The big mistake made by President Bush was in allowing
excessive and uncontrolled spending in a Republican controlled Congress for 6
years without a veto. In doing so he soured fiscal conservative support for
Republicans and set a precedent for excessive spending that Democrats now feel
should apply to them as well.
It started with helping the country out of the recession left
by the Clinton Administration and getting back on it’s feet after the attacks of
911. Feeding more federal money back into the economy helped the country to
recover economically but by 2003, this practice should have ended.
It wasn't until Democrats gained control of Congress that Bush
discovered his veto pen which he should have been using over the previous 4
years. Had he held congressional Republicans accountable to conservative fiscal
standards, they would likely still be in control of Congress. Conservatives were
simply not interested in voting when their only choices were Democrats and
Republicans who legislate like them.
House Appropriations Committee Chairman Democrat David Obey of
Wisconsin addressed the National Press Club Monday and criticized President
Bush, the Iraq war and the ongoing battle over domestic spending. He said the
2006 midterm elections that sent Democrats back to power in Congress signified
that the public had two messages for Washington: "First, they wanted a change in
policy in Iraq. Secondly, they wanted a new set of priorities at home."
Obey was wrong on both counts and just like all of the
Democrats, misinterpreted the voters' message in 2006. The Democrat election
victory had nothing to do with Iraq. It was more about Republicans spending like
drunken Democrats, passing legislation aimed at pandering to the left, and
failing to observe conservative principles. They needed to be taught a lesson
about what is expected from them by the people who put them in office.
Clearly, Republicans were fed up with their elected
representatives pandering to the left, “reaching across the isle,” and
supporting legislation that would only appeal to liberal socialists. No, let me
correct that, legislation that would only appeal to socialists. As I pointed out
in my last week, liberals and socialists are two
distinctively different and in many cases opposite creatures. Republicans now
face the threat of the same thing happening again in the White House with the
current Republican front runners. Conservatives want representation in
government, not merely lip service from the Republican party which continues to
promote candidates who might appeal to the moderate left.
Using old and warn out rhetoric, Obey condemned the war in Iraq
as a "quagmire," a "misguided enterprise," a "never-ending war" and a "black
hole." But just as with most Democrats and the mainstream media, there was no
mention of the progress made by General Petraeus or the fact that the war is now
all but won in Iraq.
Instead, Obey commented that if "violence is decreasing in
Iraq, it may be because insurgents are running out of people to kill. There are
fewer targets of opportunity." He accused Bush of pouring billions of dollars
into a “civil war in Iraq” which does not exist.
Obey also objects to the Bush request of $88 million in the
current appropriations bill to fit B-2 stealth bombers with the capability to
carry bunker-busting bombs which will ultimately be needed to stop Iran's
nuclear program when the decision is finally made that attempts at diplomatic
negotiations have failed.
The fight this week was over a major appropriations bill which
came in response to Bush's request for an additional $196 billion in military
spending to finish off the enemy elements remaining in Iraq. But Democrats want
their domestic spending approved and know the only way they can get it is to
hold hostage the troops fighting in Iraq.
After earlier failed attempts to pass their domestic spending
in the House and Senate without a presidential veto, the House decided to
combine their domestic legislation and pork spending with the war funding bill.
The Republican leadership objected but was unable to block the Democrats and
finally agreed in a vote. Once again, the president had asked Congress for a
“clean bill” but was again presented with a bill packed with pork and other
irrelevant spending. The Senate is expected to split the bill back into it’s two
separate original bills.
On top of the $196 billion the president wants to fight the
war, the bill combines funding for the departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education with Veterans Affairs, military construction; and veterans
assistance. Obey wants roughly $14 billion more in these areas than does Bush,
who threatened to pull out his veto pen again.
The bill includes $2.4 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program, which helps poor households pay air-conditioning and heating
bills and avoid utility cutoffs for nonpayment; $1.2 million for state grants
for vocational education and $30 billion for medical research at the National
Institutes of Health among other wasteful spending items.
“It is not credible for the president to make a federal case
out of our desires to provide $20 billion for veterans’ health care, cancer
research, Pell Grants, energy research and law enforcement while he wants to
spend ten times that much in the Iraqi black hole,” says Obey.
There is just one thing that Obey is overlooking. It's called
the Constitution of the United States of America. That founding document
authorizes the federal government to fund the military needs and to fight wars.
