Marvin Olasky puts it like this:
Compassionate conservatives choose the most basic means of bringing help to those who need it. The goal is to look within the family first; if the family cannot help, maybe an individual or group within the neighborhood can; if not, then organizations outside the neighborhood but within the community should be called on. If it is necessary to turn to government, compassionate conservatives typically look first to municipal, then to county, then to state, and only then to federal offices. At each governmental level, the basics should be in order before proceeding to the more complicated stages. For example, a group that protects teenage ex-hookers from camps should have adequate police protection. Good Samaritan laws should be enacted so that a person who helps a mugging victim does not have to fear a lawsuit. When such basic protection is in place and counterproductive regulations have been replaced, the next goal is improved information flow concerning an organization and to facilitate contributions. And it is time to bring in questions of direct grants, tax credits, and so forth, always looking to the most basic level of government that connect efficiently on a particular problem.
We're witnessing the opposite of this with the Obama administration today. President Obama is making good on many of the "I will provide" promises that he uttered during the 2008 presidential election campaign. And the Democratic House and Senate have been willing partners in rolling out trillions of dollars for national programs.
Republicans have done it to, in the not so distant past. It's not about party affiliation for me, it's about the conservative ideal of limiting spending and government power. That said, it is a badge of honor for the Republicans to be called more recently "the party of no." We need to roll back spending and government overreach, and on November 2 that means casting a vote for each common sense conservative on the ballot.
In central Wisconsin, that means Duffy for congress, Johnson for senate, Walker for governor, Eno for state assembly, and Galloway for state senate. I've met each of these candidates, and I believe they all stand with the ideal I've mentioned here. I believe they're our best chance to bring government back under control.
" I believe they're our best chance to bring government back under control."
ReplyDeleteThis is funny. Both parties corrupt the American system, pay off their supporters, and ensure that every person fears the opposite party. Yet you think that the Republican conservative will somehow do the best for America. Like Reagan who single handedly increased the national debt by a trillion dollars when a trillion was a lot of money.
If you want to vote conservative, at least vote for the Constitution Party candidates. They won't implement the Patriot Act or invade other countries or torture people and they may actually shrink government and stack the courts with state's rights judges.
They are a better choice than any party Republican.
RC, while I'm not married to any party, I'm excited about the resurgence of conservatism within the Republican Party in this season. Will it be forever? I don't know. But it's a great season to be conservative and Republican.
ReplyDeleteI don't represent a defense of the historical Republican Party. I see what is happening in recent years and where I'm hoping we'll continue to go.
Evan, please go to
ReplyDeletehttp://www.votesmart.org/voteeasy/
and take the test to see which candidates reflect your views. I'll wager that the Constitution Party suits you more than the Republican Party.
It is time to change parties.Don't be fooled again.
Here is Rob Taylor's website. Check him out.
ReplyDeletehttp://robtaylorforsenate.com
I just wrote about him on my own blog.
From Newsmax.com today: The United States is moving farther from "Basic" involvement by the government.
ReplyDelete6. Entitlement Programs Now One-Third of Wages
Government entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance now equal 35 percent of all wages — up from 26 percent as recently as 2002 — pushing the United States toward “European territory.”
The recent increase in government assistance is due largely to the recession’s high unemployment, according to Madeline Schnapp, director of macroeconomic research at the investment research firm TrimTabs.
But she believes that even when unemployment declines, the 35 percent mark is not likely to drop very much.
“What would it take to bring the ratio of social welfare benefits to wages and salaries back to its pre-recession level of 26 percent?” she writes.
“Either wages and salaries would have to increase $2.3 trillion, or 35 percent, to $8.8 trillion, or social welfare benefits would have to decline $500 billion, or 23 percent, to $1.7 trillion.
“Neither of these scenarios seems likely. The economy is not growing rapidly enough to generate extraordinary growth in wages and salaries, and the oldest of the 78 million Baby Boomers turn 65 this year and are eligible for Medicare.”
Commenting on Schnapp’s research, Daniel Indiviglio, associate editor of The Atlantic, notes that as baby boomers age they increasingly rely on government payments through programs like Social Security and Medicare. So even when the millions of jobless Americans do find work, the government unemployment insurance they no longer receive might go to increased benefits to seniors.
He writes: “At 35 percent, the U.S. is entering European territory. Schnapp says that transfer payments in the U.K. are currently around 44 percent of wages and salaries — but that's up from 36 percent in 2007, before the global recession hit.
“So if this ratio remains around 35 percent in the U.S. even after the unemployment rate declines, then the U.S. government's transfer payment burden will, indeed, begin to resemble that of a European welfare state.”