I’ll let the unknown author of the piece go first, then my response will follow. This came to me from the Center For Individual Freedom:
Conservatism is based on a set of principles – limited government, low taxes, strong defense, free markets, moral and ethical standards, individual responsibility – all much discussed, all rarely implemented. As best we can tell, those who want to “reform” conservatism actually want liberalism (in at least some areas), which, it would seem fairly obvious, would no long resemble conservatism.
If the discussion is limited to the practical tasks of obtaining conservative policies (or conversely demonstrating the disaster of liberal ones) and winning elections, we would simply suggest that some remedial courses in principles and communications might aid those politicians who wish to parade under the conservative banner, whether they still hold office or seek it.
That brings us to the final subject of current breathless public speculation: Who, omigod who, will lead conservatives and/or Republicans against the mighty liberal onslaught? In looking for a “leader,” attention this week has turned to the Republican Governor’s Conference and the list of luminaries parading there.
We would humbly suggest that most rank-and-file conservatives (and more than a few “moderates”) are desperately seeking thoughtful, articulate, dedicated followers of conservative principle. Find those true followers, and from them legitimate leadership will emerge. (Emphasis in original.)
I have a quiz for all of you: who is NOT in favor of limited government, low taxes, strong defense, free markets, moral and ethical standards, and individual responsibility?
To begin with, having a limited government and low taxes enhances individual responsibility because one who has more of the money they labored for is able to choose how to spend it for their own needs and wants in the best manner possible.
The strong defense gives an opportunity for the free market to work. When the nation was founded, a large part of our defense focused on keeping the sea lanes free from pirates because our trade and revenue depended on it. In more modern times, part of the projection of power we employ maintains our access to natural resources.
Moral and ethical standards go hand-in-hand with individual responsibilty as well. Without standards our society would descend to anarchy.
The overall point of the writer is that our recent election was less a rejection of conservatism than a desire for change, where the more conservative of the two candidates seemed to represent the status quo. Much as I respect and thank President Bush for his dedication to our security, the fact is that out of the six aspects of conservatism mentioned above we only progressed on three (low taxes, strong defense, and moral/ethical standards – at least as far as occupants of the Oval Office are concerned.) Far from a conservative on many issues, President Bush presided over a large expansion of government where markets were gamed by government interference and many individuals were allowed to not face up to their responsibility.
Naturally, the incoming Obama Administration promises to go 0-for-6 on the conservative principles. And there are some who claim that we needed an utterly liberal President in charge to bring about the next conservative leader, much as the weakness of Jimmy Carter was necessary to bring about “morning in America” with Ronald Reagan.
The problem with that assessment is the same one Reagan faced for his two terms – we would need a turnover in Congress similar to the “Contract With America” election of 1994 to make any conservative leader able to actually put his or her policy ideas in place. Short of that, the best we on the right can hope for in the near- to medium-term future is a divided government much like Reagan had.
However, the writer is correct in that we as conservatives do need followers, and the best hope we have is getting them at an early age. Education is a must – not the pablum which public schools serve, but teaching kids how to think for themselves and discern that solutions which promote the maximum of individual freedom nearly always work out the best. It’s why homeschooling is Public Enemy Number 1 to many on the liberal side. The one thing I dislike about the analogy of “follower” though is that many who don’t subscribe to our views would label “followers” as “sheeple” or “disciples” when in reality they’re following simply because a better solution was presented to them.
When the evidence is properly laid out and weighed, conservatism usually wins. It’s those who seek the thrill of absolute power who try to lay their thumbs on the scale of influence, and that group needs to be our target in the future.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
SALISBURY’S REVENUE IS FALLING FASTER THAN THE TEMPERATURE
Yesterday the Tilghman Administration posted the City’s fiscal data for the 1st quarter of FY2009, which ended on September 30, 2008. Before proceeding any further, please sit down and take some deep breaths. You’ve been warned.
Total General Fund receipts were about $5.2 Million, or 17% of that fund’s budget for the year – down markedly from the same quarter in the preceding budget year, FY2008, in which total receipts were almost $14.6 Million, or 49% of the General Fund budget for that year. And it was significantly lower than in the same quarter of FY2007 ($10.2 Million, or 38%).
Although the City’s revenue was down in each budget category, the largest drop was in real estate taxes, which were $1.7 Million (12% of the budgeted total) compared to $9.1 Million (70%) in FY2008 and $7.2 Million (68%) in FY2007, which was prior to the double digit tax rate increase that Barrie and Bubba Comegys pulled off last year.
Salisbury no longer receives most of its property tax revenue early in each fiscal year. Although the revenue may be received in greater shares during the remainder of FY2009, it is not certain whether it will accrue in the budgeted amount, and less interest income will accrue on City funds being held pending expenditure later in the fiscal year.
The City’s perilous situation was anticipated by Councilwoman Campbell, whose plea to revisit and reduce the current year’s budget has been disregarded by Barrie Tilghman and her puppets on the City Council – Comegys, Shields and Smith.
[source: SBYnews.com]
“I have a quiz for all of you: who is NOT in favor of limited government, low taxes, strong defense, free markets, moral and ethical standards, and individual responsibility?”
Strong defense in itself means higher taxes,
with a crumbling infrastructure – both economically and physically – it’s a nice thought until one realizes you get what you pay for. Having lived in Europe and South American believe me you pay little tax you get a totally different life than we live here.
Free Market – that is something some don’t seem to get. It was a great theory at it’s evangelical roots, and worked quite nicely for a time (for the growth of them middle class, which was it’s intent after all), but it was diverted – starting with Reagan – it became a tool of the corporations, big government favoring coorporate profits. At this point in time it is of no value to the middle class, a middle class which has shrunk significantly during the last 8 years. A dangerous thing if you know anything about countries with no or small middle classes. That is where most of our immigrants come from.
We punished countries who were not prudent financially, we punished them in trade and in politics, while we spent and borrowed and now collapsed. The countries who controlled their markets are doing quite well, while we have self destructed, and taken a lot of countries, counntries we bullied, down with us. Those who didn’t listen to us are vindicated, and the power shift is evident. We have been playing with a unstable form of capitalism for 25 years. I think that is about to stop.