A treaty with the electorate

It’s always amusing when politicians make promises and issue statements before they are elected, but actually have to live with what they said they’d do afterward. Some are successful and others…not so much. (“Read my lips” seems to be one of the better examples, although that middle-class tax cut his successor promised but couldn’t deliver on seems a good one too.)

So Republicans took about 20 pages to expand on what is stated here. (It’s sad when I have to use North Dakota as an example given that this isn’t on the Maryland or national Republican websites.) But I suppose it’s better than the 67 pages our last party platform from two years ago took up. In this case, the GOP is trying to replicate the success of the “Contract With America” as a bedrock campaign slogan from 1994.

But so have many other people; for example, what was wrong with the Mount Vernon Statement or the Contract From America?

Here we have oh so many words to describe in excruciating detail what Republicans in Congress promise to do, if only they are given the levers of power. Yet there already is a roadmap in place; one which has been there for 222 years (albeit amended from time to time with the last being in 1992.) You know as well as I do what that document is.

To varying degrees these more recent documents pay lip service to the supreme law of our land, but who’s going to be the first to say, “look, it’s time to sunset entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid”? I’d say it but my chances of being elected to any position of power lie between slim and none, and slim just left town. Yet that step is necessary to insure the continued prosperity of this Republic.

No one truly wants to be the person to make the hard choice. I don’t necessarily fault politicians for this because, after all, they generally receive the job by winning a popularity contest expressed in our votes. “A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage” is a pretty good slogan, but the question is how one goes about getting it. (In Herbert Hoover’s case, the bubble of prosperity built on easy credit burst – maybe that’s a lesson Keynesians who believe that government spending will get us out of our economic doldrums should heed.) Franklin Roosevelt couldn’t get a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage no matter how much his New Deal spent because there weren’t enough other job producers around – how could those in the private sector compete with the government, an entity which need not make a profit?

A legitimate criticism of many TEA Partiers is the hypocricy they exhibit by complaining about government-run health care when they themselves are the beneficiaries. I can see the point, but if you frame it as a question of whether they believe their grandchildren should be saddled with the debt that’s being incurred on their behalf the answer makes more sense. And perhaps if a truly open-market private system were made available they would take advantage. For example, many millions of seniors saved for their retirement by investing despite the fact a government program was also there to subsidize their golden years. No one told them how much to invest nor were there any restrictions on where they could put their money.

But perhaps the most immediate step government can take in the correct direction is to stop using the tax code to reward or punish certain behaviors like buying a home or putting in a solar panel. Our granting that sort of power to government is what makes change so difficult. Of course, we should dismantle Obamacare and maintain the Bush tax rates as a stopgap measure, but the real change needs to come from a shift from income-based taxation to a single-point consumption-based tax. While it may life a bit more difficult for business in one aspect, other parts of the accounting system would vastly improve, not to mention people would have more money in their pocket.

Right now it seems that all we want to do is tinker around the edges, and most assuredly by having a President of the opposite party in charge for two more long years that may be all we can do on a national scale.

But states can also lead the way by asserting their Tenth Amendment rights and becoming the “laboratories of democracy” (albeit in the opposite manner that Brandeis would have preferred) by electing conservative governors and legislators and testing the waters of dismantling their statist controls over the citizens. Obviously Texas is a popular destination for both business and the population which follows it due to its low-taxation, small-government reputation.

In many cases, even after the 2010 election those who believe in freedom and liberty through limited government will still be saddled with elected officials who try the same old same old statist remedies which haven’t worked the first ten times. But we have a role to play there as well by exposing them for what they really are and educating the rest of the population why these legislators aren’t acting in their best interests by showering them with goodies from a goose they’re betting will still be laying golden eggs. Hopefully Atlas only has to shrug once before a lesson is learned.

The fight will be long, and victories may be few. But what we believe in is something well worth fighting for, and I plan on continuing my part of the battle for either as long as I draw breath or we win, whichever comes first. It just may come down to our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor again.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

One thought on “A treaty with the electorate”

  1. Michael,

    I may be reading you wrong, but I disagree with your statement “A legitimate criticism of many TEA Partiers is the hypocricy they exhibit by complaining about government-run health care when they themselves are the beneficiaries”.

    No citizen is merely a beneficiary. We are the source from which the power of those programs derive. Just because Congress passes a law and the President signs it does not mean that we have to swallow it and be happy about it.

    It is our duty — not just our right — to correct what we feel our excesses in how Congress and the President (and even the courts!) exercise the powers we have delegated to them.

    For example: just because we have a military does not mean that every citizen has to like how it is run, or how it is structured. I am sure there are any number of citizens who question why we need Special Forces units in all three branches of the military (plus Marine Recon units) (note: I don’t. I understand their missions are different, so no one write and say I am bashing the military). But it is not unpatriotic to insist, for example, that the military be structured and operated to best serve us as citizens, as opposed, to say, best serving Boeing or Lockheed Martin.

    I think there is no hypocrisy in attacking government programs that you don’t like, and expecting them to either be run correctly OR not be run at all.

    In fact, I think that is an entirely illegitimate complaint against the Tea Partiers.

Comments are closed.