The Enemies of Freedom
Recently
by Laurence M. Vance: Another
Bloated Republican Budget
Now that the
taxpayer’s friend Ron Paul is no longer in Congress, it is hard
to have anything but disdain and loathing for the entire pack of
crooks and liars known as congressmen.
Nevertheless,
there are six Republican members of the House of Representatives
that are to be commended, at least this once, for voting against
both of the Republican budgets that were recently brought up for
a vote.
Rick Crawford
(AR), Randy Forbes (VR), Chris Gibson (NY), David McKinley (WV),
Walter Jones (NC), and Joe Heck (NV) voted against the Republican
budget that passed
(budget committee chairman Paul Ryan’s “The Path to Prosperity”),
and the one that failed
to pass (the Republican Study Committee’s “Back to Basics”).
The Republican
Study Committee’s “Back
to Basics” budget is the “conservative” Republican
budget. Although not as bloated
as Ryan’s “The
Path to Prosperity” budget, it is worth looking at because
it shows just how firmly committed to the welfare/warfare state
even the “conservative” Republicans are.
The Republican
Study Committee is “the caucus of House conservatives.”
There are currently 168
members out of the 232 Republicans in the House. According to
the group’s website:
The Republican
Study Committee is a group of House Republicans organized for the
purpose of advancing a conservative social and economic agenda in
the House of Representatives. The Republican Study Committee is
dedicated to:
- a limited
and Constitutional role for the federal government, - a strong
national defense, - the protection
of individual and property rights, - and the
preservation of traditional family values.
The RSC reviews
each piece of legislation under consideration on the House floor
using six guiding principles, printed on our “Conservative
Check Card” and listed below:
- Less Government
– Does the bill tend to reduce government regulations, size of
government, or eliminate entitlements or unnecessary programs? - Lower Taxes
– Does the bill promote individual responsibility in spending,
or reduce taxes or fees? - Personal
Responsibility – Does the bill encourage responsible behavior
by individuals and families and encourage them to provide for
their own health, safety, education, moral fortitude, or general
welfare? - Individual
Freedom – Does the bill increase opportunities for individuals
or families to decide, without hindrance or coercion from government,
how to conduct their own lives and make personal choices? - Stronger
Families – Does the bill enhance the traditional American family
and its power to rear children without excessive interference
from the government? - Domestic
Tranquility, National Defense – Does the bill enhance American
security without unduly burdening civil liberty?
This sounds
good on the surface. What problem could a libertarian or advocate
of a federal government strictly constrained by the Constitution
possibly have with reducing regulations, eliminating entitlements
and unnecessary programs, reducing taxes and fees, curtailing interference,
hindrance, and coercion from government, enhancing security, encouraging
personal responsibility, and not burdening civil liberties?
No problem
at all. But we do have a major problem with Republicans who tout
their conservative credentials, proclaim their allegiance to the
Constitution, and spout libertarian rhetoric about limited government,
responsibility, and freedom that they don’t actually believe.
For example,
let’s take a piece of legislation that would repeal an aspect of
the drug war. Introduced in the House on February 5 was the Ending
Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013 (H.R.499).
How many members of the Republican Study Committee would vote in
favor of this bill if they had the chance? You could probably count
those in favor on one hand. Yet, such legislation is certainly in
line with the Constitution and the RSC’s “six guiding principles.”
Ending the
drug war would reduce government regulations and reduce the size
of government. It would reduce the taxes needed to fund the Drug
Enforcement Administration and much of the federal justice system.
It would encourage individuals and families to provide for their
own health, safety, and moral fortitude. It would enhance the family
by no longer destroying it by putting family members in prison for
drug possession or trafficking. It would stop the tremendous violations
of civil liberties that occur in the course of fighting the drug
war. And it would above everything else increase opportunities for
individuals and families to decide, without hindrance or coercion
from government, how to conduct their own lives and make personal
choices.
Okay, so the
members of the Republican Study Committee fail miserably when it
comes to doing the right thing about the drug war. But let’s take
a look at their “conservative” budget.
The RSC budget
is said to be based upon seven “common-sense principles”:
- The budget
should strengthen Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to ensure
their long-term sustainability. - The budget
should balance in ten years or less without raising any taxes. - The budget
should reduce spending and make the federal government more effective
and efficient. - The budget
should terminate federal programs that are unconstitutional, duplicative,
or harmful. - The budget
should implement reforms to Washington’s broken budget process. - The budget
should keep taxes low and include pro-growth tax reform. - The budget
should repeal President Obama’s job-killing healthcare law.
These principles
are a mixed bag.
