Commentary: GOP's "small government" talk is hollow

[Wolf]

Commentary: GOP's "small government" talk is hollow

PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- As the budget debate heats up, Republicans are warning of socialism in the White House and claiming that Democrats are rushing back to their dangerous tonic of big government.

.....

After the past eight years in American politics, it is impossible to reconcile current promises by conservatives for small government with the historical record of President Bush's administration. Most experts on the left and right can find one issue upon which to agree: The federal government expanded significantly after 2001 when George W. Bush was in the White House.

The growth did not just take place with national security spending but with domestic programs as well. Even as the administration fought to reduce the cost of certain programs by preventing cost-of-living increases in benefits, in many other areas of policy -- such as Medicare prescription drug benefits, federal education standards and agricultural subsidies -- the federal government expanded by leaps and bounds. And then there are the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Commentary: GOP's "small government" talk is hollow - CNN.com

 

[editec]

The only smaller government the Republicans did was to starve those offices which were regulating business.

That's worked out real well, hasn't it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no difference between Repudlicans and Dimocrats [stet]

The only time they pretend to be different is during an election cycle.

 

[DiamondDave]

The only smaller government the Republicans did was to starve those offices which were regulating business.

That's worked out real well, hasn't it?

Inherently false

No.. some regulation that protects the rights of individuals AND the businesses is all well and fine... SOME environmental regulation is fine... etc... but not stranglehold regulation

And lord knows conservatives call for smaller government in terms of entitlement programs, spending on useless shit (no more fucking pig stink research, NEA, etc)...

Government HAS way overstepped it's boundaries in terms of original intent and even the basic premise of what it was set up for



That being said.. there are indeed GOPers who talk empty... they call for just as many earmarks as the DEMs, all the while screaming about smaller govt and less spending... you will find hypocrites EVERYWHERE... and those are precisely the type of GOPers I would love to see replaced and beat with true conservatives

 

[xsited1]

The author of this commentary makes at least 2 major mistakes:

1. All Republicans are not Conservatives
2. CATO is not "right-wing."

However, he's dead-on here:

"Fifty years of American history have shown that even the party that traditionally advocates small government on the campaign trail opts for big government when it gets into power."

This is precisely why Obama won the election. America leans right of center, yet a Leftist like Obama gets elected because conservatives don't have a voice.

 

[editec]

There is no difference between Repudlicans and Dimocrats [stet]

The only time they pretend to be different is during an election cycle.

Yes, mostly true.

The differences are more about style and marginal points than anything fundamental.

I quite agree.

But I think we can expect to see those regulatory bodies NOT being starved for funding to do their jobs as they HAD been during the Bush II admin.

And that is one of those minor differences between the party's motus operandi, which might have made a world of difference to us had BUSH II not hated (and underfunded) regulatory bodies.

We HAVE to regulate business, folks.

If you're witnessing what is happening now, and that isn't obvious to you by now, then I do not know what it would take to give you a grasp of reality.

We need to regulate businesses for the same damned reason we need to put traffic lights at intersections, folks.

Not to stop all traffic, but to keep it moving smoothly and with a a minimum of accidents and tragic collisions.

 

[Immanuel]

No elected politician wants a smaller government. Many of them like to talk the talk, but none of them want to walk the walk. Non-elected conservatives want smaller government. Everyone else in America wants to believe that we can just keep spending money that we don't have and by doing so, every thing will remain peachy-keen. Some day our credit will run out and then we are going to be up shit creek without a paddle.

Immie

PS Please ignore all those cliche's

 

[auditor0007]

The author of this commentary makes at least 2 major mistakes:

1. All Republicans are not Conservatives
2. CATO is not "right-wing."

However, he's dead-on here:

"Fifty years of American history have shown that even the party that traditionally advocates small government on the campaign trail opts for big government when it gets into power."

This is precisely why Obama won the election. America leans right of center, yet a Leftist like Obama gets elected because conservatives don't have a voice.

Part of the problem is that fiscal conservatives and social conservatives are not of the same cloth. We need more fiscal conservatives.

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no difference between Repudlicans and Dimocrats [stet]

The only time they pretend to be different is during an election cycle.

Yes, mostly true.

The differences are more about style and marginal points than anything fundamental.

I quite agree.

But I think we can expect to see those regulatory bodies NOT being starved for funding to do their jobs as they HAD been during the Bush II admin.

And that is one of those minor differences between the party's motus operandi, which might have made a world of difference to us had BUSH II not hated (and underfunded) regulatory bodies.

We HAVE to regulate business, folks.

If you're witnessing what is happening now, and that isn't obvious to you by now, then I do not know what it would take to give you a grasp of reality.

We need to regulate businesses for the same damned reason we need to put traffic lights at intersections, folks.

Not to stop all traffic, but to keep it moving smoothly and with a a minimum of accidents and tragic collisions.

Actually, GW didn't starve any regulatory bodies.

Red Tape Rising: Regulatory Trends in the Bush Years

The rhetoric is alarming, but it does not fit the facts. Far from shrinking to dangerously low levels, regulation has actually grown substantially during the Bush years. By almost every measure, regulatory burdens are up

Critics of Bush Administration regulatory policy have argued that budget cuts are evidence that restric*tions are being loosened. Yet according to an analy*sis by George Mason University's Mercatus Center and Washington University's Weidenbaum Center, appropriations for federal regulatory agencies have increased during the Bush years from $27 billion in FY 2001 to $44.9 billion in FY 2007—a 44 percent increase in inflation-adjusted dollars.

So if regulation increases and the funding for regulation increases, but we still have problems like economic booms and busts, what does it mean?

maybe the government shouldn't be trying to micromanage the economy.

 

[Xenophon]

There is no difference between Repudlicans and Dimocrats [stet]

The only time they pretend to be different is during an election cycle.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

BTW, it's a joke to keep trying to compare asshat Bush to BO, when BO is going all out to increase Bush's mistakes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Diamond Dave;

and those are precisely the type of GOPers I would love to see replaced and beat with true conservatives
.................................................................

Now Dave, I am pretty liberal, but I don't think that I would call for the beating of either true or false conservatives.

 

[editec]

Expecting people who are usually lifetime members of the government to REALLY eschew bigger stronger more expensive government is rather than expecting the KING to object to monarchism.

The average rank and file Republican objects to big government, and I think that is true without doubt.

So, frankly, does your average Dems in most cases.

But our POLS ARE the government and they're not about the business of giving away the power that their positions give them.

Doesn't matter which party we're talking about here.

 

[amrchaos]

One thing to point out.

We are posting on our concept of what government should do. Has anyone ever thought about what government actually is?

When you finally go back over that concept, you will develop a hefty distrust of government.

To paraphrase an earlier comment "Government should protect rights of individuals and businesses". I am probably a bit to the left of you and I recognize the fallacy in that statement!! Why should Government do so? Governments job is to maintain order why not letting on that it is oppressing you. It may act as if it protects yours and your business rights--but it only does that to help ease its ability of maintaining the general order and control.

But if oppressing you is necessary to do this--watch those judges interpret the constitution in ways that will make your head spin and blood boil.