The answer is simple: it is almost exclusively on costs. At present, the trajectory of U.S. government spending, in which government spending in general and the federal government, in particular, is growing as a share of the economy, increasing evictions space occupied by the free citizens and private companies in the private sector. Moreover, much of this is done automatically, without the consent of the governed in all but the most superficial: discretionary spending is growing, because the budgets are prepared using the expenditures for the previous year as a starting point, and public law and the cost of paying benefits employees - who consume most of the costs - develops itself in the absence of positive legislation to stop it. The federal government has not adopted a budget of about 1000 days (the State of the Union speech by President Obama on the occasion of 1000), and the costs continue to rise and will continue to grow as the eye can see - a radical change in our country runs on autopilot - if dramatic response to stop. Jack magic beans have nothing on public spending.
And the growth in spending is bleeding over each other questions. Federal spending is subject to certain conditions, and chains to reduce the independence of states and the federal octopus arm to dig deeper into the field of social policy. Institutions such as churches, schools and hospitals have become dependent on federal money, and have to dance all the way up to the federal government. The costs are allocated and earmarked for those who favor the companies and groups that make society less equal and less government ethics. The costs distorts energy markets, the housing market and the market in higher education, the creation of bubbles and inefficiency. So, before we even metastatic growth of federal regulation. And, finally, escape domestic spending undermines our ability to adequately fund our national defense.
There is general agreement among both philosophical conservatives and Republicans at all. Where the fault line that way, we are ready to go do something. Many people who came into politics as a good conservative, and I still consider myself a good conservative restricted limits of practicality, at a loss when it comes to meaningful ways to tame the Leviathan. For reasons, some good (to use political power to protect national security, maintaining control over the courts and to limit the regulation is too far away), some less, they threw in the towel on the main question of the day. This tells us about another "Creation." - Not always with a sense of action and opportunities, but due to the urgency of the case, pay attention to the dramatic impact to prevent the threat of over-pass a tipping point where we no longer can make room for the private sector. They are outsiders, the complex system and its basic provisions. The analogy is appropriate tea: the Founding Fathers had much in common with the conservatives of his time, but do not agree on the fundamental issue, not a principle but in practical politics: if the revolution was necessary to their traditional right to protection from the British time to eradicate the growing encroachments of the British Crown. As it was then, the difference between them consists in determining the question of the Republican Party and conservative movement today.
In short, the true "Creation" and "Outsider", "anti-establishment" or "tea party" faction is not about who is conservative or moderate, or anyone inside or outside the Moscow Ring Road, or public office, or who holds degrees from the imagination or a large number of readers / listeners cocktails or visiting rights or the church, and not even sure who has or does not support different candidates. "Creation" is used and abused in these conditions, but has consistently described the movement of one division value. real battle between the agency and among outsiders those who argue for major changes in our habits, as the need to save America we know and those who are not ready to take that step. This is, in general, between those who are not ready to take action in the hope that Currently, the structures, as public money is spent are not viable and should be fixed so that there is still time, if we do not lose, abuse of other Republicans and conservatives in the things.
In a sense, the separation between confrontation and accommodation in the public sector growth is one that dates back to 1950, and historical roots are useful for understanding why the National Review, in particular, was caught in crossfire between editors and readers. The Great Debate GOP 1933-1956, or if he was, how to react to a new course: to try to curb its excesses, its premises or attack. Dwight Eisenhower eventually won the battle within the party in favor of the former. William F. Buckley, Jr., eventually won the battle inside the conservative movement in favor of the latter (hence the slogan "always on the history, yelling 'stop!'). But even Buckley and his magazine devoted more effort to fight against the status quo in national security policy on the size of government.
