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