Has The GOP Lost it's Soul??

[Bonnie]

Mark Tapscott
August 13, 2005

President Reagan often said it’s hard to recall that you came to drain the swamp when you’re up to your armpits in alligators. Republicans like Rep. Don Young of Alaska would rather use your tax dollars to build a scenic bridge to the swamp.

Hard as it is to believe, Young is more in tune with the GOP that rules Congress today than the former president who restored the party to national power in 1980 when he won the White House and a Republican Senate.

Their differences are nowhere more evident than on limiting government and reducing federal spending. Reagan said in his first inaugural speech that “government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Today, Young crows about the $286.4 billion transportation bill to The New York Times, saying he “stuffed it like a turkey.”

These differences didn’t start with Young, though. Republicans took over Congress in 1994 promising in the “Contract with America” to cut taxes, reduce federal spending and eliminate unneeded bureaucracy. They’ve used the same message to retain majorities in both chambers for all but a couple of the succeeding years.

Despite the GOP majority and its promises, federal spending – including wasteful pork barrel projects – has skyrocketed to record levels, especially as President Bush won the White House in 2000, the GOP kept the House and regained the Senate in 2002 and Bush gained re-election in 2004.

Federal outlays are going up so fast that in 2004 for the first time since World War II Washington spent more than $21,000 per household but collected only about $18,000 in revenue, causing budget deficits to explode. The rate of increase in spending was faster only during the “guns and butter” era of the Vietnam War and LBJ’s Great Society programs, according to figures compiled by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.

Simply put, the GOP majority has been spending federal tax dollars like drunken sailors since 2001, increasing outlays by an average of 7.25 percent annually. Inflation increased by a mere 2.0 percent average in those same years.

Bush has basically stepped aside, not once exercising his veto, compared to 78 vetoes by Reagan, who had to deal with powerful Democrat majorities in the House throughout his White House years.

Having a president who won’t veto unleashes the big spenders. That transportation bill that Bush accepted and Young stuffed contained more than 6,500 “earmarks’ – i.e. pork barrel projects. Reagan vetoed a 1987 transportation bill with a mere 152 projects.



The same stuffing pattern is seen in other legislation like the recently enacted energy bill that is “chock-full of corporate subsidies, targeted tax breaks, and other special interest handouts,” according to Citizens Against Government Waste. Since 2003, the overall earmarks total has zoomed from 8,341 to nearly 14,000, the group recently told The Washington Post.

As for limiting government, the federal establishment is as complicated, duplicative and inefficient as ever, despite more than a decade of GOP majorities in Congress and several years of GOP control of both the White House and Congress.

Washington has 342 separate economic development programs, 130 programs serving the disabled, 130 programs for at-risk youth, 90 early childhood development programs, 75 programs funding international education, cultural and training exchanges, 72 programs for assuring safe water and so on and so on and so on, according to The Heritage Foundation’s Brian Riedl.

Most worrisome about this GOP addiction to pork is that it undermines the party’s credibility as the entitlements crisis caused by the retirement of the Baby Boomers draws ever closer.

Medicare has nearly $30 trillion in unfounded mandates. Social Security faces annual deficits in excess of $100 billion beginning sometime around 2018. Add government employee pension obligations and those assumed from Fortune 500 corporations by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Commission and there will be no alternative to steeply higher taxes and major benefit cuts. Social, economic and financial chaos will follow, just as Reagan predicted in 1981.

Reagan expressed the GOP’s soul when he said “it is my intention to curb the size and influence of the federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the federal government and those reserved to the states or to the people.” Progress was slow and sometimes reversed, but Reagan kept up the pressure.
Reagan’s GOP heirs are wasting his legacy.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/marktapscott/printmt20050813.shtml

 

[William Joyce]

It's so true, but here's what's tough: the people who make noise generally don't give a rip if you're a Republican or a Democrat or have any principles whatsoever. They care if you deliver the goods. There's pressure on every member of Congress to get as much pork for the home district as possible. It's a zero-sum game: if you don't, the Congresman from the next district over will. Why should your district "lose out" to the other one? But it's a big lose-lose game, because nobody really accounts for the good of the nation as a whole that way, just their own district. If you go to Congress "on principle," conservative or liberal, you'll get your head eaten off by the jackals. Nobody will support you, fund your campaign, etc. It's a damn dirty game that everyone plays, or has to play, to stay alive.

THIS is why the founding fathers were skeptical of democracy. And no, America isn't a "democracy." It's a republic, which is different. Pure "democracy" just drags everything down the lowest common denominator. And that is very, very low.

 

[deaddude]

The GOP had a soul!!

sorry couldn't help it

 

[Nuc]

I think the GOP lost its Soul when Aretha Franklin and James Brown defected to the Green Party.

 

[hylandrdet]

Mark Tapscott
August 13, 2005





http://www.townhall.com/columnists/marktapscott/printmt20050813.shtml

You must remember that Ronald was a former Democrat; all he did was to instill the democratic economic values into the Republican party.

