Colin Powell offered some advice for the Republican Party. For many, the majority perhaps, it is sound advice. Speaking personally, as a conservative, I cannot help but think following his counsel would be as wise as prescribing a tranquilizer to a patient who has overdosed on tranquilizers… and just as fatal in the long term.
“The Republican Party is in deep trouble,” Powell recently told corporate security executives at a conference in Washington. The party must realize that the country has changed, he said. “Americans do want to pay taxes for services,” he said. “Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.”
What is someone like myself, a business owner who instinctively favors less government intrusion, less regulations and lower taxation to make of this? My first thought upon reading his remarks was this: “Well it’s official. Colin Powell is a Democrat.”
But then I thought, maybe I’m wrong. Maybe he really does represent what it means to be Republican now, in 2009. As I watched in dismay throughout the decade, the party I once called my own became a party of big government that would make Lyndon Johnson proud. In fact, the GOP left unfettered to govern as the “fiscally responsible” party, oversaw the greatest increase in the federal deficits and discretionary social spending in history. And yet Mr. Powell seems to think that this is what the people want, so the party needs to embrace a more, let’s just say it, liberal philosophy to stay relevant.
I speak only for myself when I say that if this is the case, if this is the direction the GOP must go, then it has lost me as a member for the foreseeable future. After all, what good is voting to put a group in power, if they do not exercise that power to steer the country in a direction I wish it to go? I want a country of smaller, less centralized government, less regulation, and less taxation. Those used to be considered good things. Those were the days. Sigh.
I stand amid the ruins of the once dominant Republican Party that currently has one of its most prominent members preaching the virtues of taxation and big government and I ask can this possibly be the same GOP of Ronald Reagan? Did we not come to gain the White House in 1980 and Congress in 1994 by espousing just the opposite agenda that Powell claims we must now embrace or be banished to the fringe as a party? Has America fundamentally changed so much in so short a time that one of my favorite Reaganisms: “Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives,” has become passé? Am I an anachronism? Do I no longer have a party I can call home?
The GOP lost me and many of my fellow conservatives because it sacrificed its credibility in the area of fiscal responsibility to try and maintain power through dispensing federal largess. It became that which it claimed to oppose: a party of lavish spending and expansive entitlements. For me the tipping point was the behemoth Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. MIMA was the most sweeping overhaul of that program in its 38 year history. Here was a bill introduced into the House by Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert and signed into law by Republican President George Bush. This was a bill with an estimated 10-year cost of roughly $400 billion. But within a month, after it was signed, its cost estimate was revised up to $534 billion. By early 2005, the White House Budget had increased the 10-year estimate to $1.2 trillion! Former US Comptroller General David M. Walker has called this “probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s… because we promise way more than we can afford to keep.” Enough said.
Thus was alienated this socially liberal but fiscally conservative Republican and many of his independent friends. We are voters who understand that such peripheral issues as gay marriage, prayer in schools, evolution, etc. though important to some, and even maybe to us personally, were nonetheless secondary matters for the states to sort out so long as the GOP ran the books responsibly. But when the GOP showed that it could run up deficits and social spending in a way some Democrats in the past could only dream of, there was no longer any appeal. Many of us disenchanted folks began using the terms “Democrans and Republicrats” interchangeably to refer to the parties.
I have an acquaintance who confided in me after the election while peering deep into a half drained tumbler of scotch that he actually, in his words, “held my nose and voted for Obama.” This man is a staunch conservative mind you. I asked him why and his answer was striking. He said he actually wanted the Republicans “to get clobbered so they would wake up and become once again the GOP we yearn for.” “Even if it takes twenty years to recover,” he told me, “the Obama victory may be the best thing that could happen to the party. It told them they can’t get away with this. They’re supposed to stand for something different!” And do not think that idea never crossed my mind. After all with John McCain at the head of the ticket, what was the difference between a true Democrat and a “Democrat Lite”? In the end my concerns over security issues like Islamic terrorism, rampant nukes, and troops in harm’s way all being addressed by what I see as Obama’s global naivete trumped my desire to teach the spend-thrift Republicans a lesson and kept me barely pulling the “R” lever in 2008. Plus I knew that as bad as the spending spree had been under the GOP, under an Obama White House and Democratic Congress it would be twice as bad. I was wrong… it has already turned out to be four times as bad and counting. But I digress.
Back to Colin Powell’s thesis, that Americans want to pay taxes and have more government. Perhaps Mr. Powell is right. Maybe we entrepreneurs and those who hold self-reliance as an American virtue are in the minority now. According to Gallup’s 2008 Economy and Personal Finance survey, since April 2003, Americans labeling the amount of taxes they will have to pay this year as “fair” has been at or above 60%. (So much for my dreams of a new tax revolt any time soon, national “Tea Parties” notwithstanding.)
But there are some numbers to be found in the polling that may put Mr. Powell’s claims to the test. Dissatisfaction with taxes remained substantial until January 2003, with over 60% claiming their tax burden was “too high.” In 2000, it was as high as 68% even. After 2003, however, this dipped significantly to 47% and has continued to remain relatively low in each subsequent year. What happened in 2003? Well, the Bush tax cut took effect so perhaps there is a statistical significance here. I, for one, am curious what those polled will have to say should the Democrats let the tax cuts expire in 2011.
Until then I have to accept the fact that we are a nation swept up in the confidence of Obama-mania (Mr. Powell voted for him). Having watched the near collapse of capitalist titans due to mismanagement, there is an optimism about the powers of government with “the One” at the helm to effect positive change in people’s lives I must admit I have never seen before. But I can also see that we are in the midst of a personality cult that has been mere rhetoric so far as these particular categories go. The actual real world effects of higher taxes and bigger, more intrusive central government, so often proved by history to be a recipe for economic stagnation and even collapse in the long term, have not yet been visited upon the oblivious “yes we can” crowd. When policies start to hit home, when tax bills go up, health care quality diminishes, inflation spikes, interest rates soar, unemployment remains high, and the overall economy sputters, the political climate may be different.
I am in the commodities trading business. It is a business about statistical probabilities, financial modeling, predictions, fundamental analysis, technical analysis, all manner of scientific method to predict future trends in markets. And yet, I have seen some of the best traders make the gutsiest (and most profitable) calls when they throw their models out the window, and play the markets “by feel” even when the data points and hard numbers contradict their intuition. Perhaps I may be in the same position now regarding my take on the direction the GOP needs to go. The numbers that Mr. Powell and I both see tell me that, from a purely scientific analysis, to attract more votes we need to adopt the Democrat playbook to survive. That we, too, need to be a party of big government, more intrusive regulations, higher taxes, largess for all, wealth redistribution, and cradle-to-grave welfare. We need to be, in a word, Socialist Europe.
Look, maybe I still don’t get it. Maybe my fiercely independent nature is blinding me to a sea change in our national psyche. But I am just not willing to play the numbers here. My gut, my in-grained German “Fingerstitzengefühl” (intuition at the fingertips) which has come in so handy in business, is whispering in my ear: Do not give in. The Republicans will come back to reality as will the country. Then we will remember what made us great: individualism, thrift, personal responsibility, optimism, rewarding, not punishing, success, and the unleashing of capital to fund American ingenuity and invention to better our lives and enrich the nation. As far as I’m concerned, these were and always should be Republican mantra.
To put it bluntly, I believe that adopting the Powell approach would be tantamount to party suicide. I may not speak for the majority… yet. But I am not alone. Still, I freely admit I have nothing but my gut instincts to back up this assertion. Many a time in my life, that’s all I have needed.
89 responses so far
1 Mike K // May 14, 2009 at 8:29 pm
I agree and, if you are correct, maybe the losses in 2006 and 2008 were worth it. I do worry about the country’s ability to survive. I am 71 and have adult children who voted for Obama. There is a small voice of schadenfreude within me me that says, “You elected him, now live with him.” But I have a couple of kids too young to make that judgement and I do worry about them. The Republicans are still floundering around and may take a while to figure out what has happened. I have even investigated new parties that might be a rally point for those of us who give up on the Republicans.
We’ll see what happens.
