[Excerpt]
Republicans Ludicrously Assert That Their ‘Pledge’ Will Lead To Smaller Deficits And Less Federal Debt
Yesterday, House Republicans released their “Pledge to America,” which contains the policy steps they would supposedly take immediately, were they so empowered. The document is chock-full of lofty rhetoric about reducing the size of government, but while it lays out plenty of budget-busting tax cuts — to the tune of $4 trillion — it has precious little in terms of actual spending cuts. . .
Read more at: Think Progress
"How would they do it?"
ReplyDeleteWho knows? The GOP became socialists, and the Donkey communists. But we Americans are neither: We constituted this government to protect our life and liberty. Since it is not doing it's prescribed job, we will 'reset' it back to it's intended purpose: To protect our lives and our liberties.
Along those lines, here's how:
1)Collect $11 Trillion less in Taxes.
2)Restore the Constitution. Not Hamilton's twisted vision (what has been imposed on us). But Jefferson's and Patrick Henry's interpretation.
"All laws repugnant to the Constitution are Null and Void."-Marbury vs Madison
3)With illegal laws removed, 95% of fed.gov no longer has reason to exist. Most federal beauracracy disappers. Maybe they can go find work in familiar surroundings in China or the EU.
4)Punish those who damage the life, liberty, or property of others. Restore personal responsibility. Most lawyers, judges, and politicians would be in jail or executed (big benefit to society) for aiding and abetting.
Magic! With the cancer removed, we'll unleash the vibrant economy, enjoy Liberty, and generate huge federal surpluses. Then we'll have to cut even more, thanks to the benefits of freeing the productive potential.
Imagine very little government, and a moral people.
It's what America was. And we're going back to it.
Most of us never left it.
So while you cannot imagine how it is possible, the rest of us see it clearly.
"It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government."
- Thomas Paine
Oh, for crying out loud. I had a response all typed out, and my "perfect" Mac ate it.
ReplyDeleteThe gist of what I typed before is that Libertarianism sounds great in bullet points, but is completely unworkable in reality. Government employs a lot of people, and the above plan would throw them all out of work. THAT will sure make the economy boom! Also, Police, Fire, FDA, military, roads, schools: all necessary. Huge amount of that "95%" you deem dispensable.
Fed.gov was constituted among men to protect our life and liberty; NOT to employ people or manage businesses.
ReplyDeleteCentral planning is a feature of communism. Communists make the people depend on the Central Planning committee, from which all jobs and businesses flow.
Communism sounds bad in bullet points and is horrendous in practice.
Liberty is the only thing that has ever worked. Empowered people create prosperity.
You will never implement a plan in the United States that turns all police, fire, schools, road construction and ifrastructure (etc., etc.) over to the private sector. If it gets you jazzed, and you never want to lose it as an issue, you've got the right cause. If all of the above is socialism, we've been a socialist country for a long, long time.
ReplyDelete"You will never implement a plan in the United States that turns all police, fire, schools, road construction and ifrastructure (etc., etc.) over to the private sector."
ReplyDeleteWhich is why I never suggested it.
Separate state and local from Fed.gov in your thinking. Fed.gov was not constituted to be involved in state and local functions.
Unilateral top down all encompassing government is called communism.
America yearns for limited government, constrained to the powers enumerated in the Constitution. And the long train of abuses proves why that's desireable.
Ohhhhhh, okay, so you're not against socialism as a concept, just on a federal level. Gotcha.
ReplyDeleteBut don't get too hung up on the tenth amendment. It doesn't overrule the entire Constitution. ". . .establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare. . ." Just there in the preamble, there it looks like the founders were laying out what they believed government should exist for. That sounds national to me.
America only yearns for limited government in concept. When you get to the areas that affect individuals, suddenly they want government. As Stephen Colbert said before Congress the other day: "I don't like it when government does ANYTHING. But why isn't government doing ANYTHING?" Oh, and the tea partiers saying, "get your government hands of my Medicare!"
"Ohhhhhh, okay, so you're not against socialism as a concept, just on a federal level. Gotcha."
ReplyDeleteI never said that. That's your latest 'straw man'.
***
The Constitution enumerated powers to fed.gov.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
So the 10th specifically DOES reserve those powers not enumerated to the States or to the people.
Only tyrants claim unlimited power to do what ever they see fit (as you did). But we the people are putting fed.gov back into the box we made for it. The 10th is a plank in that box.
***
Children (and Colbert) want mommy to provide for them and tell them what to do. On the other hand, America yearns for Liberty in concept and in practice. That's why we created a limited government with few enumerated powers.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
It's not a strawman. Not all social programs are evil. Socialism in some things does not equal Soviet Russia.
ReplyDeleteSocial Security, Medicare and other social programs have already been put to the "Constitutional" test long, long ago, and they passed. I don't buy this tenther stuff.
You see tyranny where I don't, I guess. None of the things that get the tea parties all frothy and foamy get me energized. Sorry.