The republican party has a history of making bad economic decisions.

America is a nation that judges presidents by our economy. Bill Clinton is more popular than GW, despite all of the controversies, because he left the White House as the nation was in an economic boom.

This isn't about morality, it's about money. The Republican party "lost its soul" when they finally got it; a strong sense of national morality is a "want", a strong national economy is a "need". This means compromise. Deal!

 

[Annie]

You must remember that Ronald was a former Democrat; all he did was to instill the democratic economic values into the Republican party.

The republican party has a history of making bad economic decisions.

America is a nation that judges presidents by our economy. Bill Clinton is more popular than GW, despite all of the controversies, because he left the White House as the nation was in an economic boom.

This isn't about morality, it's about money. The Republican party "lost its soul" when they finally got it; a strong sense of national morality is a "want", a strong national economy is a "need". This means compromise. Deal!

LOL Finally a Democrat that tries to claim Reagan as one of its own.

 

[hylandrdet]

LOL Finally a Democrat that tries to claim Reagan as one of its own.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html

"As president of the Screen Actors Guild, Reagan became embroiled in disputes over the issue of Communism in the film industry; his political views shifted from liberal to conservative."

Yes, he was a liberal once; I considered him a moderate, not a conservative, because his actions were supported by the "Reagan Democrats". He had proven himself to be a man of compromise. Maybe your party should take notes from Reagan.

 

[Annie]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html

"As president of the Screen Actors Guild, Reagan became embroiled in disputes over the issue of Communism in the film industry; his political views shifted from liberal to conservative."

Yes, he was a liberal once; I considered him a moderate, not a conservative, because his actions were supported by the "Reagan Democrats". He had proven himself to be a man of compromise. Maybe your party should take notes from Reagan.

Ahem, maybe YOURS should...

 

[Gunny]

LOL Finally a Democrat that tries to claim Reagan as one of its own.

Nah ... he's just trying to claim Reagan's good points as liberal values. I have to admit, it IS a twist I haven't heard before.

 

[Gunny]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html

"As president of the Screen Actors Guild, Reagan became embroiled in disputes over the issue of Communism in the film industry; his political views shifted from liberal to conservative."

Yes, he was a liberal once; I considered him a moderate, not a conservative, because his actions were supported by the "Reagan Democrats". He had proven himself to be a man of compromise. Maybe your party should take notes from Reagan.

Compromise to Democrats: "Our way or we obstruct."

 

[Bonnie]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html

"As president of the Screen Actors Guild, Reagan became embroiled in disputes over the issue of Communism in the film industry; his political views shifted from liberal to conservative."

Yes, he was a liberal once; I considered him a moderate, not a conservative, because his actions were supported by the "Reagan Democrats". He had proven himself to be a man of compromise. Maybe your party should take notes from Reagan.

Actually I think Regan was a man of solid principles who had the gift of persuading those in the opposition to see things his way. Compromise had very little to do with it, he was a champ in the ring of winning over minds and hearts for the good of everyone. Peace thru strength and massive tax cuts was never anything even remotely resembling compromise to his foes. What he did do was convince the few moderate democrats to sign on to his agenda giving him the edge along with his Republican co-patriots to actually get some very positive things done.

The only reason Clinton had a low deficit was because he enacted huge tax raises and cut military spending? I fail to see the genious in that?? :huh:

 

[Annie]

Actually I think Regan was a man of solid principles who had the gift of persuading those in the opposition to see things his way. Compromise had very little to do with it, he was a champ in the ring of winning over minds and hearts for the good of everyone. Peace thru strength and massive tax cuts was never anything even remotely resembling compromise to his foes. What he did do was convince the few moderate democrats to sign on to his agenda giving him the edge along with his Republican co-patriots to actually get some very positive things done.

The only reason Clinton had a low deficit was because he enacted huge tax raises and cut military spending? I fail to see the genious in that?? :huh:

I'm no economic wizard, but as I understand it Clinton's low deficit was a result of falling interest rates the world over. The absolute level of monies due was lowered as a result-thus the 'surplus' that was a chimera, as Clinton and his policies had nothing to do with it.

 

[Bonnie]

I'm no economic wizard, but as I understand it Clinton's low deficit was a result of falling interest rates the world over. The absolute level of monies due was lowered as a result-thus the 'surplus' that was a chimera, as Clinton and his policies had nothing to do with it.

Neither am I, but I agree Clinton had some advantages, low interest rates one of them, he also benefited from an economic upswing when he assumed office that was already percolating under Bush Sr ..add that to the giant tax hikes he inplemented which produced a temporary surge in revenues going to the government paired with short term bonds that were very overinflated. Difference was that Clinton created a robust economy only in theory.

 

[NATO AIR]

Compromise to Democrats: "Our way or we obstruct."

Up until this year, I really used to think the Democrats weren't so bad, but now I see, as you say, that is how they operate, much to the country's detriment.

I think the GOP is in for some real soul searching in the future, and I just hope that what has happened to the Democrats after Clinton's terms does not happen to the Republicans as well after 2008.

 

[Annie]

Up until this year, I really used to think the Democrats weren't so bad, but now I see, as you say, that is how they operate, much to the country's detriment.

I think the GOP is in for some real soul searching in the future, and I just hope that what has happened to the Democrats after Clinton's terms does not happen to the Republicans as well after 2008.

I agree with both of you. At the same time, I think the GOP needs to find some leadership-something that has 'soul.'

If they are the party of 'minimal taxes' they need to stop the highway bill laden with pork. They need to let the states handle education-stop the unfunded mandates-they are causing too many problems. The Feds should do what they do best-national security, first concentration should be on making sure our military has what they need, including compensation and benefits. Second should be securing our borders.

 

[NATO AIR]

I agree with both of you. At the same time, I think the GOP needs to find some leadership-something that has 'soul.'

If they are the party of 'minimal taxes' they need to stop the highway bill laden with pork. They need to let the states handle education-stop the unfunded mandates-they are causing too many problems. The Feds should do what they do best-national security, first concentration should be on making sure our military has what they need, including compensation and benefits. Second should be securing our borders.

Yes, the winning 2008 GOP presidental candidate needs to come through the primary process with a party unified in the understanding that;

-immigration must be fixed, harshly if necessary
-a recalibration of fed and state responsibilties is needed
-the education field must be revamped, especially high school
-the culture war is over... sensible actions that seek common ground in morality and law must be found on issues like abortion, gay rights and stem-cells.

Otherwise, you're gonna have TWO torn apart parties and we'll have to pray someone comes along that can take the middle...we cannot let the republican party betray itself and stake its future with the far right, as the democrats are already doing with the far left.

 

[007]

Yes, the winning 2008 GOP presidental candidate needs to come through the primary process with a party unified in the understanding that;

-immigration must be fixed, harshly if necessary
-a recalibration of fed and state responsibilties is needed
-the education field must be revamped, especially high school
-the culture war is over... sensible actions that seek common ground in morality and law must be found on issues like abortion, gay rights and stem-cells.

Otherwise, you're gonna have TWO torn apart parties and we'll have to pray someone comes along that can take the middle...we cannot let the republican party betray itself and stake its future with the far right, as the democrats are already doing with the far left.

Yes, yes, and yes. I agree with you N.A.. And something else, I couldn't help but notice your avatar. It HAS to be picture of Salma Hayek. She's one of my all time favorites. She's a very fine looking woman...

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Nato Air:
Up until this year, I really used to think the Democrats weren't so bad, but now I see, as you say, that is how they operate, much to the country's detriment.

I think the GOP is in for some real soul searching in the future, and I just hope that what has happened to the Democrats after Clinton's terms does not happen to the Republicans as well after 2008.

You've got to be kidding. Since the Reps have taken over the rest of the world holds China in a higher regard than the US. With the war in Iraq, we've shown the world we are a country of arrogant hypocrits. The only soul the Reps have is on the bottom of their goose-stepping boots. But the Dems aren't that much better, but you want more of that?

Its funny how immoral our country has become since we started mixing church and state. Personnaly, I do not want my tax dollars being spent on non-issues like gay marriage or the Ten Commandments shown on public property. I couldn't give a rats ass who marry's who. Its nobodys god-damn business who marry's who, except the two people that are getting married.

People void of soul have no ethics or morality. Which has now made its way into US foreign policy. Thanks to tyrannical neo's and a Congress that doesn't have the stones to do its job and impeach the shrub, we get to spend 5 billion a month for our soul.

We have an opportunity in the next election to balance things out. We need equal representation on both sides to get us going in the right direction again.

 

[Nuc]

Yes, yes, and yes. I agree with you N.A.. And something else, I couldn't help but notice your avatar. It HAS to be picture of Salma Hayek. She's one of my all time favorites. She's a very fine looking woman...

Absolutely! But has anyone checked her green card status? We don't want any more filthy wetbacks in this country!

 

[Bonnie]

What other famous people have become naturalized citizens and when?
"Normally, due to privacy, we cannot name individuals and their immigration status," Sebrects said. However, all the following have appeared in news articles:

Gabe Lopez Jr., upholsterer from "American Hot Rod: the Series," and Lupita Del Castillo, on-air personality for the regional Hispanic station, La Raza, 97.9 FM, became U.S. citizens on April 29.

Other notables include actor Pierce Brosnan, Jim Carrey and Salma Hayek-Jimenez -- all in 2004; Arnold Schwarzenegger, 1983; Carlos Santana, 1965 and Alexander Graham Bell, 1882.

http://u.dailybulletin.com/Stories/0,1413,212%7E23480%7E2941057,00.html