The failure of Goldwater in 1964 to win Reagan's 1980 victory and Newt Gingrich in 1994 and the failure in 1995-96, the common denominator that the Conservatives win the debate about tax cuts and national ownership of discretionary spending, but lose the arguments about the dismantling of state law by Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson and the autopilot budget process swelling of the 1970s. George W. Bush reinforced this consensus in 2000-05: he could not get the public for tax cuts and (partially) limit the growth of discretionary domestic spending, but could not get the public to reform Social Security and could not be elected in 2000 promising - and delivery in 2003 - a new law on health insurance, expensive prescription drugs. It seemed then that the Conservatives have to settle for winning the battles on taxes, national security, social issues and the courts, and discretionary spending, from time to time, but could not challenge the status quo on the rule of law and mandatory collectivist impulses.
The BackgroundThen we have some punch in 2006-2011 who collectively pushed a lot of people for the right to take the position that they can be naive about how much change was possible, will be determined Creation was naive to the length of the old system survived:
A. GOP Congress had drowned in the elections of 2006 and 2008, calling into question the long-term viability of the election strategy of modest ambitions to rein in costs, and emphasizes the ethics of coexistence with the danger of a massive federal spending.
Two. The U.S. financial crisis has left the federal and state governments that are able to immediately and noticeably horrible year, resulting in renewed interest in the fact that the law (civil rights and privileges, civil servants), we must pass it and it was only getting worse - the fact that otherwise moderate officials, Chris Christie and Mitch Daniels could use to get public support for fundamental rethinking of the social contract between the state and its employees if they are not his constituents.
Three. The U.S. financial crisis pales in comparison to the financial crisis in Europe. Terrible situation of Greece, in particular, was an event of radicalization, as Americans practitioners were presented a vivid example of how the state does not support the law. And the deterioration in the credit of the United States in the summer of 2011 fissured complacency of those who have made such a thing could never happen here.
4. In a broader sense, the financial crisis has shaken the faith of people around the American society in our major institutions, both public and private. He made many people less trusting of experts and not so easily calms the challenges the status quo. Wall Street takes a movement in its own way, said the center was fraying on both sides. The growth in support of Ron Paul is also a symptom of this trend.
Five. Barack Obama was elected, and brought the most dramatic expansion of the universal right to public memory of the public health, destroy the illusion that the Republicans would hold the line, being reactive and awakening of many citizens of the previously sleeping on the full risk of compulsory national policies that dictate the details of our personal lives.
6. War - the glue that has occurred and that the Bush coalition - the first degree politically toxic in 2006, then began to recede in importance, almost as soon as both parties choose their candidates for president in 2008, mainly on the basis of their position on the war in Iraq. Without the war as a unifying force policy, failed to convince the hawks spending to address these issues aside for the common good.
7. The success of some - but not all - Tea Party candidates in the 2010 election showed that many voters were open to what is, perhaps, the whole structure of relations between the federal government to the voters was not viable.
Confronting Leviathan
Where do we go from here?
Congress
Creating Outsiders compared with the dynamic is most clearly manifested in the various battles of John Boehner - to his credit, despite the fact that by temperament and experience of the classic figure of the institution itself - attempted to budgetary issues, most of which ended with his environment and is controlled by a de facto union administration Obama, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell, the most depressing. The lines of battle, as strong as its weakest link, and Boehner has repeatedly engaged in battle, not being able to count on McConnell and Senate Republican Party to keep his end of the line, making it a negotiating position untenable. For most, turning the House of Representatives and the Senate is not about ideology, but also on the tactics and the Senate Republicans were simply not prepared to go as far as at home. This is exactly what I mean by "creation".
Outsider small but determined faction in the Senate, led by men like Jim DeMint and Ron Johnson, you need reinforcements, and all the more so if - as we shall see below - we end up with Mitt Romney as a candidate for the Republican Party and, possibly, the next president. That's why I said, here and here, the importance of continuing to create a counterweight to the Republican Party in Congress to what comes out of the presidential race, in particular unbeholden to Romney, with particular emphasis on the Senate to wrest control of the party leadership from the current accomodationist. Results to date have been mixed, although the refusal to support the candidate Jim DeMint before the primaries in South Carolina, at least to begin with.