2 InTheMiddle12 // May 14, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Seems to me that the writer and Mike K are more libertarian than Republican and my guess is they’ll be an attractive libertarian candidate in the next election that will make it safve for fiscal conservatives and those socially moderate that want government out of social issues. That may bring th eend to the GOP for a while too. The libertarian may even win.
3 danbmil99 // May 14, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I think a third party is not out of the question. But whether it’s a new social/liberal, fiscal/conservative party or a refactored GOP, the core thing Powell is getting at is that there *is* a sense among the younger set that government can and should reign in some of the excesses of capitalism, and be a bit more aggressive in policing fairness between large corporations and individuals or groups deemed less powerful (ie employees).
Yes, that puts us a bit to the left of where we were in the Reagan years. I do think we have to adjust our sensors a bit. Is it right for insurance companies to pretty much lie about what they really intend to cover if you get very sick, and leave families without recourse? By letting these kinds of abuses go on in the name of free trade, we end up hurting free markets in the long run, because the abusers, the ones who take every chance to get a bad-faith edge on their customers and competition, spoil the pot for us all.
One only need look at the present financial crisis to see this writ large. A friend of mine, a quant at Bear in the ’90’s, explained to me 15 years ago that derivative trading was a casino game rigged by the creators of the instruments to sucker less sophisticated rubes (big pension funds, not individuals). If he knew this, then everyone sophisticated enough to understand the game new it. In particular, folks like Greenspan, Paulsen, Ruben, Geithner — they all must have known in their gut that we were all playing with fire. And they let it happen, because — well, because everyone was getting so damn rich. They just said to hell with the future and stability — let’s surf this wave.
So here we are, with the guillotine of regulation and big government ready, and the head of libertarian, small-govt capitalism ready to fall into the bucket.
4 // May 14, 2009 at 10:24 pm
If conservatives really wanted to reduce government spending, they should have required the citizenry to pay for all of that spending. Instead of raising the taxes to pay for all the spending, they ran up deficits. Natually, people are going to want more government if they don’t have to pay for it.
I suspect that if you look at the states that pay for their spending through taxes and fees alone (as opposed to borrowing), they probably spend less than those states that pay for spending through taxes, fees and borrowing.
5 Egli Ha // May 14, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Mr Schaeffer, I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but you have been the victim of a hoax.
The GOP of Reagan was not a fiscally-conservative party. It was a party of fiscally-conservative rhetoric.
Everyone who was serious including Newt Gingrich and our illustrious host DF knew the plan–Reagan ran on balancing the budget, big tax cuts, big military buildup, all to be paid for by making the Dems cut domestic spending. But everyone knew the Dems would keep their thirty-plus-year majority in the House and almost always also in the Senate so the last item (domestic-spending cuts) would never happen. So the country would borrow a lot of money and inject it into the economy. Good for the economy but there goes the first item which was an obvious lie from the beginning.
If you think military contracting was ever anything but government distribution of largesse, well…I have to doubt your good faith. You cannot be so naive with your resume.
6 Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 10:36 pm
This is the most rambling nonsensical column that I have ever read. This guy says that the Republican Party lost him because of big spending, but then he seems to suggest we should be more like the Democrat party and Colin Powell is on to something.
Newsflash, Obama is making BUsh look like a miser. It’s time to stop beating up on Bush and the Republicans…..they are no longer in power. You can choose to live in the past or you can chooose to be a conservative in the present.
Your first thought is that Colin Powell is a Democrat now. That probably thought probably suffices as the only thought that most true conservatives have. Nobody cares about Colin Powell but liberals who want to use him as a prop against conservatives.
Is it just me, or does author seem to make this column about himself…..such as this gem ” Still, I freely admit I have nothing but my gut instincts to back up this assertion. Many a time in my life, thats all I have needed.”
7 Egli Ha // May 14, 2009 at 10:37 pm
As for what General Powell said, “government in your life” also means cops, traffic lights, being able to dial 911, scientists and hi-techers of all stripes including both universities and “private” industry because industry commercializes knowledge obtained in the university on government grants. And hires workers educated in the university. And many companies sell stock using plans to make products for government-funded markets like university scientists. And the military. And law-enforcement.
Seriously, what gets us out of these big-debt-bad-economy situations is new technology. Like the internet emerging into truly public domain under Clinton. My advice for deficit hawks is base your votes on the candidates’ understanding of how to fund science so that the new technologies come as soon as possible. That does NOT mean going for short-term goals preferentially. Short-term goal means moving existing technology into the commercial zone–clinic or market or whatever. I mean supporting the science that makes the not-yet-discovered stuff come sooner. Google for instance Peter G. Schultz. Eric S. Lander and Steve Chu are outstanding, unimpeachable appointees.
8 Egli Ha // May 14, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Almost forgot to say, “government-in-your-life” also includes startup grants for new businesses.
9 Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 10:47 pm
I apologize for the multiple posts. This website doesn’t like to be refreshed.
10 Egli Ha // May 14, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Dr. Tesla, I agree, we must not let the Right Man’s disaster be an excuse for letting Obama off. But we must remember that so far in the past half century ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the time during which the GOP has had true control over the money, both Congress and White House, they have blown it all and more. We must never reelect these guys no matter how mad we get at the Dems. It must be third-party or nothing.
If we ever elect the GOP again, we will be like the comic where the older brother says get in the trunk and the younger brother says but last time you locked me in for six hours and the older brother says this time I won’t.
11 Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 10:53 pm
I think we did vote 3rd party this time…McCain represents a non-conservative version of the Republican Party. That’s what Frum and this guy want, and it lost bad, to a candidate with no knowledge or experience in anything.
12 Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 10:57 pm
I always thought necessity was the mother of all invention. Now I guess it’s big government is the mother of all invention.
13 Egli Ha // May 14, 2009 at 11:05 pm
No Dr. Tesla, I disagree. McCain represented not a non-conservative version, but an incoherent version, of the Republican Party. Where any assembly of his professed positions contradicted another assembly of his professed positions. Where any possible action would be defendable as fulfilling one promise or another. Not really a version at all. Where his only consistent policy seemed to be: what ever we do, we should do it in a way which p*sses off the greatest number of people, as intensely as possible, as soon as possible.
14 Egli Ha // May 14, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Dr Tesla that’s a very silly crack. Your screen name implies you know something about science and maybe even development of new industries.
The very large majority of successful new-tech businesses since the 1930s have owed their success more to government (dare I say the word) investment in the forms I listed before–the discoveries-to-be-improved-and-commercialized themselves, training, startup grants, market support.
The minimal-governent sector has its place but we will not prosper if we try to make it the whole thing.
15 Egli Ha // May 14, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Oops I meant to say they owe their success more to gov’t investment than to private investment.
16 Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Yeah, and Al Gore invented the internet.
The role of government is not corporate welfare. The only technologies that need government money to survive are ones that economically viable, like wind power. That’s why T Boone Pickens is constantly promoting his plan..he wants tax dollars for his personal finanical interests.
I don’t want to be paying taxes for everybody’s “bright” idea and pet projects.
17 Egli Ha // May 14, 2009 at 11:22 pm
The ability to score private investment in new-tech comes from exploiting the fruits of government investment, that’s what I’m trying to say here.
18 Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Um,
McCain was for amnesty for illegal immigration.
MCCain voted against the Bush tax cuts.
McCain promoted the campaign finance reform bill that banned ads by groups like the NRA from running ads critical of a candidate a certain time frame before an election. This a violation of freedom of speech.
McCain has the token liberal views of what is torture…he thinks waterboarding is torture.
McCain either is a global warming nut or he panders to them for votes.
That’s just some of the issues that I can remember off the top of my head.
19 Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 11:28 pm
THere is no such thing as government investment. THere is a thing called the government confiscating taxpayer’s money and throwing it at pet projects that may or may not even be viable.
Of course a big government leftwingers is going to assert that government makes new technologies possible.
I’m going to say, even if we accept that premise, that is not the role of government. The government does not have a Constitutional right to confiscate money in the name of investing in new technology. You may not like that, but it is undeniable.
20 Egli Ha // May 14, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Dr. Tesla, AlGore never said he invented the internet. He said he could claim some credit for it because he supported the GOVERNMENT funding for the precursor-technology, ARPANET and so on. And that’s absolutely true. He went to bat to keep the funding on those projects many times, defended the funding from all kinds of attempts to divert it to other people’s pet projects.
