What are Republicans today, anyway? George Will: As much socialists as Democrats these days.
George Will had an excellent column today:
Is fiscal conservatism really so dead in America today?
Just remember some of his examples the next time you hear about some new tax being “temporary”, or “only for a particular purpose”. How many times have those words turned out to be true?
I voted for Barr in the election. Not because I had any misconception about his chances, but because enough votes for those with fiscally conservative views will hopefully help influence the national discussion. Supporting Ron Paul. Voting for Barr.
At this point I would even be ok with Obama raising taxes, as long as he went Clinton’s path towards balancing the budget. Even with big spending, if we can get closer to the point where we are realizing the actual cost of all of these programs and foreign interventionism then at least we can have an honest discussion about fiscal policy. But as long as costs can be deferred, or hidden, then it is almost impossible to have honest discussion.
I’ve never been a Republican. I went from being a Democrat to being a libertarian, because that stage where people used to become Republicans never took–the fiscal principles that used to pull the youth as they grew older into Republicans has vanished. Compare Clinton to either Bush, and it’s no wonder the current generation likely sees Democrats as, if not flat-out fisally more responsible, more honest and knowledgeable about what things cost and how you have to find funding for what you want to do.
Conservatives can say all they want that tax revenues rise when you lower tax rates. But if you’re spending billions upon billions in new government programs and foreign interventionist policies, and now government bailouts, that doesn’t wash. Republicans have to become much more rational about spending, and that includes what we are able to do internationally.
[/soapbox] You go, George Will. Tell it like it is.
If this doesn’t scare you, you are stupid. [Drug War]
I can’t exactly figure out what people see in a war that simultaneously:
1. is costly and ineffective [Washington Post via ToThePeople].
2. corrupts government up and down the chain [Radley Balko], not only putting innocent people in prison (intentionally, in some instances, to cover up ineptitude or police state wrongdoing), but keeping them in prison when law enforcement officials know they’re innocent.
Really, if you are pro-Drug War, or on the fence, would it kill you to take a couple of minutes and read these articles? These are not isolated incidents or minor policy issues, this is a government initiative that is systemically rotten to its very core, both in policy and execution.
Let me re-iterate, because this should not ever, ever happen in a free country–the FBI, in order to protect informants and continuing investigations, leaves wrongly convicted people in jail–and the FBI intentionally sits on the information that could free them. Want it better? They won’t say that they won’t continue this practice!!
If I get asked–is the answer that we just give up? YES!!! YES!!! Billions of dollars flushed down the toilet in enforcement, incarceration, foreign “programs” that turn the world against us, a war that funds terrorism (and wouldn’t if pulled into legal enterprise) . . . where is the upside? What am I missing? All this money, all the freedoms encroached, all the injustices, and have we cut consumption by a significant margin? No, what we’ve done is given drug dealers incentives to make newer and more dangerous drugs (see, e.g., methamphetamine, created during periods of crackdown on amphetamine . . . good going, Drug Warriors!).
Is it too much to ask people to speak out? Contact your local, regional and national politicians and show your support for ending this insanity.
Lou Dobbs channels George Bush–BRILLIANT!
I swear, up until the last two sentences of Lou Dobbs’ latest CNN column I thought he had gone libertarian on the drug war. Look how he opens:
We’re fighting a war that is inflicting even greater casualties than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and, incredibly, costing even more money. We’re losing the War on Drugs, and we’ve been in retreat for three decades.
Dobbs describes the Drug War as “a futile, three-decades-long war of attrition.” Ok Lou, I’m with you. I don’t know where we’re going yet, but so far we’re at least in the same car. We’re in retreat, it’s futile, the costs are massive, treatment works better than incarceration . . . sure, he’s missing some of the biggies but he’s also hitting some of the biggies.
I should have seen it coming. Why, Lou, why must you toy with me in this way? Lou drops the hammer on my hopeful head in his last two sentences:
We must end the abuse of drugs and alcohol, and provide successful treatment for Americans whose addictions are destroying their own lives and wounding our families and society.
Whatever course we follow in prosecuting other wars, we must commit ourselves as members of this great society to only one option in the War on Drugs — victory.
Damn you Lou! So close, yet so far. Who is going to provide this successful treatment? You know who, the government. You know, the ones in charge of the three-decades-long exercise in futility. Because they’re so good at rehabilitation programs.
Sure, he doesn’t say it, but all the tell-tale signs are there. Just by the fact that he doesn’t explicitly say who will be providing treatment, that’s a big tip-off right there. “We”. “We” could mean private businesses specializing in rehabilitation and treatment, but do you really think that’s what he means? No, “We” is being used collectively–”We” society, “We” the People, “We” the taxed, forced to support yet more big government.
Dobbs did the same thing with immigration. He took one look at the futility and expense of stopping illegal immigration and decided that the solution was to try harder and spend more. He would see an immovable object and say “You know, if we just push more, I bet it will move!”
I think he and Bush must be golf buddies, because if you swap a few words around, this same column is essentially the same rationale as Bush’s proposed surge–if things look futile, outrageously expensive and counter-productive, then the only course of action is to double-down, you know, to make sure you lose as much as you possibly can.
As the Guinness spokesmen would say–”BRILLIANT!”
