST by shortstop
I'm confused.
About politics in Washington. I'm forgetting who the good guys are.
Mostly because they seem to have forgotten as well.
Here's what I mean. As Republicans stumble over themselves to reform Social Security they seem intent on throwing out whatever principles they or their party are supposed to stand for.
Not so much President Bush. His idea of personally managed accounts -- while pretty meager and meaningless in its specifics -- at least gives lip service to a conservative idea or two. The problem is with the rest of the Republicans, particularly in the Senate. They are legislating like Democrats.
Liberal Democrats.
We Republicans have given our party the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives. Pretty much, it's a dead lock on power. And yet the party and its politicians seem like they can't quite get around to doing anything they promised they'd do. For a decade we've controlled Congress and for a term we've controlled the White House and yet Democratic ideas are advancing and Republican ideas are retreating.
Why is that?
Why is it that the party of fiscal conservatism can't, with total control of the federal government, get a handle on the budget deficit? Why is it that the Republican president and the Republican Congress are advocating every larger and more costly government programs? If we are the party of small government and individual liberty, why in the heck are the officeholders we elected going in exactly the opposite direction?
But back to Social Security.
It is the suggestions of two "conservative" Republican senators which has me hopping mad.
Whereas the president has suggested placing some tiny amount of our Social Security taxes under our own severly limited control, these knuckle heads have a completely different idea for Social Security.
Enter Bob Bennett, a Republican senator from Utah. He wants to dramatically reduce the Social Security payout for two-thirds of Americans. Specifically, Bennett suggests dividing the public into three categories -- low earners, medium earners and high earners. He would leave Social Security payouts alone for the bottom third of earners, but would cut them for the top two-thirds of earners. In fact, he would essentially cut them in half.
Which is an interesting proposition. Inasmuch as Social Security tax is nothing more than a second income tax, the more you make the more you pay. So the bottom third of wage earners pays a very small Social Security tax, in terms of real dollars. While the middle and upper income earners pay a substantially higher Social Security tax.
So that means that "conservative" Republican Bob Bennett wants to pay the most to those who contributed the least and pay the least to those who contributed the most. That's redistribution of wealth. That, patently, is socialism. And that is what the Republican Party is offering up.
Wouldn't Karl Marx be proud?
Indeed, he would be.
But "conservative" Republican Lindsey Graham from South Carolina wants to make him even prouder. Graham wants to increase the Social Security taxes paid by upper-income workers. As if 15 percent wasn't enough.
So the disproportionate ripoff of successful people didn't satisfy Senate Republicans. They want to make it even bigger. Cut the benefit to middle and upper income people by half, and then jack up the taxes they pay -- taxes that are already dramatically higher than lower-income workers.
And this is the plan of the Republican Party.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930s came up with the largest socialist scheme ever foisted on the American people and 70 years later the Republicans are defending it and creating new excesses.
Here's the simple rule: Your money is your money. You earned it, you ought to be able to keep it. For the government to take it away from you and give it to somebody else is not good policy, it is governmental theft.
It is legitimate for the government to tax us to fund its essential and constitutionally mandated activities. But for the government to use taxation as not a funding mechanism for itself, but as a wealth-redistribution scheme among citizens is immoral and unconstitutional. It was not the Founding Fathers of this system who would favor such a system, it is the Founding Fathers of communism.
Republicans are supposed to stand up for property rights, for the interest of those who are employed. They are supposed to speak against socialism and confiscatory taxes. They are supposed to fight the social engineering of "progressive" tax. The Republican Party is where we're supposed to go when we feel like our government is ripping us off, like we have turned into nothing more than tax slaves.
But we will find no relief in the Republican Party.
It is Republicans in the Senate who are binding us down, who are breaking campaign promises, who are forgetting what it means to be either a Republican or a free American. These "solutions" to the Social Security problem are nothing more than a con to take more of our "earned" money and transform it into "entitled" money, to take money from those who earn it and give it to those who don't.
It used to be that it was Democrats who pulled crap like that.
Now it's the Republicans.
And that leaves a bunch of us with nowhere to go.
It's time for a strong (conservative) third party to surface.
It's time for a strong (conservative) third party to surface.
I am watching the time as are many others.
Well any transition would cost a bit of money and it has to come from somewhere
they should suck it up and cut some pork spending instead of increasing SS taxes etc.
