More With Less

Cross posted from http://www.americasvictory08.com/

The night of November 8th was a rough one. My Nancy Pelosi hangover would not have been as bad if Republicans would have governed as Conservatives and ran as Conservatives. But they didn’t. Republicans were too timid to reform entitlements that are ticking time bombs; they forgot that their “budget” is money the IRS had to forcibly take in order to maintain a civil society, giving it away to their contributors, meanwhile
funding bridges to nowhere. This is a party that cannot secure its own nations borders because the Chamber of Commerce wouldn’t let them. The ’06 GOP loss would never have happened without the degeneration of a party I once loved. To look forward to ’08 we have to find out what went so wrong. My argument is that it is because of a lack of a guiding philosophy.

The philosophy that led the American Conservative movement was that of less Government. The questions that should be asked when approaching policy decisions are:
What is the least we can do to solve the problem? Are we overreaching? Is it our role to solve this problem? This philosophy led the GOP to what I would say was their finest our: The class of 1994. That period in which a Democrat President was forced to proclaim the era of Big Government “over”. The philosophy of less Government led to the GOP unified in demanding the elimination of Government agencies, across the board tax-cuts, and balanced budgets. The absence of this philosophy resulted in less freedom and less prosperity. The Executive Branch has expanded its role, the Congress has banned online gambling, they even held back funds for Montana forcing it to have a speed limit. The list is endless and is a result of a Government that acts as a social worker. But the economy has grown and taxes were cut so how I can I say we are less prosperous? The reality is that the formerly Republican Congress facilitated no wealth creation, and cut no taxes, they merely passed the bill to the next generation. I will be footing the bill when Medicare and Social Security explode. I will be paying for the prescription-drug entitlement. And yes, for your bridges to nowhere.

In ’08 I will be supporting candidates whose philosophy is guided by less Government. This governing philosophy identifies the few problems that Government has the ability to solve while preventing unintended consequences. Let me provide examples. National Security and fighting the War on Terror fit this test. The first duty of government is to protect its citizens. The way to do that is to fight a robust War on Terror. In 2008 and slightly afterward we will be facing entitlement programs with insufficient funds. We should ask if they are necessary. We should ask what the most prudent way to fix them might be. Do we simply tax these programs into solvency shying away from the uncertainty of the market, or opt for less government and more freedom, finding ways for individuals to invest, create their own capital and become less dependent.

I will be skeptical of candidates who say they will take a “practical” approach to the issues. I will not trust candidates who say they will solve all problems. Those who understand that less government brings more prosperity and more freedom deserve our support.