Previous to 2008 there was always some form of balance in our federal branches of government. The balance between Republicans and Democrats tended to balance legislation to some degree. Democrats knew that if they were going to get a bill passed, they would have to appease Republicans and vice versa. Either that, or as bills traveled through the sausage making process of capitol hill, they were altered and moderated and made representative of the wishes of the Republic.
When those balances didn’t occur within a government body, it was usually balanced by another branch of government (hence the term checks and balances). The spenders were balanced by the conservatives, and the conservatives were balanced by the liberals and the conservatives were balanced by the special interest groups. It had a way of working that served us well for at least two hundred years. Were there years where one group got out of control, of course, but one election always trumped another and put a balance back. It was all for the good of the country to one degree or another.
Some will tell you that the current financial disasters in our country have been building for generations. Bill Clinton may have forged the same path, they say, until he got stopped by Newt Gingrich and the Republican takeover of 1994. Plus, say some, Bill Clinton was more of a politician than Barack Obama. Obama, some say, is more of a true believer. Obama has stated as much saying that he’d rather be a really good one term president than a mediocre two-term president.
As we all saw in the December lame duck session, Obama and his liberal friends are willing to do whatever it takes to see their agenda through. They are willing to go against the will of the people, and they’re willing to wreck this country in many ways to create a new America that they can proudly claim as one they’re not ashamed to call home. Most Americans are hoping that Obama acted without fear of re-election, for if his ‘08-’10 spending run on this country was done with fear of losing after one term, no one’s getting any sleep after the 2012 election if he wins, and most of us may have to have our trembling hands surgically removed from the wallet sides of our pants.
Some liberals have actually accused George W. Bush of being a conservative. He was not. Bush was not conservative in the area of spending on education. He actually let the liberal lion of the Senate Edward Kennedy write the education bill. Bush was not conservative on his prescription drug bill. He did try to privatize, and thus save Social Security, but he was not successful. He did try to thwart the housing crises before it happened, but he was not successful. His defense spending, his concessions to Congress, and his inability to slow the 110th Congress may prove to be his downfall when it comes to his legacy. His bailouts and stimulus package were also not successful. Some say these two actions may have precipitated the downfall of our economy, or at the very least provided a blueprint for Obama on how to spend boatloads of money and get away with it politically. It also allowed Obama and the 111th Congress to get away with their unchecked spending by using the Kindergarten defense: “Bush did it too.”
The 111th Congress and Barack Obama took over Washington. Prior to these two taking over Washington always had some degree of balance. When it wasn’t balanced outright, say between Republicans and Democrats, it at least had a balance of philosophy. When the Democrats ruled both houses, as they did for nearly forty years prior to 1994, conservative Democrats usually kept liberals in check. The Keynesians were usually balanced by the Milton Friedman acolytes. The Ayn Rand, Art Laffer followers were usually balanced by the George Lackoff, Saul Alinsky followers. I’m still not sure, as the outsider that I am, if something changed, or if the Keynesians just locked the Friedman types out, if they bullied them into voting for the irresponsible spending measures, or if a Rahm Emanuel/Nancy Pelosi type scared them into believing there would be no DNC money for their next election if they voted nay.
Whatever the case is, conservatives in both parties have grown weaker in numbers and weaker in backbone. They’ve been bought off, swindled, forced into retirement, or as I said bullied into voting for all of the measures that have left us in the shape we’re in today.
The irresponsibility and unchecked liberalism of the past few decades, and especially in the past two years, can be felt across the nation now. We start off with the most glaring example Wisconsin. It doesn’t end there though. We have California, Oregon, Illinois, New York, Virginia, even our local locales are running out of money. The question is who started this? How did it start? Is it possible that the Keynesian philosophy is behind it all? Is it market conditions going through a down business cycle, or is that down business cycle caused by burdensome government legislation that has been building and building over generations.
Ron Paul has been labeled a joke for a couple election cycles now. People have compared his antiquated, Constitutional ideals to those of a character similar to Christopher Lloy’s character in Back to the future. He’s like a cute little throwback, they say. Well, his cute, little throwback sayings are actually starting to make sense now, now that we’ve seen our government bodies exaggerate the opposite of Ron Paul’s ideals. I think people are giving him a little more gravitas these days. I think his son got elected to some seat in Kentucky.
As Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan has said: “Our debt is out of control. What was a fiscal challenge is now a fiscal crisis,” Ryan said on Jan. 25, 2011: “We cannot deny it; instead we must, as Americans, confront it responsibly.” For this, Ryan has been the product of ridicule and insults. He is taking Santa’s bag away from Democrats, and they’re not happy about it.
The best quote on this subject comes from one Margaret Thatcher, “The problem with socialism that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” Sooner or later, in other words, a Nike is going to get sick of paying high corporate tax rates and put their manufacturing bases elsewhere, millionaires in Maryland are simply going to move to another state, and most businesses with astute accountants and nationwide products are going to move out of California. Creative types that make a ton of money, aren’t going to give it all up to allow a politician to confiscate and put it toward something they deem more worthy, such as those spending measure that that politician can put in his re-election ads. Sooner or later, they’re going to take their talents and their money elsewhere to see how we can get along without it. The politicians will no longer have the millionaires’ hard earned money to toss around like Monopoly money. Sooner or later these state and federal representatives will learn the answer to the question who is John Galt.
To those interested in reading the non-political, fiction side of Rilaly, follow the link below: