What's a Reagan Conservative?

I haven't heard it yet, but any day now we'll hear one of the GOP (Grand Old Poopers) touting that they are the Reagan Conservative candidate. Though, when you think about it, that may not be such a Grand Old Proposition.

Before Ronald Reagan was a Republican, he was a card carrying member of the Democrat Party. He made the switch in 1962, a whole four years prior to becoming Governor of California. He said that he didn't leave the Democrat Party, but that the Democrat Party left him.

(Note: I refer to it as the Democrat Party, because that is what it is. Democratic is a type of government. For the same reason we don't call the Republican Party the Republic Party: The United States government is a Republic.)

Reagan said that his political views had not changed. The Democrats had moved farther to the left and now he found that his political views were more in line with the Republicans.

Think about that for a minute. Read that last sentence one more time. What does this mean? It means that the Republicans have THEMSELVES moved farther left as well. Reagan said his political views (which at the time were considered liberal) had not changed. And this, my friends, is the root of the problem.

During the Primaries, the candidates are not talking to the general electorate. They are talking (primarily) to their base. Once the Primaries are over, and the general election cycle starts; the candidates start talking to the general electorate as a whole. That is where a lot of the "flip-flopping" occurs.

Here's the funny thing to me. What happens is that the media convince us that the Republican candidate is "too right wing". Oh, "we need a centrist candidate" they will repeat ad nauseam. So what does the Republican candidate do? He goes about proving how he's not "too right wing".

Think about it. If you are considered "right wing" and you move more towards the center, which direction are you moving? LEFT!! Correct! So now, the Republican Party is more left (a.k.a "liberal") than they were before. And each election cycle this repeats, moving the Republican Party farther and farther left. What was considered "centrist" last year is "right wing" this year. Don't believe me? George W. Bush touted "Compassionate Conservatism". That was another way of saying "Liberal". Remember that he always said he would veto additional spending bills (that bloated the size of the federal government)? It took to half-way through his second term for him to find his veto pen. And then the GOP runs John McCain up the flag pole; a man who spent more years working across the aisle than he did with his own party. And who is (currently) at the top of the heap? Donald Trump. A man who has supported Democrats and their policies for years.

One thing you never hear is that the Democrat Party is "too left wing" and needs to move more towards the center. The media seems pretty mute on that. Yet, in order to make sure the Democrats and Republicans aren't saying the exact same things, the Democrat Party moves farther left themselves.

The results of all this side-step shuffling is that the Republicans are the liberals and the Democrats are the new socialists. (Wow! I guess this means that Bernie Sanders IS the true representation of the Democrat Party after all!)

On second thought, looking at those who have ran for office in the GOP over the last few years, maybe nobody WILL tout themselves as a Reagan Conservative. You know, he was "too right wing".

©Emittravel 2016

The President's Novel Idea

President Obama has a unique plan to handle the financial crisis, but it will only work if Republicans will get off of their high horses and embrace it. For every $1 in tax revenue (a.k.a. "increases"), there will be $2 in spending cuts. Novel! And it will work! The solution to the growing debt has been found. President Obama has shown his incredible, breathtaking intellect at work.

Not so quite. Here is what I want to tell Republicans (and fiscally-minded Democrats - and I know you are out there!):

Ronald Reagan was offered the same plan. He found that the only way to get significant spending cuts would be to accept this and raise taxes.

George H.W. Bush was offered the same plan. Mr. "read my lips: no new taxes" embraced this plan as the only way to get significant spending cuts.

How did that work out? They both accepted tax increases (hurting Reagan's reputation of limited government and literally eliminating Bush's chances for re-election). The promised spending cuts? NEVER HAPPENED. And what did you get? The Democrats trumpeting how the non-tax-increase Republicans LIED and increased taxes when election time came around. They don't care about the debt: they only care about getting votes (and unfortunately, so do you Republicans.) The ruse? "Compromise." In order for the media to show that you are willing to compromise, you need to accept what the Democrats are dishing out. If you don't, you are obstructionists to progress.

If I were you, I would demand to see those cuts put into action FIRST, and THEN allow the tax increase. You know, "show me the cuts, and then I'll show you the money".

Hurt me once, shame on you. Hurt me twice, shame on me. Hurt me three times??

© Emittravel 2012

It's broke. Time to fix it. Article #5

It's broke . . .

When it comes to eliminating the nation's debt and balancing the budget there has been nothing but a stalemate in Congress. * Conservatives want cuts without tax increases. Liberals want tax increases without cuts. Both won't give an inch.

Now, as a fiscal-conservative, I have to sympathize with the conservatives here. Both Presidents Reagan and Bush (senior) agreed to a congressional plan to raise taxes $1 for every $3 in cuts. Both Presidents were blasted (and rightfully so) for this move, and they both regretted making it. Why? Because the tax increases took effect immediately, and the cuts were to future spending. None of the cuts have ever come to fruition. Why? Because you can't force a future Congress to abide by budgets set under previous congresses.

The solution is simple: put in a stipulation that states that if the tax cuts do not take place by a certain date, the tax increases are AUTOMATICALLY rescinded, including reimbursement to those affected (including those evil rich people). Make it a hard and fast law that a future Congress can't break.

 

Now THAT'S what you call a compromise we can live with!

. . . time to fix it!

* Generalization - both conservatives AND liberals have not been too keen on spending cuts

© Emittravel 2011