The time-honored Republican tradition of surrender is in full swing in Washington today.
The problem is, the American people and the tea-party movement did not send Republicans to Washington to surrender. We sent them to cut the budget. . . .
When Washington hits the debt ceiling in a few days, our national debt will be 100 percent of our gross domestic product. In plain, non-lawyer English, this means that to pay off our national debt, it would take every cent of wealth America generates in 2011. There is a term for this; it is called insolvency. . . .
Debt at 100 percent of GDP is something of a psychological marker. If we are not going to stop spending now, when will we? . . .
It is not enough to simply to replace bad leadership. We must put good leadership in its place. . . . So far, we cannot say that we have put good leadership in its place.Many conservative Republicans stayed home during the last presidential election, unhappy with their candidate who could have been labeled "Progressive Lite."
The voters want a choice, not different versions of the same thing.
It looks like lack of choice is going to happen again.
... unless some Reagan Democrats join the party.
12 comments:
I HAD HIGH HOPES FOR TEA BARTY BACKED CANDIDATES BUT IS SEEMS AS THOUGH THEY HAVE CAUGHT POTOMOC FEVER AND IT HAS AFFECTED THEIR MEMORIES. THEY HAVE BEEN A DISAPPOINTMENT AND UNWILLING TO FOLLOW THROUGH AND BE DECISIVE.
Washington politicians such as Michelle Bachman, Cantor & others used the T.P. to further thir own political aspirations. You were used. It's as simple as that.
Do not be foolish. First, the new Congress is making actual cuts, not just cutting the rate of increase. Second, it makes no sense to complain about the current budget, particularly when the cuts will exceed $30 billion even if a compromise is reached. Third, the big question and all energy ought to be devoted to the next budget which is the 2012 to be introduced soon. Fourth, for those with limited math skills, it should be mentioned that the Republicans control but one third of the Legislative and Executive branches. So, lets get real about realistic accomplishments. The goal for those who want to limit government has to be to defeat Obama in the next election. This business of fragmentation, third parties, etc.,will simply lead to his reelection.
Unless the Republicans show they have learned their lessons and show some backbone, there WILL be a third party to represent the conservative/libertarian viewpoint, and yes, there will be a reelection of the current administration if that happens.
Third parties don't succeed. Changes must come from the major parties. But when the major parties both take the approach that the government must solve everyone's personal problems the electorate has been given no real choice.
Conservatives/libertarians/"Reagan Democrats"/ have become fed up with Republican leadership. In New York Gov. Patacki, after the first 18 months or so, became just as much a big spender/big government type as his predecessor. . . . The same for Pres. Bush, except that at least his predecessor, Pres. Clinton, gave us a balanced budget. Corporate welfare (or "incentives") is just as obnoxious as the personal "entitlement" mentality. The Republicans blew their credibility under Pres. Bush. We can disagree about the war, but there was no need for the prescription drug program, no need to keep the borders porous (while hypocritically waging a war on terror), and no need for TARP.
Cutting less than 1% of the budget is NO accomplishment... and is not what the Republicans were sent to Washington for. If the Democrats don't like the cuts the Republicans have proposed, then let them come up with Their Own list. That gives them an awful lot of latitude and plenty of room for compromises. If they don't want to do that, then let the government shut down.
If the Republicans are willing to settle for less than a 1% cut in the budget, they stand for nothing. There is no point in giving them more power in 2012.
George Washington warned us of the dangers to a two-party system. I wish American voters would quit the cookie-cutter mentality, it just feeds the apathy.
The two party system has brought us the most stable political system and the most prosperous country in the world.
George Washington and many other Founders actually thought there would be no need for any political parties. He envisioned a nation of democratic consensus led by the most talented and able.
I have to agree with the Anonymous before the last. Compare the government in Italy with ours. Wonderful country, but government there always seems to be in turmoil. The focus on 2 major parties here has made things relatively predictable . . . stable . . . which encourages people to be productive.
The problems here now are two fold. (1) Both parties have become "Big Government" parties, one favoring social welfare programs which become a way of life for some, the other favoring big multinational businesses where the government's power over commerce is co-opted for the benefit of connected companies. The average person who does not want the government involved in their life gets lost in the shuffle. (2) The parties have become too partisan. Who they are and the rhetoric they use is all that matters. No one is working to solve problems.
It's impossible to accept the conclussion that no one is working on solving problems. Paul Ryan on behalf of his party's members on the budget committee have formulated the most ambitious problem solving approach put forth in a long time. And, one can't seriously suggest that Obama hasn't worked to solve problems. He and his party passed the most comrehensive health related legislation in the history of our government. You may love or hate the efforts but the arguement of no one working to solve problems does not hold water. One may wish that they worked less to solve problems.
I stand corrected, Anonymous. Mr. Ryan is working hard to solve the debt crisis . . . Hopefully he will be listened to.
I have an objection to saying that President Clinton gave us a balanced budget. That's a little like saying Marcia Clark achieved the acquittal of OJ Simpson. President Clinton fought as hard as he could against spending cuts and budget balancing. He said balancing the budget was impossible and the attempt would "ruin the economy."
As I recall, Keith is correct although the 1993 budget deal did take place prior to the 94 congressional change. So, their had to be some give in Clinton. But, what really balanced the budget was the tech bubble boom and the Republican cut of capital gains that brought in unprecedented revenue. Clinton was there to benefit from both that he had little to do with. I guess that's why my pappy always said it was much better to be lucky than smart.
Post a Comment