Be Happy! Don't Worry!

"Be happy! Don’t worry! We have a true conservative in the White House!" At least that is the message that I keep hearing from many who have duct taped a "conservative" label on themselves these days. The proof, they contend, is in the $674 billion dollar "tax cut/economic stimulus" plan the president is proposing. For that, they think he should immediately be stamped with the "Good Conservative Seal of Approval" for exhibiting sound conservative credentials. But should we really have no concerns?

Now don’t get me wrong, I think the tax cuts are great. But in this case, they don’t go nearly far enough for I desire to see the American people liberated from the chains of the income tax entirely. But this proposal, which the White House probably does not think will be adopted in total, does at least take a small step in the right direction. So, they want to cut taxes? I say, "Sounds great! Do it!"

But before we pass out the confetti and the party whistles, we had better make sure that there is cause for celebration. Has the tremendous burden of the cost of government truly been lessened by the Bush Administration? You might think so if all you listened to was the rhetoric coming from the White House press office. Unfortunately, the big picture is cause for genuine concern. While the distracting bone of a "tax cut/economic stimulus" is being thrown for us to fetch, the torrential flood of federal spending that is gushing out the back door of the Bush Administration White House is rapidly increasing in volume. And somebody's going to have to pay for it...and we all know who that "somebody" usually is - the American people.

We all deal with these economic realities in our personal lives. If we buy things or services, we will have to pay for them, if not immediately, eventually. In like manner, every citizen can readily understand that each dollar spent by the government equals a dollar that will have to be taxed on someone, somewhere in some form. If the money is borrowed, it is creating an obligation that the American people will someday have to pay, along with the interest that goes along with the debt. Even if government "creates" some of the "money" to pay its bills by printing it, it represents a tax upon us through inflation, since such action devalues our currency and is reflected in the higher cost of goods and services.

There is no way around it, the debt piper will be paid - and he will be paid on the backs of the American people.

So here we are faced with a contradiction of evidence. On the one hand, we have a President that is promoting himself as a fiscal conservative by pitching a modest tax cut package to us. On the other hand, we have that same President, proposing the biggest expansion of government since President Johnson’s "Great Society" adventure into the dangerous land of socialism. And that is not to even consider the White House's troubling efforts to gut the Constitution's protection of our civil liberties through an unprecedented amassing of federal police power.

Of course, if the President sought to fulfill his oath of office which requires him to support and defend the Constitution, this would not be happening.

If the spending side were kept within Constitutional boundaries, the taxing side would not be a problem. And if the functions of the federal government were kept within Constitutional boundaries, our liberties would not be so threatened by the prospect of the possible use of already unconstitutionally obtained federal police power by future Presidents and government officials with personal leanings towards tyranny.

Unfortunately, President Bush is typical of the "New Republican" that throws even the pretense of frugality and limited government out of the window. He defies the principles of sound government and seeks to have his cake and eat it too. He keeps the Liberals "happy" by pouring billions into the expansion of the welfare state and seeks to appease the conservatives by proposing modest tax cuts, while not mentioning the massive increases on the spending side.

Who cares what budgetary problems it may create down the road? We are living in the here and now! Let's all join in the chanting of the new neo-conservative maxim: "Deficits-do-not-matter...deficits-do-not-matter...deficits-do-not-matter!" Now lets close our eyes and forget all about what the Bush Administration is doing. You don't have to pay attention, he's a compassionate conservative and has your very best interests in mind while he grows the federal government bigger and bigger. So let's forget about all that. Instead, imagine in your minds going to your "happy place", wherever that might be. See... isn't that better? No economic problems, no impending war, no growing federal police state, no concerns about how you will be able to provide for your family once the consequences of the present government policy come home to roost. Happy Days are here again!

But in case you are not really comfortable with remaining in a state of artificially induced ignorant bliss, you might want to instead consider the words of one of our nation's founding fathers, John Adams:

"...[T]he jaws of power are always opened to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing. And if the public interest, liberty, and happiness have been in danger from the ambition or avarice of any great man, whatever may be his politeness, address, learning, ingenuity, and, in other respects, integrity and humanity, you have done yourselves honor and your country service by publishing and pointing out that avarice and ambition...be not intimidated...nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty by any pretenses of politeness, delicacy, or decency...

...Be it remembered, however, that liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood. And liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a...divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, agents, and trustees for the people; and if the cause, the interest and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority that they themselves have deputed, and to constitute abler and better agents, attorneys, and trustees."

Sound government includes true fiscal restraint and accountability on both the spending and taxation sides of the ledger, a respect for the God-given rights of the people, a dedication to justice and a commitment to remaining within the power limiting boundaries that the Constitution places upon government. It is within these confines that all efforts to honorably fulfill the proper duties of government should be undertaken. But, unfortunately this is not often seen today, which is why the Constitution Party exists...because there is a real need for a real change.

The Constitution Party is not satisfied in remaining in, or publicly promoting an artificially induced state of ignorant political bliss. Nor are we interested in chanting the mantras of faux "compassionate conservatism" which is in truth neither compassionate, nor conservative. Instead we are determined to be the vanguards of the God-given liberties and rights of the American people. It is for this reason that we are dedicated to and focused upon the promoting of, as John Adams put it, "abler and better...attorneys, agents, and trustees for the people" in the halls of civil government.

If you are concerned about the future of our nation and desire to see the present march towards corruption abated, I urge you to join and support our efforts to restore integrity to American government.

