Ahistorical diatribe

On Nov 3, 2:49 pm, "M.A. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Next New Deal?by Karen Kwiatkowski
> Back in the day, I fell in [political] love with a guy named J. Peter Grace. 
> Reagan had asked him to head upa commission to study waste and abuse in and 
> by the federal government. The Commission produced a large report, 
> entitledWar on Waste. Grace shared the commission’s discoveries in another 
> aptly titled bookBurning Money: The Waste of Your Tax Dollars. Unlike the 
> more recent 9/11 Commission Report, also published as a book, the Grace 
> Commission Report contained serious information that many of us didn’t 
> already know from reading the newspapers, and its actionable and specific 
> recommendations could have made a real difference in the future security of 
> this country.
> Not that any specific action was taken, of course. Reagan presided over a 
> fifty-year metastasization of the New Deal. But compared to the present day, 
> government spending in the early 1980s was downright stingy. Thirty years of 
> easy money, corporate capitalism and military adventurism doesn’t wear well 
> on a country.
> The so-called Reagan revolution is proof that wanting smaller government 
> isn’t the same as getting it. By the end of his presidency, every bad thing – 
> that is to say everything – about our federal government had increased 
> radically. Sheldon Richman summarized the Reagan legacy in 1988, andit’s 
> worth re-reading today.
> Only a brave American, a suicidal Constitutionalist, or a sadistic Bolshevik 
> would wish to honestly contemplate the frightening summary of government 
> growth that will be written at the end of 2008. But perhaps the withering 
> away of the state is still possible.
> I was reminded of Peter Grace because in this age of recession and 
> belt-tightening, it is only natural to start looking at waste in our 
> government, and demanding the fat be returned to the "people." It is telling 
> that a major selling point of the bailout, and its legionary spawn, is that 
> we (the "people") could turn a profit, or at least, the bailout would"cost 
> the taxpayer nothing."
> But here’s a better idea, a new deal of sorts. Giveaways, special interest 
> exceptions, and pleasing the masses – well, that’s how it works. It’s what 
> politicians understand, so let’s expand the program! Throw some new interest 
> groups a bone! For starters, let’s get the antiwar crowd to stop whining. 
> Immediately end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – that’llstop the fiscal 
> bleedingand forestall a few trillion dollars, plus it will stop creating 
> future liabilities of more terrorism aimed at Americans, more countries to 
> "rebuild," and more sick and crippled soldiers to maintain for life.
> The peace brigades are also unhappy with the American bases or ongoing 
> deployments in 150 countries, and a half a trillion bucksevery yearjust for 
> maintenance of the Pentagon and its profligate and self-indulgent lifestyle. 
> Some may ask, "Isn’t that the price of freedom?" Clearly, it buys damn little 
> of the ethereal stuff. Burdened by anational debtthat is rising as we breathe 
> and amounts to $35,000 a person, andan entitlement crisisthat adds a $100,000 
> more per taxpayer – does any American feel more free? Does any American, 
> confused over whether to vote for the national or the international socialist 
> on November 4th, feel that he or she has more choice?
> Another interest group ignored for years by Congress and Presidents are the 
> small "c" conservatives. As we approach national bankruptcy, these "Warriors 
> Against Government Waste" are a rising tide, sure to demand their "take" from 
> a Congress that soon will have little choice but to oblige them.
> Other groups that deserve some policy goodies and legislative bones arethe 
> Ron Paul Revolutionarieswho understand sound money, third-party 
> constituencies focused on fundamental issues like liberty, the Constitution, 
> and justice, and every generation in the country that is paying the social 
> security and Medicare benefits for the generation that is receiving it. 
> Obviously, there is some overlap among these groups, and contradictions in 
> priorities. But taken together, it is a monster majority of special interests 
> that will conspire together for a severely reduced and constrained federal 
> government.
> While our wasteful, desperate security policy around the globe is a well of 
> near-instant potential savings, the low-hanging fruit today, as it was in the 
> 1980s, is domestic spending. Every American schoolchild (even those who 
> cannot name the Vice President) knows what an earmark is. They have all heard 
> of the bridge to nowhere, and they know what it means. It’s time to abolish 
> federal departments like Veterans Affairs and Education, and not stop until 
> Homeland Security is completed gutted. When I say gutted, please don’t get 
> the serrated blades out just yet – let’s simply split the assets (and the 
> future budget requests) among the states. Most states have balanced budget 
> amendments, and actual semi-accountable assemblies, congresses, and 
> governors. Let them conduct the firesales.
> Perhaps Obama or McCain will appoint another commission to look at potential 
> government savings – as the federal government goes broke and broker, maybe 
> this time angry Democrats and angrier Republicans in the House will decide to 
> eat their young, sacrifice their unholy children (or dare I say wealthy 
> grandparents?) at the altar of political survival.
> We worry thatit can’t happen here– but American fascism has already arrived, 
> in fact, it has been living in the heartland, and our cities and suburbs for 
> a long time. Others predict that as our government senses it is losing 
> control, it will cling ever more vigorously to power and authority like a cat 
> on a high branch, that our limited freedoms of today may be reduced even 
> further if we demand too much, too soon.
> Some believe that our government will launch another warto distract us, orto 
> get the economy going. It does appear to be true that our federal government 
> has an array of potential prison camps all over the country, in every state, 
> waiting to be filled, with contracts for prison guards waiting only to be 
> funded.
> The naming and formation of Department of Homeland Security was no hysterical 
> accident. America’s expensive domestic programs and adventuristic foreign 
> policy follow a well-worn historical path. These developments – as with every 
> action of our federal government – are designed to promote, maintain or 
> salvage federal institutional capability to continue the plunder. It’s the 
> same old deal, grown unreasonable, unaffordable, and unbearable.
> In November 1934, folks in Indiana sent Charles Halleck to Congress to rein 
> in FDR’s New Deal. In 1936, Halleck said,"The social experimentation and 
> reckless extravagance of the New Deal are on the way out because the common 
> sense of the people is reasserting itself." He went on to say, "We must be 
> free of annoyance…of restrictions which cramp …our lives… . We must be 
> allowed to work, to invest, and to save without making out a bureaucratic 
> blank for every move we make."
> Today, America is populated by people who demand instant messages, and refuse 
> to waste a millisecond typing a single unnecessary vowel. As LRC contributor 
> Becky Akerspointed out recently, bilingual 6-year olds in America choose to 
> converse with their friends in English not because anyone tells them to, or 
> because they want to be patriotic, but because "it’s faster."
> Obama and McCain both salivate for neo-FDR status, and a New Deal of their 
> own, conceived by fellow politicians, and tenderly nurtured like a hothouse 
> flower. Instead, the next New Deal will be put to government as atrompementby 
> fast-moving, waste-intolerant, outrageously irreverent people who not only 
> treasure liberty, but expect it.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to