It does not authorizes our federal tax dollars to be spent on cancer research,
Pell Grants, energy research, local law enforcement, education, public health,
bailing out people with overdue utility bills, or any of the thousands of other
domestic issues that Democrats persist in spending our money on. Those things
can just as well be funded by the states and private enterprise. The
Constitution makes that clear in the Enumeration of Powers of Article 1 section
8, and the 10th Amendment where the powers of Congress are specified.
Congress has taken the liberty of extending their powers far
beyond what is authorized by the Constitution and few in our society seem to
notice or object. Even those serving in Congress, who are sworn to uphold the
Constitution, don't even seem to notice that they are in direct violation of
that document on a daily basis.
What use are laws when even our lawmakers disregard them? What
happens to citizens when they disregard the laws made by lawmakers? Should not
lawmakers be held to the same standard as the American citizens? The founding
fathers made laws for our government to follow and we should expect and demand
that they be followed.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to hand
out tax money to certain segments of the population or special interest groups
in exchange for campaign contributions and votes which is exactly what Democrats
have been doing. Republicans, while not offering handouts for votes, are no less
guilty of giving away our money in exchange for campaign contributions. I’ll
give you a bunch of the taxpayers’ money and you give some of it back to me
personally. This is nothing less than stealing from the taxpayers.
If you watch cable TV after midnight you’ve probably seen the
advertisement for Mathew Lesko’s book: “Free Money”. The book, according to this
wacko socialist Lesko, lists thousands of government handout programs you can
use to get money from the government, taxpayers’ money. The only thing this book
should ever be used for is as a guide for government reform to eliminate
unconstitutional government spending. Lesko belongs in the nut house or prison
for promoting un-American and unconstitutional policy as though it’s the
This country needs to understand that America was
founded and built on capitalism and free enterprise, not socialism. Those who
promote socialism in America are every bit as much the enemy of America as are
the Islamofascists. They are even more dangerous because rather than destroy a
city or two, they are destroying the entire country. Freedom and liberty will no
longer exist under socialist Democrat government dependence. The very core of
America will no longer exist.
Obey and his Democrat cohorts contend that they need to raise
our taxes to offset the Bush tax cuts. I find this justification for raising
taxes astounding since the Bush tax cuts have resulted in increased federal tax
income. Until this unconstitutional and excessive federal spending is brought
under control, no amount of federal tax money will ever be enough to satisfy the
socialists controlling Congress today. The more they have, the more they spend
and the more they want.
The 110th Congress has done nothing for the people they are
sworn to serve but rather has spent all of their days indulging themselves in
finding ways to spend other people's money - ours, and pursuing the campaign
contributions and votes of the antiwar socialists. I find this course the
110th Congress has taken to be unacceptable as should all Americans.
But they have merely showcased the disrespect for the Constitution that Congress
has been showing for the past 5 decades which coincidentally coincides with the
Communist infiltration of our country. Did I say “coincidentally?” Maybe not so
It's interesting to note that in Obey's Bush bashing press
conference, he brought up the fact that the 1990s ended with a budget surplus
under the Clinton Administration, giving the impression that Clinton was
responsible for it. Nothing could be further from the truth. The budget surplus
of the 90s was a direct result of a Republican Congress and House Speaker Newt
Gingrich who balanced the budget with his "Contract with America" which cut
federal spending and brought it more in line with the Constitution. That was the
only time in recent history that Congress was not on a spending binge with the
taxpayers' money and the country prospered because of it. The result was a
budget surplus in spite of the Clintons, not because of them.
If Bush had taken out his veto pen when he first took office
instead of waiting for Democrats to get control of Congress, and if the
Republican Congress had continued with the Gingrich Contract with America, I
have no doubt that Republicans would still be in control of Congress today and
would be virtually unchallenged for the White House in 2008. There would be no
chance of someone as unqualified, unprincipled, and dishonest as Billary Clinton
being elected to the highest office in the land.
But then we would be right back to the same problem we had in
108th and 109th Congress. With one party holding all of
the power of the government, it seems that they just can’t resist abusing their
power with no one holding them accountable. President Bush allowed any and all
wasteful spending by his Republican friends in Congress and ignored the voice of
the people to stop it. Now it’s come back to bite him in the rear when Democrats
want the same privilege and Bush is made to look unfair in denying it.
Politics has become so dirty today that good honest people no
longer want to dirty themselves with it. If they are willing to get into the rat
race at all, they end up either dropping out or giving in to the corruption of
the Constitutional principals they were elected to uphold. If we don’t find
solutions to these problems, our country and our system of government is doomed.
Term limits on Congress might be a good place to start. The