That’s two strikes against you: bad understanding of history of technology generally, and misunderstanding or at least pretending to misunderstand AlGore’s role in the internet emerging when it did.
Seriously, unless you’re a deliberate fake, you should consider changing your name. Are you a physics or electronics phd? Any kind of Dr.?
21 ShawninPHX // May 14, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Sigh. The party I used to belong to once was an intellectual party that read books and investigated facts. This post only goes to show the Republican party is forever lost. Mr. Schaeffer, I ask you this: 48% of total government spending is the military budget. The top five items that run up our deficit are: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Military spending and interest on the national debt. Please outline what you would get rid of.
I’m so sick of the reflexive, anti-intellectual/I don’t want to actually do any reporting, citizens who love to complain, but don’t want to actually do any research. Mr. Schaeffer, I’d be more than happy to fulfill your wish and allow you to opt out of taxes in the future. Just don’t come and complain when your street lights don’t work, your roads are filled with pot holes, the schools shut down and the city sewer system stops providing you with services and clean water.
My point is that you don’t walk in to Best Buy, say “I want a 46 inch flat screen TV and I don’t want to pay for it.”
Grow up. The Republican party is supposed to be about responsibility and seriousness. A military comes with a cost. Your roads come with a cost. Schools come with a cost. Street lights, police, fireman, etc, come with a cost. Please grow up and finally tell me (and others who have fled from the party) what the hell you would cut to save in taxes. Perhaps, THEN, you would persuade me back. Until then, you go on using 911, your streets, your lights, your sewer system, your public water, your schools, your highways, etc. and I hope you are called out like the ultimate hypocrites you are.
22 Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Egli,
An Al Gore apologist, I see.
What is humorous is liberals are supposedly against corporate welfare, yet they seem to make exceptions if it’s a corporation they like, like “alternatiive energy” tech corporations.
The problem you have when you decide that the government’s role is to fund “promising” new technologies….every special interest is going to want a piece of the pie.
How you plan to pay for all those pet projects? That’s right, raise taxes.
I think most Americans share my view that we should let the free market work. This notion that we need the governmenet involved to see progress is laughable, as they have not even demonstrated they can teach students despite having tons of money thrown at education.
23 Egli Ha // May 14, 2009 at 11:40 pm
OK, “Dr.”, one by one:
“McCain was for amnesty for illegal immigration.”
OK, I’ll give you that one.
“MCCain voted against the Bush tax cuts.”
Yes but he later said we should make them permanent. And bigger. That’s what I mean, incoherent.
“McCain promoted the campaign finance reform bill that banned ads by groups like the NRA from running ads critical of a candidate a certain time frame before an election. This a violation of freedom of speech.”
OK but that’s not conservative nor liberal–it also bans left-wing groups from running the same kind of ads. Everyones freedom is violated equally. The NRA supported McCain pretty enthusiastically as I recall. Palin, ya know?
“McCain … thinks waterboarding is torture.”
You don’t? You’re a moron. I mean this not as an insult but as an objective statement of fact.
“McCain either is a global warming nut or he panders to them for votes.”
He also supports “drill baby drill”. See? Incoherent.
Also he disrespected the commercial-christian-right but then he nominated Sarah, Bristol, and Trig.
24 Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 11:42 pm
I don’t think the author of this pieice is all that opposed to paying high taxes now. It seems like he’s a liberal that hasn’t quite made up the mind to come out of the closet yet. What true supporter of tax cuts and small government would go into this rambling analysis of Colin Powell’s assertion that America wants big government and conclude that maybe Powell is right and it’s the right thing for America?
Colin Powel has never been a conservative idealogue. I don’t know why it’s such big news that he is a liberal. He wouldn’t even say party he was a member of when he was considering running for president back in the day. I think the fact that he voted for Obama kind of discredits anything that he has to say about the GOP and what it needs to do to win.
25 Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 11:46 pm
No,
It’s not incoherent…it was McCain pandering to the conservative base because he knew he was in trouble. Now, according to Frum and his choir boys here, the Republican Party doesnt’ need the conservative base to win elections.
So the money question is this: WHy did McCain pander to conservatives as election day grew near? Do you think he would have picked Palin if he thought he could win with Joe Lieberman or some other “moderate”.? Hell no. The only smart thign he did in the campaign was pick Palin, but then he undermined her appeal to conservatives by having her parrot his anti-wall street populism and “working with Democrats” bullshit.
26 Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Guy, I just listed one group. I did not state or imply that the law didn’t apply to liberal groups. And believe it or not, there are leftwingers that are members of the NRA, like union workers. :
27 Dr. Tesla // May 14, 2009 at 11:50 pm
No, I don’t think waterboarding is torture. They waterboarded one of the jihadist 180 times before he coughed up the vital information. If it was torture, he would have spilled the beans the first time.
My older brother use to dunk me and my twin’ brother’s head under the water at the pool. By your logic, I was tortured.
28 Egli Ha // May 15, 2009 at 12:13 am
Yes he nominated Bristol and Trig–he knew or should have known that they would become PR workers for his campaign.
Did your older brother issue a credible threat to keep your head under water until you passed out? You should get someone to try that on you before you start talking about stuff you know nothing about.
Yes, you did imply that the law didn’t apply to liberal groups, by listing it as a reason to call mccain “unconservative”. The idea that this restriction, applied equally, is somehow unconservative is too silly even for you. So listing it as something unconservative means you did imply it was selective and left-biased.
29 Egli Ha // May 15, 2009 at 12:15 am
Nothing wrong with the wacky weed, anyway.
OK, why do you call yourself “Dr. Tesla”? Do you have scientific training or experience, and if not, why do you pretend?
30 Egli Ha // May 15, 2009 at 12:18 am
You don’t think being “unconservative” but also “pandering to the conservative base” is incoherent??? What DO you think is incoherent???
31 Egli Ha // May 15, 2009 at 12:20 am
I think Dr Tesla may have been spending too much time with his head in the superconducting solenoid….
32 Egli Ha // May 15, 2009 at 12:26 am
You wrote: “The only technologies that need government money to survive are ones that [are not, i assume you meant to say] economically viable,.. “
So no astro-stuff? No big telescopes?
33 Egli Ha // May 15, 2009 at 12:28 am
No studying liquid-nitrogen-temperature superconductors until AFTER someone figures out how to make them useful enough for the market?
34 palomino70 // May 15, 2009 at 12:28 am
Hey Doc, do you even know what waterboarding is? If you’re seriously comparing it to head dunking in a pool, I would guess you’re a little confused about how the process works. We didn’t convict and punish Japanese post-WWII for head dunking. The Khmer Rouge and others were not denounced for head dunking. There’s a difference, a BIG difference.
And what was the “vital information” that was coughed up by the jihadist (presumably KSM) you refer to? Lots of reports suggest we got nothing valuable from waterboarding, certainly nothing dealing with an imminent attack since the waterboarding took place months after his capture.
35 Egli Ha // May 15, 2009 at 12:32 am
“Mit zerfocht’ner Waffe floh mir der Feige!”–Siegfried.
36 palomino70 // May 15, 2009 at 12:44 am
Hey Doc, do you even know what waterboarding is? If you’re seriously comparing it to head dunking in a pool, I would guess you’re a little confused about how the process works. We didn’t convict and punish Japanese post-WWII for head dunking. The Khmer Rouge and others were not denounced for head dunking. There’s a difference, a BIG difference.
And what was the “vital information” that was coughed up by the jihadist (presumably KSM) you refer to? Lots of reports suggest we got nothing valuable from waterboarding, certainly nothing dealing with an imminent attack since the waterboarding took place months after his capture.
37 balconesfault // May 15, 2009 at 4:14 am
Someone recently said “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works”.
That is the principle that was neglected by the Bush Administration. Good governance. I really think that Rove believed the Federal Treasury was his slush fund for political patronage, and the Bush Admin acted accordingly. And that was really the attitude that killed Dems in the 70’s, as well.
People don’t like paying taxes … that’s natural. But what gets people REALLY pissed off is when they don’t believe that their taxes are getting them the services they’re paying for.
38 Jeffryw // May 15, 2009 at 4:46 am
This fellow sems to really jibe with my thoughts exactly. I see no argument here for libertarianism on Schaeffer’s part. His quote of Reagan (about givernment having a duty to prtect the people) seems carefully chosen among many of Ronny’s quotes to show that he does believe in government having a role. But what Powell was saying, and Schaeffer is taking issue with if I read this right, is that people want BIG government. And want to pay high taxes to support it.
Schaeffer thinks this is the wrong approach. I agree with him.
Dr. Tesla. Did you even read his article??? This statement: “This is the most rambling nonsensical column that I have ever read. This guy says that the Republican Party lost him because of big spending, but then he seems to suggest we should be more like the Democrat party and Colin Powell is on to something.” is the exact OPPOSITE of what he’s saying. He is saying that if the GOP takes this line then he is out.
39 ChristianMiller // May 15, 2009 at 5:34 am
balconesfault said,
Someone recently said “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works”.
_______________________________________
Mussolini? Sounds like him.
A cursory analysis of this sentence reveals a vacuous platitude. This is a rhetorical device to shift the debate out of reality and into fantasy. Can we make government a certain size that will be most efficient? Is efficiency the goal? Or is keeping government, efficient or not, out of our lives as much as possible while maintaining general order the goal?
The premise, which most will agree, is that government is too large now. WAAAAAY too large, so the question is how are we gonna make it smaller, not how well it (doesn’t) work.
40 Jeffryw // May 15, 2009 at 6:01 am
We may never be able to curb the growth of government now. Obama is a tipping point. And politicians care more about keeping their jobs than doing their jobs.
41 barker13 // May 15, 2009 at 6:19 am
“What is someone like myself, a business owner who instinctively favors less government intrusion…”
Hmm. A business owner, huh? What… a construction firm… a chain of dry cleaning stores… a manufacturer of widgets?
Aahhh… no… from your biography:
“…an interdealer broker of complex energy derivatives, a veteran of the commodities markets…”
So… you wanna talk perception – perception as it applies to what looks “good” for the Republicans when competing for the votes of “regular folks” and what doesn’t look so good…?
Brad. No offense. No “attack.” But yours in not the “business” tie which is likely to appeal to the average voter.
Hey… whatever Powell has to say… it’s GENERAL Powell saying it. There’s automatic respect for the man’s service if not always for the man’s personal and political traits and decisions.
But you… “…an interdealer broker of complex energy derivatives, a veteran of the commodities markets…” Sorry, Brad, your business “title” alone causes the hairs on the back of my neck to stand up straight.
“…the party I once called my own became a party of big government that would make Lyndon Johnson proud.”
Granted. But Powell’s longtime opposition to such polices can be found… er… where…???
“…the GOP left unfettered to govern as the fiscally responsible party, oversaw the greatest increase in the federal deficits and discretionary social spending in history.”
Brad. I asked Bruce Bartlett the following question on a recent thread (which of course he declined to respond to):
Republicans controlled both the Executive and Legislative branches of government from January 2001 thru December 2006 (feel free to throw in the first few weeks of January 2007 if Congressional Republicans passed spending legislation within that time).
What were the spending totals? What were the deficit totals? How much was added to the national debt during that time?
Now… same question with regard to January 2007 thru December 2008 when Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress – aka “the SPENDING branch of government?”
Finally… same question with regard to the day of President Obama’s inauguration thru today…
To tell you the truth, Brad, as much as I share your contempt and disdain for Bush and the RINO Congresses of 2001-2006… I’m guessing that if you bother to do the math the Democrats now hold the record for overseeing “the greatest increase in the federal deficits and discretionary social spending in history.”
* To be continued…
BILL
42 Jeffryw // May 15, 2009 at 6:29 am
I feel I need to adress your points on behalf of this man. Barker: I know a little of his reputation (although I’ve never met him personally) from his years in the energy derivs. markets.
The business he owns is a successful brokerage firm he apparantly started from scratch. Are you saying unless you deal in goods (not services) you’re not a legitimate businessman? What do YOU do for a living?
And I see no disrespect to Powell here. Disagreement maybe. So he called him by what he is now: A civilian. You’re nit-picking the man Barker.
As to who was worse for spedning,I swear do you all READ his articles or just scan them? Did you miss this quote from him? “Plus I knew that as bad as the spending spree had been under the GOP, under an Obama White House and Democratic Congress it would be twice as bad. I was wrong it has already turned out to be four times as bad and counting.”
You didn’t did you? What he is saying is that he doesn’t want to choose form the lesser of two evils anymore. He wants a REAL choice. If he can’t have it, then he’s out because it is useless in the end.
Now, please continue…just READ HIS ARTICLE first.
43 Jeffryw // May 15, 2009 at 6:34 am
Barker: “Hmm. A business owner, huh? What… a construction firm… a chain of dry cleaning stores… a manufacturer of widgets?”
So I guess then ANY service industry be they a law firm, an investment bank, a brokerage firm, a consulting firm, in short anything that doesn’t deal in tangible goods is not a leigitimate business? What’s wrong with you man?
It’s called SERVICE industry. And from what I hear he is one of the best. Again I dont know him. But I do know of him.
44 Jeffryw // May 15, 2009 at 6:41 am
Barker: Not picking on you but one more thing: I think it is obvious that Scaheffer meant the greatest increase in spending UP TO THAT POINT.
If you have something substantive to say then say it. But stop picking apart individual phrases and putting their grammer under a microscope when the meanings are clear enough.
45 barker13 // May 15, 2009 at 6:42 am
“Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.”
Not this American. (*SHRUG*)
How’bout the rest of you? Who want’s “more government in their life, not less?”
Now… acknowledging there ARE Americans who feel this way… who believes we should be actively opposing their efforts to enact policies which create more government?
“Americans do want to pay taxes for services…”
Hmm. Funny…
I don’t recall Obama campaigning on RAISING TAXES for 95% of the American People… do any of you?
(*SNORT*)
“The Republican Party is in deep trouble, Powell recently told corporate security executives at a conference in Washington.”
Yeah… (*SNORT*)… with “Republicans” like Powell the Party sure is in deep trouble!
Hey… how much do you think Powell made off that one speech? Any guesses on total compensation when you add in first class air, hotel, limo… (Rhetorical question – never mind.)
(Again… not practicing my own brand of class warfare, but am I the only one who believes that Americans are as tired of “limousine conservatives” as they are of “limousine liberals,” “limousine Republicans” as much as “limousine Democrats?”)
“I want a country of smaller, less centralized government, less regulation, and less taxation.”
I’m with ya, Brad… I’m with ya! And yeah… we’ve gotta FIGHT for that!
“…what good is voting to put a group in power, if they do not exercise that power to steer the country in a direction I wish it to go?”
Yep. Dead on.
“Did we not come to gain the White House in 1980 and Congress in 1994 by espousing just the opposite agenda that Powell claims we must now embrace or be banished to the fringe as a party?”
Yep! (*WINK*) That is indeed the history. (*NOD*)
“The GOP lost me and many of my fellow conservatives because it sacrificed its credibility in the area of fiscal responsibility to try and maintain power through dispensing federal largess.”
Same here. (*NOD*)
“We are voters who understand that such peripheral issues as gay marriage, prayer in schools, evolution, etc. though important to some, and even maybe to us personally, were nonetheless secondary matters for the states to sort out so long as the GOP ran the books responsibly. But when the GOP showed that it could run up deficits and social spending in a way some Democrats in the past could only dream of, there was no longer any appeal. Many of us disenchanted folks began using the terms Democrans and Republicrats interchangeably to refer to the parties.”
I’m REITERATING your comments because they’re WORTH reiterating. You’re on a roll, Brad!
(BTW… Dempublicans and Republicrats.) (*SMILE*)
* To be continued…
BILL
46 barker13 // May 15, 2009 at 6:45 am
Re: Jeffryw; wrote 12 minutes ago –
Calm down, Jeff. As you read my posts you’ll see I’m not ATTACKING Brad.
Note… I was talking about PERCEPTION.
Note… In my second post I broadened my point by touching on the “limousine insider” issue.
Anyway… let me finish up responding to Brad’s contribution in full and then I’ll gladly answer any questions or points your raise.
(*WINK*)
BILL
47 ChristianMiller // May 15, 2009 at 6:46 am
Nice to see someone here finally address the elephant in the living room. I really wonder why Frum has so far avoided addressing this Powell fellow.
And this issue forcing Brad to come down on on the side of reason: “After all, what good is voting to put a group in power, if they do not exercise that power to steer the country in a direction I wish it to go?”
Bingo.
Powell’s position as a political pundit is highly questionable. He was a general who rose through the ranks of Republican administrations to a very high station and ultimately worked against the Bush administration, having felt basically, used. Yet Obama wasn’t running against Bush but another Bush rival, McCain. Whatever, Powell has some personal issues obviously. It is important to note that he isn’t and has never been a politician. He has never run for office.
Neither is he, or has he been, a student of politics. Having been a military man all his life, Powell had to be above politics and therefore would have done himself no favors by studying party politics through his career.
Then he publicly votes for Obama and presumes to be a political pundit. I just can’t square Powell being a Republican and voting for Obama.
He can either be a Democrat who simply has pretended to be a Republican all this time.
He can be non-ideological man of pure ambition and wants a job or favors or status with certain people.
He could be politically ignorant and not really understand what Obama and his allies really have in store for the USA.
He could be motivated by some personal vendetta.
But Powell can’t spin his vote for Obama as principled in any way. It is simply defies all political logic.
Even the friend of Brad who voted Obama “to teach the Republicans a lesson” has a legitimate political rationale for voting Obama.
There are forces that work to create a false choice for voters, and Democrats along with some Republicans like Powell are working hard to tell us that we must become Democrat lite.
This is the result of years of leftward drift in thinking which came from dumbing down an entire generation and indoctrinating the general population with leftist dogma.
The trend has been that Democrats move left and take more and more radical positions. Then, opportunistic Republicans move into the recently abandoned territory.
Leftward shift can be illustrated simply by using JFK, who today would be considered a conservative on nearly every issue and would be outcast Joe Lieberman-like by Democrats of today. And many Republicans today are to the left of JFK.
Because of this inexorable trend leftward and Republicans going after This is why we have so many moderate Republicans. They tend to be opportunists seizing abandoned territory. They tend not to be principled because these moderate positions are really still on the other side ideologically. The moderate “lite” positions are in the philosophical constellation of left-wing assumptions even though they are to the right of Democrats relatively.
All the other side has to do to get you to move further left is to move left themselves, creating the tension that has to be compromised with. This is how they keep Republicans off balance. Republicans can never be safe from attack on many of these issues because the Democrats continually move the battle lines. As soon as a position is fully or mostly accepted by the approval-seeking Republicans the debate changes and they are STILL bigots homophobes and backward cretins.
This can be illustrated with how they keep changing language of issues. Being against “illegal-immigration” becomes being against “immigration”. The moment we allow that kind of smearing of language to be used against us we have already lost.
enough for now…
48 Jeffryw // May 15, 2009 at 6:48 am
Barker. You have put me back into my “Happy Place” with your last comments…well said sir.
This guy Schaeffer should be a columnist. (Probably makes too much money on Wall Street to bother though!)
49 Jeffryw // May 15, 2009 at 6:52 am
Franco: “This is the result of years of leftward drift in thinking which came from dumbing down an entire generation and indoctrinating the general population with leftist dogma”
BINGO! Well said again. And I think there may have been more than a few anti-GOP protest votes from true republicans last year than people realize.
50 ChristianMiller // May 15, 2009 at 6:53 am
Powell has really shown himself to be a political rube by saying, “Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.”
I mean, really. The man doesn’t know what he is talking about.
51 barker13 // May 15, 2009 at 6:58 am
“I have an acquaintance who confided in me after the election while peering deep into a half drained tumbler of scotch that he actually, in his words, held my nose and voted for Obama.”
Yep. I voted for Barr, myself. (*SHRUG*)
My view… McCain as President would have used every official and unofficial governmental and Party power at his disposal to further marginalize anti-establishment conservatives in Congress… folks like the members of the Republican Study Committee.
McCain was – is – pretty much an economic ignoramus. (Hey… he basically said so himself!) I believe his policies – while marginally less immediately destructive than Obama’s – would have been in many respect “Democrat lite,” more “Bushian” than not, and at the end of four years his failures would have FURTHER weakened the GOP “brand” while at the same time he would have laid waste to conservative ranks thus hurting our prospects for long term rebuilding along conservative lines.
“To put it bluntly, I believe that adopting the Powell approach would be tantamount to party suicide.”
Yep.
BILL
52 ottovbvs // May 15, 2009 at 6:59 am
Mr Schaeffer is surprisingly emotive for a commodities trader. Actually having known a few traders maybe not. One wonders what world he lives in. Does he know that talking about small govt and all the other myths of conservatism is absurd in the context of federal and state spending that is several times greater than that of any other country in the world. Does he know to what extent private business dines out of the public purse in everything from building weapon systems to public highways. I’m not sure what state he lives in but has he checked the state payroll which I’m going to bet makes them the biggest employer in his state. In reality we are much more like Europe in social policies than unlike them. The only notable difference is the absence of a healthcare system which covers all and is much cheaper to run. I spent most of my career managing different aspects of manufacturing and service businesses. The interaction and interdependence of govt and business is huge in my experience. Perhaps because he works in the financial industry he doesn’t realize that this sector has become too large and too unregulated a sector of our economy. The fact is if you look at the record of the last 25 years it’s hard to escape the reality that many central tenets of conservative economic belief have proved a failure. Notably deregulation and supply side. Judge Richard Posner, a noted conservative of the Chicago school, has an interesting commentary on his blog where he essentially concedes as much. Mr Schaeffer should read it.
53 ChristianMiller // May 15, 2009 at 7:01 am
Jeffryw,
Oh yes indeed! I live in a hopelessly blue State but my vote did not go to McCain. I couldn’t vote for him. Once he got the nomination I was devastated knowing that either choice was very bad, in different ways. Had McCain won the Republican party would REALLY be doomed.
To this day I console myself that despite the bad direction we are taking, at least the country is having the debate. The country may just begin to understand what is really at stake and that Democrats, once in office are no panacea. We could be moving left anyway with McCain and end up with an Obama in 2012
54 ottovbvs // May 15, 2009 at 7:03 am
Franco
wrote 6 minutes ago”Powell has really shown himself to be a political rube by saying, “Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.”
I mean, really. The man doesn’t know what he is talking about.”
……..SInce there’s a mountain of evidence to support Powell’s contention……I’d say much more so than you.
55 ChristianMiller // May 15, 2009 at 7:03 am
barker, We were saying basically the same thing at the same time about McCain. Great minds think alike.
56 barker13 // May 15, 2009 at 7:08 am
Re: ShawninPHX; 11:35 PM
“48% of total government spending is the military budget.”
(*SNORT*)
Dude (or dudess)… crack is whack! If you have health insurance with a rehab component… for God’s sake… get some help!
You might want to… er… “re-check” your figures.
(*SMIRK*)
BILL
57 sinz54 // May 15, 2009 at 7:12 am
Hmm, Mr. Schaeffer claims that “For me the tipping point was the behemoth Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003….Thus was alienated this socially liberal but fiscally conservative Republican and many of his independent friends. “
According to the 2004 exit polls,
84% of self-described conservatives voted for Bush.
What objective evidence is there of this “alienation” of conservatives after the 2003 Medicare Part D Act?
I’m a conservative, and it certainly isn’t when I became alienated. I became alienated two years later, when the Bushies didn’t do anything to keep HAMAS from winning the Palestinian elections, because they were supremely confident that such a thing could never happen. This was the last foreign-policy mistake I could swallow.
58 Jeffryw // May 15, 2009 at 7:20 am
The key words I think here Sinz are “FOR ME.” He makes no lciam to speak for the majority infact he seems to be acceoting that his is the minority position within the party now.
And those conservatives who voted for Bush? Who else whould they have voted for? Again, Schaeffer’s lament. Liberal or “compassionate conservative”? Whatever that means. Again, Schaeffer’s point.
This struck me as an introspection. Explaining why HE is leaving the party if this continues. Even admits numbers are against him. I think that shows some understanding of the world as it is.
