after four decades as the minority party in both houses of Congress, Republicans finally gained control in 1994, a direct result of the Newt Gingrich "Contract with america" which promised to balance the federal budget for the first time since 1960 under Eisenhower. Six years later, in 2000, Republicans delivered on that promise with the first balanced budget in 40 years.
In other words, the federal government operated in the red (deficit spending) for 40 years under a Democrat dominated Congress. This alone makes any claim that Democrats are in any way concerned with deficit spending, disingenuous at best.
Democrats have attempted to give Bill Clinton credit for the 2000 balanced budget. But a brief lesson in how the U.S. Government functions will debunk any such notion. No president has the power to single-handedly spend a penny, raise a penny through taxation, or balance a budget. In america, Congress and Congress alone has the power of the purse strings, for better or for worse.
That brings me to today, when a Republican controlled Congress has since outspent liberals by a huge margin. It goes without saying, or at least it should, that much of this spending was not an option at all post 9/11. as has been the case many times in history, Republican administrations almost always find themselves needing to rebuild military and intelligence infrastructure on the heels of a Democrat controlled White House that always redirects such resources toward social spending, leaving national security lacking.
The events of 9/11 might have been a direct result of diverting resources away from national security spending and towards social programs. Certainly, a huge portion of the rebuilding expense is a direct result of those events and the need to fund a counter-terrorism offensive on an international scale.
But what about all the other increased spending? a Republican controlled Congress now holds the not-so-distinguished honor of being the biggest social spending Congress in U.S. history, according to USa Today, who points out "a sweeping expansion of social programs since 2000 has sparked a record increase in the number of americans receiving federal government benefits such as college aid, food stamps and health care."
Dennis Cauchon at USa Today makes a pretty convincing case that the Bush administration's compassionate conservatism (supported by a Republican Congress), isn't really conservative at all, leading our Republican Congress to develop spending habits that would embarrass even most liberals. Of course, this news makes any claim that the Bush administration or Republicans don't care about the down-trodden or poor in this nation, disingenuous if not completely insane as well.
"It was the largest five-year expansion of the federal safety net since the Great Society created programs such as Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s." says Mr. Cauchon, which raises a few very interesting questions… How in the world can anyone honestly accuse this administration or this Congress of not responding to the needs of the little people? More importantly, if this record social spending isn't enough, how much would be enough?
Most importantly, since we clearly can't afford what we are already spending, (as even most Democrats seem to agree), how are we going to afford even more under a Democrat controlled Congress whose entire campaign for power rests in the hands of their carefully trained federal dependents, always eager to shove their way to the federal trough?
Social spending now accounts for more than 50% of the entire federal budget. That federal budget now breaks down to a per household tax burden of more than $20,000 per year. This is current spending only, which does not account for the already existing national debt, which breaks down to another $30,000 in past federal debt per american. This explains why 50% of american households (those at or below $30,000 annual income) pay little to no taxes at all today. They can't afford to. So those making above $30,000 per year (the rich), now pay more than 96.5% of the nation's tax burden, according to the IRS.
Still, according to liberals, those making above $30,000 per year "are not paying their fair share", and those making below $30,000 per year are getting screwed by the so-called rich establishment, who is now officially making your average drunken sailor look like a penny pincher…
Six months from now, the 2006 mid-term elections will focus once again on the topic of whether or not we are doing enough for those making less than $30,000 per year (the poor). Liberals will campaign on their 60-year-old platform of caring more about the little people than the Republicans do. But this time, Republicans have trumped the Democratic class warfare strategy by simply outspending them, like a drunken Kennedy for the last six years.
The problem is - Republicans have now spent the nation even further into bankruptcy in their effort to remove the issue of social conscience (class warfare) from the political debate, which is not what conservative voters sent them to Washington to accomplish. as a result, the conservative base of the new (BIG TENT) Republican Party is now beginning to wander how a Democrat controlled Congress could possibly be any worse?
So I will remind you how… by repeating that which you would otherwise know, if not blinded by your rage over the recent fiscal compassion of too many conservatives (RINO's) - according to liberals, those making above $30,000 per year "are not paying their fair share", and those making below $30,000 per year are getting screwed by the so-called rich establishment, who is now officially making your average drunken sailor look like a penny pincher… Despite all the current great news that more americans than ever in history, are cashing in at the federal trough, courtesy of those greedy tight -fisted rich folks making more than $30,000 per year, liberals will still seek to buy votes in November with the promise of even more social spending.
(It's the only trick they know….and the one thing they are good at.)
Now that we are clear on that, must I point out that the division created amongst conservatives in 1992 and 1996, causing the conservative vote to be split between (read my lips) Bush Sr. and (fiscal graph king) Ross Perot, led to eight years of the world's most perfect politician, Bubba Clinton? (Perfect politician--a term most liberals consider a compliment.)
People "in the know" (those literate enough to recognize the anti-america socialist agenda of the lamestream press, able to think independently, with a generous grasp of the obvious), can spout off a myriad of very valid reasons why anyone who is not a conservative, isn't even an option today, even if they are Republican. Unfortunately, this only accounts for about 51% of the voting population, according to the 2004 election.
The other 49%, the Federal Dependents Party (otherwise known as Democrats), a vast collection of Bush-bashing, anti-capitalist, moral misfits who can't seem to manage even the most basic functions of life without the assistance of our over-bloated disaster of a federal government, will seek to hoist their socialist heroes from the DNC back into power come November.
It is vital that america's conservatives realize that liberals can't do it without the help of conservatives though. Only with a divided conservative electorate, can progressive-socialists (operating under the guise of Democrats,) hope to regain any political power right now.
Conservatives united in their common interests (including removing RINOS from power) have nothing to fear in 2006 or 2008. But divided, they face a very real eminent threat of unwittingly allowing socialist-progressives back into power.
I'd like to think they are smarter than that! (Post Bubba this is.)
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement