In Search of a Republican Principle

In watching the two political parties battle it out over health care, it occurs to me that the only question for the American people is, would we rather have our economy destroyed and our Constitution shredded quickly by the Democrats and get it over with, or drag it out for a few more years with the Republicans?  Republican spokesmen tell us every day they have a better plan if the Democrats would only let them explain it to the American people.

However, when you do get a glimpse of their plan you quickly realize that both parties are heading to the same destination, only the route Republicans want to take looks somewhat slower and perhaps less painful.  In fact, this has been the policy of the Republican Party for the past hundred and fifty years, and is the major difference between the two.

The Democrats have an agenda based on principles they are willing to stand on and fight for.  Those principles are the ones articulated by Karl Marx, published February 21, 1848. The liberal/progressive/socialist/democratic movement has been steadily moving toward their objective of socialistic domination ever since.

On the other hand, the Republican Party has no principles and no real agenda with which to resist this looming threat to our way of life.  Its slogans of “smaller government” and “lower taxes” are not principles but policies and are useless in the present circumstances because they have no concrete meaning.

The Federal government has 1.8 million civilian employees.  If the Republican Party should succeed in reducing that number to 1.5 million we would have a smaller government, but would we be any better off?  Probably not.

Our total individual tax burden, on average is about 40%-45% of income.  An across the board tax cut of 5% would mean lower taxes, but forty percent of our lives would still be consumed in working to satiate the insatiable appetite of the government.

The only way we are going to reverse the course Obama and his socialist cohorts have taken is for the Republican Party to return to its fundamentals and stand on the principles laid out in our founding documents.  To be for a “smaller government” without defining what is meant by “smaller” or for “lower taxes” without specifying what is meant by “lower”, is a waste of time and misleading to the people.

How large should the federal government be?  As large as necessary to carry out the less than two dozen functions delegated to it by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and not one employee more.  How much should the federal tax burden be?  Whatever is necessary to fund the legitimate functions of government authorized by the Constitution and not one cent more.

If we are unsuccessful in demanding our elected officials accept these two fundamental principles that form the foundation for our government and return to the “rule of law” they are sworn to uphold—The Constitution—, we are no better off than the passenger of the Titanic as they listened to the band, gallantly playing as the ship went down to a watery grave.


2 responses to “In Search of a Republican Principle

  1. Last year the argument was establish a set of policies in opposition to democrats, or work on a set of principles that would guide all future policy decisions. Many people didn’t want to ‘waste time arguing principles’ when there was a Presidential race going on.

    Principles won in our small (but growing) group and we fighting for policies that stand on those principles, but many people WANT government to give them stuff – yes, even most Republicans.

    Example: Health Care Reform (HCR). Premise, health care needs fixing because some people can’t get insurance. Republicans saw the desire, and accepted the premise. NO. (See, we are the party of NO). Government (Federal) has no business providing health care insurance to everyone. When people complain Republicans (and us Conservatives) don’t have a plan, the issue is we don’t have a plan for the Federal Government to expand it’s Constitutional mandate into areas it is not permitted to expand into.

    Let me replace HCR with car and see if this is what we really want:

    There are some people that can’t afford a car. Others have a car, but it doesn’t run well and can’t get everywhere people need to go. So, people want to take over all the car companies, and dealerships and repair shops, and make everyone buy a Chevy hybrid. If you have a BIG Suburban, you will have to get rid of it (soon enough) and get a small Aveo. If you prefer to ride a bike to work, you will have to pay a fine if you don’t buy a car.

    Now, Chevy can’t produce enough cars, so, some people will have to wait a long time to get theirs. Also, because only Chevy will be allowed to sell cars, the other manufacturers will all become Chevy. And because everyone has to have an Aveo, no one will be trying to design no types of cars, because the gov will be trying to keep costs as low as possible because, well, the costs will be so much than beside having to buy an Aveo, our taxes will be as much as if we had to buy the Suburban anyway.

    Yea, I like this idea. NO. In the face of Obama, NO is the appropriate Principle.

  2. Sorry for the typos below…sometimes I ain’t got no good english.