And Shawnin. I disgree with your 48% figure, but even if it WERE true, wouldn’t that be as it should be? See teh quote form Reagan Schaeffer uses: “Protect the people” is government’s prime function. IE. National defense.
59 Jeffryw // May 15, 2009 at 7:22 am
The key words I think here Sinz are “FOR ME.” He makes no lciam to speak for the majority infact he seems to be acceoting that his is the minority position within the party now.
And those conservatives who voted for Bush? Who else whould they have voted for? Again, Schaeffer’s lament. Liberal or “compassionate conservative”? Whatever that means. Again, Schaeffer’s point.
This struck me as an introspection. Explaining why HE is leaving the party if this continues. Even admits numbers are against him. I think that shows some understanding of the world as it is.
And Shawnin. I disgree with your 48% figure, but even if it WERE true, wouldn’t that be as it should be? See teh quote form Reagan Schaeffer uses: “Protect the people” is government’s prime function. IE. National defense.
60 ottovbvs // May 15, 2009 at 7:29 am
Franco
wrote 16 minutes agoottovbvs,
“Your opinion is noted. So what? You prove yourself a fool with every post.”
…..Your antipathy for facts and evidence has long been evident…But go right ahead diss one of the most respected men in the country. Two Vietnam tours, first black chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Former SoS. Clearly
“I mean, really. The man doesn’t know what he is talking about.”
61 sinz54 // May 15, 2009 at 7:33 am
Dr. Tesla & Egli Ha: The U.S. Government was indeed involved in technologies and setting standards that enabled private industry to flourish.
Here are just some historical examples:
Interchangeable parts, a concept without with Henry Ford could never have mass-produced cars, was first made popular by the U.S. Army early in the 19th century, to make the procurement and maintenance of Army rifles easier.
When long-distance railroads became commonplace, every town had its own local time. Every time the train passed through a town, a passenger had to reset his watch. In stepped the Government, creating the modern time zone system.
In the late 19th century, Marconi invented the radio, and he formed his own startup company to produce and sell radios. The U.S. Navy liked the idea of radio for their own ships, but balked at depending on a European supplier. So the U.S. Navy jump-started a dummy corporation, the Radio Corporation of America (RCA), to sell radios back to itself. Eventually RCA was completely privatized to do its own thing, and became an industry giant.
When U.S. airlines began in the early 20th century, they couldn’t pay for themselves commercially. They were totally dependent on a Government subsidy–payment to carry U.S. Air Mail–without which they would have collapsed. But airline technology continued to improve, until a plane was developed that could truly pay for itself commercially–the DC-3. Then those fledgling airlines really took off (pun intended).
World War II saw the U.S. Government funded the development of both radar and computers for military purposes, both of which have been critical to the private sector since the war.
The Government started the space program, and commercial satellites today are a result of that (and of the government space programs of other nations).
The Internet, as I’m sure you know, grew out of a project by the Pentagon to develop a survivable communications network, the ARPANET. As the Cold War started winding down, ARPANET was commercialized to become the Internet.
So the Government has been very helpful to the growth of the U.S. free economy in several ways: Developing standards for interoperability of equipments; funding basic research; commercializing military technologies; and helping to feed infant industries till they could mature and pay for themselves.
I am a conservative who has no problem with the Government doing these kinds of things. They are of a very different nature from transfer payments from those who produce (taxpayers) to those who do not (welfare recipients, farmers being paid not to grow crops, and Third World dictators being bribed to be nice to us).
62 Jeffryw // May 15, 2009 at 7:33 am
Otto: as great genl’s past, from Grant to MacArthur, have shown, impressive stats on the battelfield don’t always translate into political savvy.
Politically, Powell is a democrat. He just puts an (R) by his name for marketing purposes. Makes him more unique this way.
63 barker13 // May 15, 2009 at 7:35 am
Re: Franco; wrote 5 minutes ago –
(*THUMBS UP*)
(*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)
Re: Jeffryw; wrote 21 minutes ago –
(*SMILE*)
(*HANDSHAKE*)
* BRAD… just to clarify where I was coming from with regard to what at first glance might have looked like an “attack” on you and your profession..
As you know, the Democrats have historically been VERY successful in portraying themselves as the “Party of the Working Man.”
You and I and other knowledgeable, honest folks know that this is bull, that in terms of public perception…
(*SHRUG*)
Hey… just because the MSM is presently dying – due in large part to their sins of partisanship, bias, and dishonest manipulation of readers – doesn’t mean that decades of MSM propaganda haven’t polluted the popular imagination when it comes to your “average” American.
I was kinda playing devil’s advocate. If I were a partisan democrat working for a smear operation… I’d go after you as one of the “bad guys” based upon what you do as a living; I’d go after you based upon the perception that you’re one of those “insiders” who “manipulate” the system on behalf of… er… “rich, greedy Republicans” while “claiming” to be “just a business owner.”
I guess what I’m saying is… be careful not to fall into such traps. Specifically… respectfully… I’d advise you to simply identify yourself as a commodities broker and energy analyst, not a “business owner.”
Oh, sure… you ARE a “business owner,” but you’re a business owner in the sense an attorney in private practice or in partnership is a “business owner.”
I wasn’t implying that you were trying to “pull a fast one” or that I “caught you” in some nefarious subterfuge… (*SMILE*)… rather, I was noting that in America 2009 – for good or ill – when the average American thinks “interdealer broker of complex energy derivatives…veteran of the commodities markets…energy analyst” chances are Joe Blow is thinking, “oh… one of THEM,” not, “oh, a regular guy… a working guy… a business owner.”
My guess is that your use of “business owner” in the context of your contribution here is an acknowledgment of my point and a sign that you agree with me about “business owner” just SOUNDING better… SOUNDING more “regular Joe.” And again, this being the case, even though your instincts were right… this presents an “opponent” the opportunity to attack you on the grounds that you were trying to pull a fast one… “hide” your “true” identity.
Anyway… hope this helps clarify my remarks both for Jeffryw and yourself.
(*WINK*)
BILL
64 sinz54 // May 15, 2009 at 7:38 am
Shawwin’s 48% figure is incorrect.
Here is a pie chart of the 2009 Federal Budget:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png
As you can see, national defense (including the War on Terror spending) is about 24% of the total, and also represents about 4% of U.S. GDP. That is quite low historically. For example, the John F. Kennedy Administration spent 12% of U.S. GDP on national defense. That would be equivalent to TRIPLE the defense budget today.
65 ChristianMiller // May 15, 2009 at 7:45 am
ottovbvs, “But go right ahead diss one of the most respected men in the country. Two Vietnam tours, first black chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Former SoS. Clearly”
More evidence you don’t use your brain. It doesn’t matter what his resume is. (And being first black, first woman doesn’t add anything in my book – doesn’t mean he is better in any way just first -meaningless ) If he makes a ridiculous UNFOUNDED statement he is wrong. Right?
Name me the poll Powell is citing – I don’t think there is one that will back up his contention – and I don’t take much stock in polls – don’t get me started on how unscientific polls really are and how they can be used to promote falsehoods.
How does he know what “the American people” want ? The statement is on that basis alone is outrageous. He made an overstatement that clearly is bluster.
If someone with an impressive resume says something, well then, it must be true… God, you people are pathetic…
66 sinz54 // May 15, 2009 at 7:46 am
Egli Ha: You are totally INCORRECT about Reagan and Gingrich. You should stick to physics, which you know; and stay away from American history, which you don’t know.
The Reaganauts came into office in 1981 with plans, which they presented to the media, to make cuts in discretionary social spending. But they ran into Democrat House Speaker Tip O’Neill, who still ran the House of Representatives and was balking at Reagan’s entire program, including Reagan’s tax cuts, his military buildup, his social spending cuts, everything.
Reagan and O’Neill compromised: Reagan would get his tax cuts and military buildup, but only if most social programs remained intact. This “Grand Bargain” held. Reagan got his military buildup, the Soviet Union eventually collapsed, and that was that. Despite their political differences, Reagan and O’Neill actually became personal friends–something that is inconceivable today, we’ve become so polarized.
In 1992, after winning the Congress, Gingrich’s “Young Turks” had identified some $700 BILLION in cuts they wanted to make to Federal spending. But they ran into President Bill Clinton, who forced a direct confrontation in 1995, which ultimately led to the shutdown of many government services due to Congress not approving a budget. Clinton won that round–the public was not prepared to see social services gutted at that time–and Gingrich even lost his Speakership.
So you are just WRONG when you claim that we conservatives are insincere about wanting to cut spending. If we had filibuster proof majorities in Congress, you would see what we are capable of.
But neither Reagan nor Gingrich ever had that. They had nominal majorities, but not enough to force radical changes to the budget, as Obama is doing now with his filibuster-proof majority.
67 sinz54 // May 15, 2009 at 8:07 am
Getting back to the original issue: Someone in the media should ask General Powell just what he thinks should distinguish the Republican Party from the Democratic Party.
From Rasmussen Reports, April 22:
“Sixty percent (60%) of Americans say the federal government already has too much power and too much money. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans have a favorable view of the tea parties held nationwide last week to protest higher government spending and possible higher taxes. The Political Class was strongly at odds with Mainstream America on both these findings. “
It sounds like the public isn’t on the same page as Powell. But they’re on the same page as me.
68 Egli Ha // May 15, 2009 at 10:26 am
Sinz54, so you think the Reaganauts were SURPRISED that the Dems who controlled congress refused to go along with cutting domestic spending? Ron and Newt didn’t know in advance that this would happen?
You wrote: “If we had filibuster proof majorities in Congress, you would see what we are capable of. “
Yeah, that’s what the GOP said for forty years. “Give us the White House AND the Congress and you’ll see us cut spending!” We saw what you are capable of from 2000 through 2006, thank you very much.
69 sinz54 // May 15, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Egli Ha: I said “filibuster proof majorities.” We never had the kind of filibuster proof majority that Obama enjoys now.
Actually, O’Neill’s staunch opposition in early 1981 did come as a surprise. Reagan had just won a landslide victory over the failed Carter presidency; and the Dems were as demoralized and disorganized and mutually suicidal as the GOP is now. For O’Neill to effectively stop Reagan cold on domestic spending was as surprising then as it would be for Boehner or McConnell to stop Obama cold now. Wouldn’t YOU be surprised if you saw that happen?
But O’Neill proved to be a good tactician and leader, and rallied his troops.
After the sweep of November 1994, many pundits in the MSM were pronouncing the total end of the Clinton presidency; many wondered if Clinton could even win a second term.
But just as O’Neill had been underestimated, Clinton had been underestimated. He too refused to be rolled.
We conservatives had the ideas. But O’Neill and Clinton knew how to play politics, to use hardball and softball,to call in favors, to arm-twist. They beat us.
70 Egli Ha // May 15, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Sinz54, this is nothing like 1981. In 1981 organized labor guaranteed the House would stay Dem no matter what else happened for the forseeable future. “Clean the House” was a remote fantasy. All-Dem government was replaced with divided government.
The Dems shed their Carter/Anderson people during the election and, purged, reunited quickly. In contrast, the GOP seems to be clinging to its losers and losing policies, discredited lies (“fiscal responsibility”).
People were mad at the Dems for seeming/being incompetent; today they’re mad at the GOP for seeming/being malicious as well. That takes longer to recover from.
71 Egli Ha // May 15, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Also Sins54 ONeil did not need party unity to threaten to block Reagans’s agenda. All you need is control of the committees that write the spending bills. You can tie up indefinitely and wait for the public to get tired of vetos.
I was at Yale, Frum in the year ahead of me, and my roommate was a Yale Political Union Party of the Right activist and I knew some pretty inside GOP folks and everybody knew the score. As they drank CLEAN THE HOUSE became LOOT THE HOUSE. The plan was tax cut plus military buildup plus blame the deficit on the Dems.
72 Egli Ha // May 15, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Sinz54 re “filibuster-proof majority”
So you’re saying GWBush went from high surplusses to historically-extreme negative assets because his party didn’t have a filibuster-proof majority? He would have done something smart with the money instead of tax-cutting “the haves and the have-mores … my base” and blowing the rest on a fantasy-war, he would have invested it in stuff like roads that enable economic activity or biotech or rebuilding the Towers or being ready to help get peoples’ assets out of New Orleans before Katrina hit, you know, stuff that might conceivably PAY OFF, but gosh-darnit those Democrats threatened to filibuster all his good plans so he was compelled to do everything he did? Is that the way you remember GWB’s Presidency?
73 Egli Ha // May 15, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Frum disdained the Party of the Right as a bunch of misfits. He was a member of the Conservative Party.
74 Chrisc23 // May 15, 2009 at 11:00 pm
The Republican party used to stand for individual liberty and personal responsibility. President Obama ran slightly on that message during his campaign which made him “sound” like a Republican. Of course his actions are quite different.
The Republican party needs to revert back to this basic principle. I will give some examples. 1. The government should not tell people where to smoke or not smoke. Recently both Republicans and Democrats have embraced laws that prohibit smoking in restaurants. I feel the establishments should regulate themselves and not have to be told to prohibit smoking.
2. Seat belts should be always be worn. However, if you don’t wear your seat belt and you get hurt in a car accident it is your OWN personal fault. The government shouldn’t be dictating whether or not you should wear a seat belt.
The government is over reaching in many ways. They do a very poor job of taking care of people. Until we relieve ourselves of relying on the “nanny” government we have in place, the Republican party will continiously fail.
75 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 6:28 am
Franco
7:45 AMottovbvs, “But go right ahead diss one of the most respected men in the country. Two Vietnam tours, first black chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Former SoS. Clearly”
More evidence you don’t use your brain. It doesn’t matter what his resume is. (And being first black, first woman doesn’t add anything in my book – doesn’t mean he is better in any way just first -meaningless ) If he makes a ridiculous UNFOUNDED statement he is wrong. Right? “
……….Except his statement wasn’t unfounded. Obviously resumes and empirical evidence aren’t your thing (there are mountains of polls showing preference for Democratic positions on most major issues by 2 or 3 to 1 margins). …….As Dilbert once pointed out “It’s pointless arguing with the stupid.”
76 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 6:32 am
Franco
7:45
(And being first black, first woman doesn’t add anything in my book – doesn’t mean he is better in any way just first -meaningless )
……….Well that would be because you obviously have zero understanding of how things work in the real world….it also indicates a degree of insensitive oafishness which alas has become one of the distinguishing features of your brand of far right conservatism.
77 sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 6:53 am
ottovbvs & Franco: I happen to agree with *Franco* on this one. I am getting sick and tired of liberals using the “insensitivity” defense to defend someone committing indefensible actions, on the grounds that we should go easy on him just because of his race. Nothing doing!
Powell is *NOT* a “black” (and he’s certainly NOT an African-American, his ancestors came from Jamaica). To me he’s a Homo Sapiens, a former General, a former member of several Administrations, a former political moderate–and now a definite liberal, whose suggestions for the GOP I reject.
(And if even I reject them, given my pro-choice and pro-civil unions stance, then you can imagine that the GOP will reject them too.)
78 ottovbvs // May 16, 2009 at 2:11 pm
sinz54
6:53 AM
“Powell is *NOT* a “black” (and he’s certainly NOT an African-American, his ancestors came from Jamaica). “
…….Er…..and how did they get to Jamaica?….by cruise ship?
…….As I’ve observed before Sinz you frequently descend into self parody…….Anyone who has worked in American business at an executive level, or belonged to a country club for that matter, for forty years plus will tell you that there has been a massive sea change in attitudes towards minorities and women in professional and business life. I worked in companies forty years ago where jews were tacitly excluded. The military was only desegregated in 1948. During my own military experience in the early sixties there were no black officers in our mess. To deny the existence and surmounting of these racial and gender barriers demonstrates total oafishness and insensitivity to the facts of history and the realities of tribalism and group think. Franco is a bumpkin…..don’t join him.
79 sinz54 // May 16, 2009 at 5:04 pm
ottovbvs: I’m not denying the existence of racial and religious barriers–50 years ago.
I am insisting that there has to come a point in time where liberals stop beating younger white Americans like myself over the head about it.
I was born in November 1954 (hence my userID “sinz54″). I wasn’t part of Bull Connor’s forces. I don’t see why I am being grandfathered in, literally, into an endless guilt trip of liberal guilt.
