Spending obscenities 
Mar 21, 2006
by Cal Thomas
 
Not so long ago, in a country that now seems far, far away, Ronald Reagan told 
the nation: "we don't have deficits because people are taxed too little. We 
have deficits because big government spends too much." 
He uttered those words in a year when Democrats controlled the House (the body 
in which spending legislation originates) and the national debt, according to 
the Bureau of Public Debt, was $2.3 trillion. 
Last week, a Republican Senate voted to raise the debt ceiling to nearly $9 
trillion. Senators quickly passed a record $2.8 trillion budget. What would 
Reagan say now? He said then, ".the federal deficit is outrageous. For years 
I've asked that we stop pushing onto our children the excesses of our 
government." He called for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and 
labeled the budget process a "sorry spectacle." That Republicans are 
outspending the most reckless 1980s Democrat (and 1960s Great Society Democrats 
and 1940s FDR Democrats) is the sorriest spectacle of all. 
The Senate vote increased the debt ceiling for the fourth time in five years. 
The statutory debt limit has now risen by more than $3 trillion since President 
Bush took office. That any Republican majority could preside over such fiscally 
irresponsible spending ought to be grounds for revoking their party membership.
This is mostly about politics, not terrorism. Republicans fear that only gobs 
of money will endear them to voters in sufficient numbers to re-elect their 
increasingly precarious majority. Why should Republicans be re-elected when one 
of the major reasons the GOP exists is to reduce the size and cost of 
government and free more people to do for themselves instead of restricting 
their liberties through costly and overreaching big government? 
Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, rightly blamed out-of-control 
spending on his colleagues' political nervousness: "They want to go and say 
they are helping people, but we are not helping people when we are selling out 
their future." 
DeMint might have added that it doesn't help people to cause them to rely on 
and pay for ever-expanding government. Such a policy stifles initiative and 
personal responsibility and discourages incentive. It goes against the "Puritan 
ethic" that was one of America's foundational principles. 
Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, observed, "This budget could be 
the final nail in our coffin if we don't watch it." Graham said Republican 
spending habits are demoralizing voters: "I don't think we properly understand 
the keys to our electoral success." 
Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, defended spending an additional $7 
billion for health and education programs, claiming those areas have lacked 
money in recent years. Is he kidding? The Bush administration has sired the 
biggest new entitlement program in history - a prescription drug benefit for 
the elderly. And let's not forget "No Child Left Behind," which massively 
increased federal education spending when there is no evidence of a connection 
between money and academic achievement. 
Perhaps the real culprit is not Congress, but us. The Pew Research Center poll 
of March 14 found that only 55 percent of Americans rate the deficit as a "top 
priority." That contrasts with the 1990s when the deficit resonated more 
strongly with voters. As long as we are willing to take the money in exchange 
for our votes, politicians will give it to us. This must change, not only 
because we are in debt up to our eyeballs, but also because many of the note 
holders are, or might become, our enemies. 
Means testing for all government programs and term limits for Congress are the 
answer to never-ending debt, but neither is likely to happen. 
Reagan said his favorite president was Calvin Coolidge. In 1923, when Coolidge 
was vice president, he said, "After order and liberty, economy is one of the 
highest essentials of a free government." 
Coolidge left the presidency with a surplus. So did Bill Clinton. That a 
Republican Congress and administration are engaging in such promiscuous 
spending is obscene. If voting in Democrats -who in the past engaged in deficit 
spending - punishes Republicans, little will change. What to do? 
Maybe it's time for a strong third party, or failing that, another revolution. 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian  
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to