10 October 2005

Consrvative Critical Mass

Arguing that a political critical mass has been reached with conservatives over the Presidents less than conservative fiscal and domestic policy conduct George Will is swinging hard again in his op-ed in Newsweek. He, and many other conservatives, are deciding that at some point merely having the control of government is not enough if we (republicans) are to govern as wealth-redistributionist-socialist-wannabe-democrats would.

Arguably, the democrats would be doing so at an even more dizzying pace, but that is of little comfort to erstwhile republicans who truly crave less government rather than more. As Will points out, we held our noses while the President allowed Ted Kennedy to write the education bill. From a true conservative point of view things have not improved much from there. We got the Medicare prescription drug atrocity that as Will points out is " . . . the largest expansion of the welfare state since LBJ—an entitlement with an unfunded liability l a r g e r than that of Social Security. . . "

Again to reiterate, it is a terrifying thought that democrats could blow even more money, even faster than the republicans are, but they would. If I understand this correctly; we are likely going to borrow huge sums of money from the Chinese through US debt issues so that the likes of Ross Perot, and Bill Gates don't have to pay out of their pocket for prescription drugs. Then when my 8 year old son is entering the workplace he can pay it back with interest?!

Further aggravating the limited government types such as myself are these stunnning numbers regarding the recently passed highway bill.

". . . The bill President Bush signed contained 6,371, costing $24 billion. The total cost of the bill—$286 billion—is more, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than the c o m b i n e d costs of the Marshall Plan and the interstate highway system . . . "

While republicans in the congress continue to let us down with such foolishness, Bush has utterly failed to lift a finger to reign this in.

" . . . He is the first president in 176 years to serve a full term without vetoing a n y t h i n g. His father cast 44 vetoes. Ronald Reagan's eight-year total was 78. In 1987 Reagan vetoed a transportation bill because it contained 152 earmarks—pork—costing $1.4 billion . . . "

Reagan vetoed $1.4 billion in foolishness and W can't gut up enough to veto $24 billion!?

Come on!

This is not the reason conservative activists such as myself go to the trouble to get republicans in office. This is not the vision of Reagan or Goldwater. This must stop now or republicans will most assuredly lose power for want of a motivated base. Again, the even scarier proposition is the democrats taking power and presiding over the fall of the country as they have no creed other than Bush hatred.

Meanwhile the so-called majority leader Tom DeLay tells us that the costs of Katrina recovery cannot intrude on the finely crafted transportation bill containing $24 billion of transportation earmarks ". . . -because Republicans have cut all inessential spending . . . "

While acknowledging that it is probably political nothing more than political machinations, Will considers DeLays indidctment " . . . helpful to conservatives. DeLay, who neither knows nor cares any more about limited government than a camel knows or cares about calculus . . . " and goes on to opine that DeLay might even lose his seat in the US House.

It is time for conservatives to take the Republican Party power brokers to task. They are sorely in need of a good swift kick in the pants. If they wish to remain in power, they had better recall who put them there, and why. -SpinDaddy