On the other hand, my family in New York City had to flee from racial violence on the part of blacks and Hispanics, who didn’t want any “Whiteys” living in their neighborhood and sent us death threats. (You liberals always turned a blind eye to THAT type of race violence.)
And that continued well into the 1990s; go learn something about the Crown Heights riots in Brooklyn, which even the Government admits were black-on-Jew hate crimes.
But I am not trying to levy a guilt trip about that on Obama’s kids. It would never occur to me.
The only Original Sins of which my generation (and future generations) are guilty, are described in the Bible.
80 ChristianMiller // May 17, 2009 at 7:26 am
ottovbvs,
You need rube lessons. Obviously your education has served to cover up the truth rather than reveal it. So here are some facts and logic from a simple mind, one that is clearer than the complex web of falsehoods clouding your brain under the guise of education.
“Americans do want to pay taxes for services”
This statement is false. No one prevents Americans from paying taxes. Most Americans don’t pay taxes, and of those who do, none volunteer to give the US Government extra money, therefore the statement is false.
This stands the issue on its head and then tries to criticize the newly elevated feet. Americans don’t send the government money and then say, “please give me some service for that”. The government takes taxpayer’s money as a requirement for services that have already been decided and being rendered.
It would make more sense to say, “Americans want services for their tax dollars”, but that puts the onus on the government, and I suppose Powell doesn’t like that position, it doesn’t advance his, or his friend and race-mate Obama’s agenda.
Colin Powell whatever-the-hell-his-color-is and however brilliant his resume, cannot speak for Americans in this way. Is he citing a poll? Of what, taxpayers who are Americans or just “Americans”. Is he trying to say “the majority of Americans”? But he didn’t say that, did he? The statement is untrue.
But, even if there were some poll, and there was a specific question asking if the taxpayer was willing to pay more taxes for more (unnamed) services and the majority of taxpayers agreed, it still would not warrant the kind of overstatement Powell made.
Colin Powell said, “Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.”
The statement is false. There is no empirical evidence to back up this blanket statement.
81 kroner // May 18, 2009 at 1:14 am
Franco, the polls you’re asking for are plentiful. They are our elections. If a majority decided that it was best to severely reduce or abolish taxes, then representatives who supported those policies would be elected. That hasn’t happened recently at least on any sort of national scale.
You’re right that people don’t want to volunteer more taxes individually. That would represent a large loss for them, for marginal gain, since their donation would be spread among the services provided to an entire nation of 300 million people. But the majority of people do recognize that it’s in their interest for the collective population to pay taxes, and that in order for that to happen they have to accept their fair share of the burden as determined by the law. After all, the majority collectively decides the the law through our representative democracy.
82 Jeffryw // May 18, 2009 at 5:13 am
Kroner…”they have to accept their fair share of the burden as determined by the law.”
I see that phrase “fair share” tossed around a lot. The stat that Schaeffer ciites (granted just one study) shows that people felt that they were paying more than their fair share before 2003. Now they seem more content. So maybe we are at that equilibrium at the moment. If Obama starts to raise them again we may see dissatisfaction re-emerge.
As to taxes in general. I think people object more to paying taxes that are WASTED rather than taxes per se.
83 ChristianMiller // May 18, 2009 at 7:16 am
kroner “Franco, the polls you’re asking for are plentiful. They are our elections. If a majority decided that it was best to severely reduce or abolish taxes, then representatives who supported those policies would be elected.”
First, the majority doesn’t PAY taxes. If people are paying zero in taxes and they, as Colin Powell asserts, want to pay taxes, then why aren’t they doing it? So a large part of the “majority” that elected Obama want taxes raised on other people, therefore, they themselves don’t wish to pay more taxes, right?
Powell could have said ” the majority of Americans want other Americans to pay higher taxes” That statement might be safe to say is inherently true and could be backed-up by polls and even this election. But that is not what he said is it?
Conflating those who already don’t pay taxes with those who do and then saying they all want to pay taxes is misleading. If Powell is as smart as his resume one would have to believe he phrased this statement deliberately to mislead. You cite the election as proof that Americans have accepted higher taxes even as Obama campaigned on not raising one dime from 95%!
And few if any other Democrats campaigned on raising taxes. You are flat-out wrong.
84 Jeffryw // May 18, 2009 at 7:22 am
Franco, maybe Powell should say: The majortiy of Americans want a FREE LUNCH”!
That would be more apropos.
85 ChristianMiller // May 18, 2009 at 9:21 am
Jeffryw ,
Powell certainly wants a free lunch from Democrats.
If he voted for Obama and is calling himself a Republican it is obvious he just needs love and attention.
86 sinz54 // May 19, 2009 at 9:28 am
Franco claims: “the majority doesn’t PAY taxes.”
That is FALSE.
Virtually everybody who works for a living has to pay Social Security payroll tax. And despite what liberals may say, it really is a tax, not a “contribution.” Some $200 billion of SS revenue is diverted each year to be used as general revenues for the usual Federal expenses.
Beyond that, some 60% of American workers–a clear majority–pay income tax each year.
87 sinz54 // May 19, 2009 at 9:43 am
Jeffreyw: Are you sorry that the Federal Government built the Interstate Highway System? Or Boulder Dam?
Measured in today’s inflated dollars, these projects cost trillions of Federal dollars.
Would you have preferred that they not be built, if the only way to have built them was with Federal money?
There are services worth paying for. We pay taxes to support highways, bridges, and the air traffic control system. We pay for the National Weather Service, the National Institutes of Health, the Center for Disease Control.
Unless you take the Ayn Randian position that the only things a government should do are cops, courts, and military.
In which case you are not a conservative.
88 Jeffryw // May 19, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Sinz. The interstate highway was a military project so as that falls under the realm of what government is meant to do I am not upset at all about it. As to the dams, I would have to see if it could be done privately. Can’t comment more than that on it as I know very little about it.
I DO know that all the make-work projects did NOT get us out of the Depression (see economic stats in 1938 for reference) but rather WW2==despite what liberals would like to believe so.
I also know that there are few true libertarians. That government does provide vital unique services. But I prefer to first make sure the money I already give an institution is spent wisely and efficiently before digging into my pockets for yet MORE tribute because those in charge of my taxes are spendthrifts.
You seem to see your government as efficient. Are you saying we should pay MORE in taxes??
89 Patrick // May 22, 2009 at 8:39 am
You grazed on what I believe to be the central issue that Republicans face – credibility.
For years we were told that the GOP is the party of Fiscal Responsibility, Rule of Law, Constitutional Inviolability, Personal Responsibility, Good Governance and Principles over Personality.
The 8 years of the Bush administration completely wrecked all that.
Besides the spending spree you noted, the Rule of Law was cast aside when convenient (Scooter Libby, Torture, et. al.), the Constitution was ignored when convenient (spying, torture, et. al.), Personal Responsibility was abandoned in favor of Constitutional initiatives (aimed at denying American citizens their full measure of citizenship, Terri Shiavo, personal hypocrisy, et. al.), Good Governance was abandoned in favor of hyper-partisanship and ineptitude (Donald Rumsfeld, Doug Feith, etc., etc.) and the Cult of Personality surrounding George Bush allowed many to embrace all of the above in direct violation of what they claim to adhere to.
The GOP lacks credibility on all these issues because their words do no align with their proven actions.
And frankly, I don’t know how the GOP can regain the credibility they once had. Being so far out of power, they lack the ability to actually prove that they can act on the principles they claim to want to return to.
Talk is cheap, and unfortunately, the ability to act is severely compromised by just how far the GOP has fallen in recent years.
It’s a nasty mess, and one not easily solved. What is clear is that just being the so-called “Party of No” isn’t going to get it done.
The GOP has to engage the DEMs and do their utmost to try and shape policy, influence direction and moderate the actions of the President and Congress – thereby proving that they walk the walk.
But the damage is done and it’s going to be a long road back, and until the GOP can prove that they will actually act upon Conservative Principles again, the credibility just isn’t there.
Furthermore, the Old Guard of Cheney, Gingrich, and folks like Limbaugh, Kristol and Hannity are doing their utmost to insure that credibility gap stays exactly where it is.
You must log in to post a comment.