Last November, the Democrats took a majority in Congress, and I don’t have enough space in this column to talk about all of the reasons why that is terrible news for America. I will simply say that if you consider the ideological perspective of Nancy Pelosi, the newly minted Speaker of the House of Representatives, you would see that she has a vision of a much larger role for the federal government than was ever envisioned by our nation’s founding fathers. Or to put it more succinctly, the freedom, liberty and property of all of the people of this great nation are imperiled by her view of a larger and more invasive role of the federal government. Needless to say, it should be a top priority for all Americans who believe in a truly limited role for our national government to rally together to ensure that the reign of Pelosi lasts precisely two years, and no more. Right?
Herein lies the big challenge ahead in doing just that. Nancy Pelosi and the Party of Clinton did not achieve a majority in Congress because they were just better campaigners than the Republicans — in a very large measure, Democrats gained control of Congress because Republicans lost their way. We have already written a lot on this page about the incredible growth in the size and scope of the federal government during the time that Republicans controlled the Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. Since 2001, federal spending is up 41% according to the well-regarded Heritage Foundation. If Republicans in Congress are looking for reasons as to why they are now in the minority, they need only look in the mirror.
We all know that alcoholism is a disease, and that it requires a tremendous amount of ongoing commitment by someone with this disorder to beat it, and to keep that desire or appetite for a drink in check. Many fail to do so — yet many are able to meet this difficult challenge. Before you wonder why I have introducing a seeming non sequitur into this column (going from spending addition to alcohol addiction), let me connect the dots.
The Republican Majority that lost the House last November suffered from an addiction to spending money — they were ‘spendaholics’ who were so caught up in a cycle of delivering pork for district projects, and appeasing the Republican lobbyists on K-Street that they lost sight of the reason they achieved the majority — which was to undo decades of growth that had taken place under the reign of liberal Democrats. Instead of coming to the rescue of taxpayers, Republicans piled on. A bad situation became worse.
**There is more – click the link**
January 15th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jon…good post…and as you would suspect…you know I think that your thoughts on spending are only part of the problem. The other was a complete disconnect between Main Street and Congressional Republicans. As I have said before, they not only lost their ideological way but they lost the sense of humility needed to foster the courage to lead. Free vacations, Earmarks for former colleagues…all means the same to average Joe. Unlike our situation in California where the seats are so safe, there is hope for Congressional Republicans because some of the seats we lost are again winnable –only if they listen.
January 15th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Great article Jon – The Republican disregard for the taxpayers has been an embarrassment. The current fissure amongst the Republicans in the new Congress exposes those who will stand up for the taxpayers, and those that are in denial and refuse to change the culture in DC.
January 15th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jon, if you pardon the pun, I think the elephant in the room that not many conservatives want to talk about of why we lost…. was the Iraq War. It dovetails with the over spending issue that you just spoke about. We’ve been throwing billions of dollars at Iraq that could have been paying down our debt and used for other purposes.
January 15th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jon,
Dead on, with one notable omission: the utter degenerate, win-at-all-costs moral bankruptcy of the national Republican Party that allowed all of the symptoms you described to occur, plus the Mark Foley predator-enabling saga, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, etc. – not to mention blind support of the ongoing Iraq mess that (in its current form) only serves to prop up Bush’s delusions of adequacy.
January 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Republicans must go well beyond fiscal responsibility to regain trust of social conservatives. Welfare reform is largely a failure: marriage rates static and illegitimacy at record levels, because Republicans did what most Democrats would do: turn welfare into a child support entitlement and give CSE powers the IRS never imagined. Giving Biden sole control over VAWA was another fatal mistake. Lots of good men, good christians, and the larger social grassroots simply could not find one reason on earth to support Republicans. “Marriage Values” is a crucial element — similar to “family values” that brought about the landslide of 1992. But there is one major difference: family values is a cultural debate, “Marriage values” is a policy directive. This will give most Americans what they want and need, and is the one thing that will motivate an energized grassroots. Until Republicans grasp the reality that 70% of America is negatively impacted by the welfare state, and that “Marriage Values” provides real solutions for them, Republicans will lose elections. The classic “tax and spend” and “God and Country” campaigns simply won’t win any more.
See my many articles on this at http://www.newswithviews.com/Usher/davidA.htm
David R. Usher
Senior Policy Analyst
True Equality Network
January 16th, 2007 at 12:00 am
I would also point out that the inability to balance the budget is strongly connected to social entitlements amounting to 1/2-trillion in federal spending annually. It is fiscally impossible to provide free health care coverage for many millions of single mothers (who are 70% of the problem. When we stop destroying the marriage market with entitlements, the budget will be much easier to balance on an ongoing basis, while freeing up resources to fight the war on terror and secure our borders.
The main point: Economic conservatives cannot get what they want until they become very interested in “Marriage Values”, and adopt policies to let marriage do what it did best for a few thousand years prior to 1964.