After reading this article, can someone please tell me what it is exactly that this Administration and the Republican Party do for us as conservatives? The liberals get a seven-course meal and we get crumbs. It is time we stood up for ourselves.

"After reading this article, can someone please tell me what it is exactly that this Administration and the Republican Party do for us as conservatives? The liberals get a seven-course meal and we get crumbs. It is time we stood up for ourselves."

It is what they don't do as much of against us as liberals would if they were still in power.

Bush is pushing for tax cuts, he made a principled, reasoned decision on the stem-cell issue, he's done a fabulous job in the War on Terror, and he's restored dignity and respect to the office.

His lack of "perfection" for idealogues is not a concern for me. I've been on the other side of the aisle as a Jesse Jackson Democrat. I know the Dark Side. G.W. is the antithesis of the Welfare State Liberal, believe me.

He'll get my financial support and my vote.

I'm glad to be a
Recovering_Democrat.

You are right. Bring back Clinton. Or Gore. Great leaders taking us into the moral morass we were heading for until side tracked by Bush.

This artlcle is a real Clymer.

"It is what they don't do as much of against us as liberals would if they were still in power."

Either way, the liberals are getting their paid meal tickets and I (and you) are stuck footin' the bill!

I voted for Bush because I wanted LESS federal gov't, not more. Instead, I get a guy who's already outpaced Clintax in federal spending.

I doubt I'll vote for him in 2004 at this rate.

>>Either way, the liberals are getting their paid meal tickets and I (and you) are stuck footin' the bill!

Democrats like to spend money like crazy and raise your taxes to pay for it, whereas republicans are different: They like to spend your money like crazy and tell you nobody has to pay for it.

"I doubt I'll vote for him in 2004 at this rate. "

For conservatives, it really is damned if you do, damned if you don't. Voting for third parties probably helped get bush elected (nader), and certainly helped clinton get elected and re-elected (perot). I do not believe a social conservative (i.e. alan keyes, buchanan, any number of others) is electable in the u.s. anymore.

...republicans are different: They like to spend your money like crazy and tell you nobody has to pay for it.

That is one way of partially stating their goal which, I think, is to lower taxes and spend on certain programs, thus forcing other government programs to hopefully go bankrupt. The resulting high deficit would then be used as the rationale for shrinking government to eliminate that deficit rather than raising taxes to do so and keeping a big government. This is possible if the GOP remains in power long enough. And maybe not. Just an idea.

The point is that these guys are giving the liberals most of what they want, just more slowly. If you get bombed in the first inning or give up just one run per inning, you still lose. Losing slowly is not winning.

I do not believe a social conservative (i.e. alan keyes, buchanan, any number of others) is electable in the u.s. anymore.

Perhaps not today, but if we don't work to get them elected, they never will be electable. We need to start building that structure now, and the Constitution Party is one way of doing that. Besides, if Republicans lose because of conservatives, eventually even The Stupid Party has to get the message that they should stop trying to get elected by going left.

"Besides, if Republicans lose because of conservatives, eventually even The Stupid Party has to get the message that they should stop trying to get elected by going left."

Is getting that message across worth, say, 8 years of Hillary? Can you imagine what she would do with 8 years, a nice patriot act in place, and all kinds of wrongs to right?

I believe that in a country where something like half the voters don't pay ANY taxes, and new voters are being produced by our public indoctrination camps called 'skools,' getting real fiscal (or social) conservatives elected is simply impossible.

"Right. We used to call it "me-too" Republicanism. "Me too, only I'll give you all these programs for a lower cost!""

Somewhere a while back (maybe it was national review), this was called the 80% phenomenon, where gop says 'we're for [welfare-state type federal program] too, but we only want to spend 80% as much as the dems.'

"Besides, if Republicans lose because of conservatives, eventually even The Stupid Party has to get the message that they should stop trying to get elected by going left."

Ah, yes. The old "let's teach them a lesson and then they'll coming running to us" plan.

"Ah, yes. The old "let's teach them a lesson and then they'll coming running to us" plan."

Also now known as the "Let's teach them a lesson and elect Hillary Rodham Clinton as President of the United States. That will show them!"

Hillary cannot get elected President of the United States. Even in liberal New York, I doubt that she can get re-elected Senator.

In a three way race, even in New York, conservatives stand a good chance of winning, as Buckley did in 1970.

And the only good thing about the Patriot Act is that it has a sunset provision. Even if Hitlery manages to get elected, there is a decent chance she won't be able to use it.

What good does stopping the Democrats do when Republicans give us a massive education bill, Federally-funded prescription drugs for seniors, and other liberal policies, then add to it by giving us things like the Patriot Act? We need a real opposition to this, not two parties with similar agendas, one of which pretends to be conservative.

"We need a real opposition to this, not two parties with similar agendas, one of which pretends to be conservative."

When 50% of the country voted for Gore, how can the conservative vote be divided without handing the election over? A conservative party running in 3-way presidential race won't take votes from the DNC, just like I doubt Nader took votes from the GOP (maybe a very few in both cases, but statistically negligible).

I think the only viable way to move the center of the political debate is through the media. Fox has probably done more to stop the spread of socialism/totalitarianism in the US than any other public entity, by simply providing an alternate (either conservative or more objective) view on modern politics and news.

"And the only good thing about the Patriot Act is that it has a sunset provision. Even if Hitlery manages to get elected, there is a decent chance she won't be able to use it. "

I think that there would be an incident agrecious enough in the time frame it needed to be renewed to push it through, if it was something she wanted to keep in place.

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.