On New Conservatism
I'm trying to poke my head out a little less with regard to politics, simply because I'm tired of arguing about it, but this has to be seen. Rep. Ron Paul (R- Tex) wrote in his column this week:
"True limited government conservatives have been co-opted by the rise of the neoconservatives in Washington. The neoconservatives- a name they gave themselves- are largely hardworking, talented people who have worked their way into positions of power in Washington...They have successfully moved the Republican party away from the Goldwater-era platform of frugal government at home and nonintervention abroad, toward a big-government, world empire mentality more reminiscent of Herbert Hoover or Woodrow Wilson. In doing so, they have proven that their ideas are neither new nor conservative."
Then come back and explain to me why we shouldn't kick out the current administration at the end of the term.
***
Randy has asked in the comments below if I could explain my current frustrations a little more clearly. Currently in the White House, we have a President who believes that he's ordained by God to lead the American people, while at the same time issuing tax cuts that don't make sense in light of $400 billion spent on a poorly design Medicare overhaul and another $87 billion for Iraq. The Republicans under Bush and DeLay and Frist/Lott have engaged in a massive increase in government over the average citizen, not to mention the creation of the largest department in 50 years.
So much for smaller government, I guess.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341ca44053ef00e550277b4e8833
A Raw Deal for All
Funny thing. I do some of my best thinking in the shower, and this morning I wondered what Ron Paul...
Comments:
Why we should do so, or should not? Based on your post, I would guess that you are in favor of doing so.
Posted by Randy H. on November 25, 2003 — 2:34 PM
Your almost right. The questions is not why was there a tax cut, and why is the medicare expansion so expensive. The questions should be...
1. Whay was the taxcut so small?
2. Why is there medicare?
PS - I know the real answer, to buy votes.
Posted by Chris on November 25, 2003 — 3:32 PM
To answer 2:
So lower-income people don't die for lack or medical care.
Wow, that was simple.
Posted by Joseph J. Finn on November 25, 2003 — 4:15 PM
Actually, Joseph, that's Medicaid, which is a slightly different program. Medicare is for old people who didn't plan for retirement. ;)
Posted by Tiff on November 25, 2003 — 4:47 PM
Now Tiff, let's not give Chris any odd ideas. ;)
Posted by Joseph J. Finn on November 25, 2003 — 7:31 PM
Medicare was started in the late 60's early 70's right? I'd love for Mr. Finn to provide some documented evidence of scores of old or poor people dying in the streets of America in the 50's and early 60's. Since he seems to believe only government can provide healthcare for old people they must have been piling up bodies in the streets pre-Medicare.
Also - the dramatic rise in health care costs started in the mid to late 70's, shortly after Medicare. Coincidence? Hardly. You take a reletively finite resource like healthcare and artifically make it low to no cost, and demand will rise dramatically against a stable supply and poof, prices go up.
There is a good side to the prescription drug bill though. All seniors will be able to start taking Viagra and other lifestyle drugs. Should be some investment opportunities there if you can pick the companies that will milk the most out of the system.
Posted by CHris on November 26, 2003 — 9:47 AM
This administration has done several things outside of traditional conservatism. Increasing entitlements, moving towards protectionism, and expanding government.
While I contend that I would prefer to see a more traditionally conservative candidate, he is the incumbent and there are no alternatives. The Leftists on the other side of the ticket, are not capable of protecting our country and outside of the tax breaks, would do exactly what GW is doing. So, what choice do you have?
I think overall GW is a good President, but he is allowing his policy advisors to steer him from his traditional stance on the economy and government.
The Medicare bill, the farm subsidies, the education bill, the steel tariffs, the threats against China on tariffs, all are bad for this country and the economy.
I still contend, however, there is no better choice for President. Personally I think a strong Libertarian candidate would be a nice change of pace.
Posted by Jeff Stark on November 26, 2003 — 10:22 AM
The only reason not to kick 'em out is that there's nothing better to vote for.
Posted by Jamie on November 26, 2003 — 1:39 PM
Perhaps its time we resurrected John McCain then
Posted by Tom Bridge on November 26, 2003 — 1:42 PM
Now, I am not sure that is the only reason to not kick him out. I think he is a right on with tax cuts, with national security, with foreign policy, and especially with his stance against the UN.
Also, he is not alone in this debacle. The House and the Senate are just as guilty. They are voting party line. Just because a Republican President wants something, that does not make it right. Kudos to the Republican Congressman that stood strong on the Energy bill. But how long will it last?
Tom, I am not sure McCaine is the answer either. He swings toward the liberals on a lot of social issues, that I just don’t agree with.
Posted by Jeff Stark on November 26, 2003 — 2:54 PM