The White House
The presidential race is, of course, was a big disappointment. Of the five remaining candidates, both Texans really anti-establishment, but one (Rick Perry) struggling to gain traction and is not (despite an impressive record) is particularly persuasive spokesperson, while the other (Paul) is limited by many other ways it is unacceptable to the right office and unworthy significant. North-east, are two figures of expenditure on the creation of classics: his entire career in the Mitt Romney (like his father), the approach embodied in the era of Eisenhower's place, complete with his signature huge road of a new law in Massachusetts, while Rick Santorum much more than a populist outsider tempermentally, his career ended under the leadership of the Senate, who lost his way, his office in preparation for 2006. Both involve vocals, overlapping sections devoted to the applause on the grounds that the tiger must be installed. In the middle, we have Newt Gingrich, who, as I said above, is heterogeneous in this regard, Newt believes less confrontational ways to begin to unravel the law, but it's not really a small government guy, and your view of the weight to be placed on his success and failures in this area may be different.
Contrast can be illustrated by the responses to the debate last night, Santorum and Romney in the Gingrich plan to offer private accounts as a voluntary renunciation of the social security system for younger workers. Santorum:
[How to Newt] irresponsible. And I say Newt cons, because no one in the last 15 years, it was more in favor of personal savings accounts that I have a social security system. But we did when we had a surplus of social security. We are now shortages of social security. We are now a huge deficit in this country.
As proposed in the Gingrich Congress, if it is right that 95 percent of young workers [refuse] to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars in debt has increased, hundreds of billions more debt on the premise of the book, we can 't just - we will borrow money from China to finance these accounts, it's wrong. I have for these accounts, but first we must get our fiscal house in order to balance the budget and then create the possibility that Newt wants. But the idea to do it now, it is financial madness.
Romney:
Rick rights. I - I know it's popular here to say, oh, we could - we can do and it does not cost anything. But look, it will be difficult to get our federal budget from the current 25 per cent of GDP to 20 to 18 percent, which was our history. We have a large number of bonds in this country and the reduction will occur. I know something about balancing budgets.
In the private sector, you have no choice. You balance your budget, or leave the company. And we - we can not say that we are going to go out and borrow more money to help people create new accounts that take money from Social Security and Medicare today. Therefore, we must give people the opportunity to have an account voluntarily, a program of voluntary savings are taxed. That's why I said the middle-income one should be able to save their money tax-free. No withholding tax on interest, dividends and capital gains.
This American [] savings and carries out its purpose, Mr. President, without jeopardizing the future viability of America with financial folly.
Santorum and Romney, and clearly understand that the proposed Newt would be good for young workers, but Santorum argues that we should keep them in custody in the current system for payment of benefits to other currents, which, of course, a self-fulfilling cycle, which supports reform of the barrier system . This is the reason for Romneycare and Obamacare - compelling individuals to subsidize the program team - and why these programs are so difficult to eradicate when they were created for some time. More importantly, both Santorum and Romney is not - as in the requests for postponement of Santorum and Romney offers alternative savings on top of social security - is that we already have the benefits of current beneficiaries, regardless of how we finance them, but failure of the system, which prevents us from further obligations to young workers, who would then be self-fund their retirement, to change the system gradually from defined benefit to a longer actuarial defined contribution system, like most private employers in recent decades and the government, because even the government and local authorities are beginning to realize that they should (Romney, of course, recognized this when he is dealing with a private company). This is a fundamental philosophical argument to be made if we are to convince the American people that not only the costs of the crisis is real and the law - that the public is ready to accept - but also that the party has a more sustainable long-term answer to fixing it so it does not happen again.
At the present time with Romney in the lead, it seems likely that whatever the outcome of presidential elections in 2012 will be a huge missed opportunity to teach the American public about the nature of the crisis and establish a warrant for the person.
No comments:
Post a Comment