It would probably have the same effect on Republicans that the Greens had on the Dems. My father always said, “Any fool can learn from his mistakes, but if you’re smart you’ll learn from others mistakes”.
They hope that the majority of their Republican electorate will not notice their antiques in the Senate (and, sadly, many won't!)
The remedy seems to be straight forward(ish): we need to let know in no ambiguous terms that the opportunists will not be reelected. This is not as easily done as it is said but it definitely is worth the effort.
We need to get rid of knuckle-headed inside the beltway Senators like Bennett, Hatch, and the old timers, and get more committed soldiers in the Senate like Coleman and some of the other first termers. These guys have balls, and still hold on to principle.
Stuck Inside of Mobile With the Memphis Blues Again, Bob Dylan
I agree with you. It's best to avoid going thru mistakes yourself if you can help it. The parties are vehicles, not drivers. No sense creating a crappy dirt track car to run against a well-tuned, well-financed race car. The key is to gain influence over the team, the sponsors, and the driver. For our side, the Republican party is still the place to be.
Good point, a lot of the new Republicans are FAR different then the old timers.
The old timers are still acting like they are the minority party, like they were for most of their careers.
Social Security is aptly named because it is a socialization of retirement. What is so hard to understand ? Bush's private accounts are individualizing Social Security.
Further, because Social Security is socialized, the italicized statement has no meaning for individuals because how much you get depends as much on how long you live as well as how much you paid.
Finally, the lower 1/3 usually die off a little earlier on average than the middle and upper class, but retirement accounts should move away from socialism and more towards individualism, just as President Bush has said.
Some of you are like me....we have no representation in Congress. There are not enough people there that, for only lack of balls maybe, will set us free. There are not enough that will do what it takes to close the borders. There are not enough there that will shut down large portions of the government that have proven to be full of waste and do no good and in fact, do harm....like the Dept of education, Dept of Energy, IRS, et al....most of the government IMHO. They don't even have the will to do something about federal judges and 6 reprobates on the supreme court that are bastardizing our system by the day. I bet most of our representatives have never read enough of the Constitution to even find out what they are constitutionally authorized to do. There ought to be a cover sheet on all legislation stating exactly where in the Constitution it is that authorizes the legislation.
This is only a start on my list of lamentations concerning the congress. If they did the right thing, it wouldn't matter who was President....but alas....our only choice is those who decide or are asked or who are coerced to run. It is not my fault that there are RINOs in the congress...and it is not your fault either. Take the last election...I kind of knew what the congress was going to do...most of us here did. We also knew that Pres Bush was at least an honorable man. We also knew that John Kerry was a traitorous lier and a gigolo, and a reprobate, and I for one would never vote for him for dogcatcher.
But I WILL vote,... for I believe that when I do not, I give up my right to complain....even though I am forced to vote for someone who does not represent me, but is closer to my beliefs than the liberal/socalist/communist candidate.
"Where Do You Go When Your Party Lets You Down?"
The Bahamas?
...it used to be that it was Democrats who pulled crap like that.
Now it's the Republicans.
And that leaves a bunch of us with nowhere to go...
Too true.
Oh, yeah, and close the borders!
We have one Redemopublicrat superparty. Both halves waste taxes to keeping themselves in office. Neither half is pro Bill of Rights when it comes to passing new laws. And both halves look to government to solve every problem, no matter how small, and throwing tax dollars at the problem is their solution.
Oh, it's time for a Hillary presidency?
I respectfully disagree: electing RINO Republicans is absolutely our fault. Retail politics itself is our fault. Voting for a candidate simply because he's got an R after his name, and not a D, without knowing the candidate ourselves is our fault. Putting party ahead of principle is our fault. Straying from our ideology in order to win elections is our fault. Giving candidates who obviously don't share our ideology a mandate simply because they're on "our side" is our fault.
If we demanded better candidates, we'd get them.
We've got to stop deceiving ourselves---few, if any, politicians enter politics out of altruism. Rather, a politician is simply a public policy salesman who deals in one specific commodity: votes. He delivers votes up the chain of command, and, as long as he does so, he works his way up the chain of command until he's got enough power, or votes, to call the shots himself. A professional politician has one job and one job only: maintaining power.
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.