The first principle
is something that every liberal Democrat in Congress would wholeheartedly
embrace. Not sure why Republicans, and especially those who consider
themselves more conservative than the typical House member, want
to strengthen income transfer programs.
The second
principle is a pathetic joke. The budget should be balanced next
year, not in ten years. Not raising taxes is, of course, always
a good thing, but calls by Republicans to “close loopholes”
and “eliminate deductions” effectively raise taxes while
they are saying that they oppose tax increases.
The third and
fifth principles are just meaningless political talk about reductions,
reforms, and efficiency that one hears during election campaigns.
The fourth,
sixth, and seventh principles are certainly laudable, but in the
hands of Republicans they become thoroughly corrupted. First, even
though at least ninety percent of federal programs are clearly unconstitutional
or harmful, Republicans never seem to be able to recognize this.
Second, to Republicans, low taxes mean something like the tax rates
under the so-called Bush tax cuts. But what is so great about the
federal government being able to confiscate up to 35 percent of
one’s income? And third, if Republicans just wanted to repeal Obamacare,
then that would be well and good. The problem is that they want
to replace it with some form of Republicare instead of medical freedom.
If Republicans were serious about getting the government out of
healthcare, they would be calling for the repeal of the Medicare
Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act that they
passed in 2003.
There are some
good things about the RSC budget. It proposes to eliminate funding
for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment
for the Arts, the National Labor Relations Board, the Economic Development
Administration, AmTech, the Legal Services Corporation, the Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) program, the U.S.-China Clean
Energy Research Center, regional commissions, the Essential Air
Service program, the Foreign Market Development Program (FMDP),
Market Access Program (MAP), Wool and Mohair Subsidies, the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, the Presidential Election Campaign
Fund, the Direct Payment Program, and funding for entity that provides
abortions.
The RSC budget
also proposes to reduce funding for Community Development Block
Grants, International Trade Administration, the National Science
Foundation, the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, and the
Premium Subsidy in the Crop Insurance Program.
The problem
here is that all of these things together constitute a very minute
portion of the federal budget. There is no language about the wholesale
elimination of the Departments of Education, Energy, and Homeland
Security. There are no proposals to abolish the TSA and end foreign
aid. And there is certainly nothing to be found about getting rid
of the DEA and ending the war on drugs.
The RSC budget
is not tepid for political considerations, but for philosophical
ones. Even if it had been passed by the Republican-controlled House
instead of being rejected by a majority of Republicans 104-132,
there was absolutely no chance whatsoever that it would have passed
in the Democratic-controlled Senate. So why be timid about slashing
government spending?
The three largest
spending items in the federal budget are Social Security, defense,
and Medicare, in that order. (Real defense spending is actually
over $1 trillion according to economist Robert
Higgs.) But all it takes is a brief look at the approach of
the RSC budget to these three things to see just how committed to
the welfare/warfare state even the “conservative” Republicans
are.
The bloated
defense budget is off limits according to the conservative members
of the Republican Study Committee:
Within the
discretionary spending total, the RSC budget funds defense at
the same level as the House Republican budget, growing from $552
billion in FY 2014 to $678 billion in FY 2023. It is the position
of the RSC that to “provide for the common defense,”
as called for both in the preamble to the Constitution, as well
as Article I, Section 8, is the first duty of government. President
Reagan was right that budgetary decisions should be based on a
sound defense strategy, not the other way around. It is both unwise
and unreasonable to expect that America’s defense should be constrained
in order to provide funding for programs that are constitutionally
questionable or under-performing.
No matter how
much they may criticize other aspects of the federal government,
conservatives love the warfare state and its military. (They also
love contributions from defense contractors.)
The RSC budget
proposes to safeguard Social Security by raising the full-retirement
age to 70 to reflect longevity and changing the formula for cost
of living adjustments (COLA) by adopting a more accurate measure
of inflation. It proposes to save Medicare by slowly increasing
the Medicare eligibility age and transitioning to a solvent premium-support
system, as proposed by the House Republican Budget – in 2019. This
reform, we are told, “would have no impact on individuals 60
and older”; that is, those who vote.
What the “conservative”
RSC budget is proposing is that the two main pillars of the welfare
state – Social Security and Medicare – be propped up instead of
taken down. Even though these two programs are immoral welfare programs
that foster dependency, redistribute income, transfer wealth from
one generation to another, and shift responsibility from the individual
to society, no one was expecting that any Republican budget – conservative
or otherwise – would call for their immediate and wholesale elimination.
But certainly at the very least there should have been some sort
of recognition of the nature of these programs, recommendations
for their gradual and humane demise, and substantial reductions
in their funding.
This, of course,
would be politically unpopular. That is why Republicans who criticize
welfare and entitlements can still defend Social Security as insistently
and incessantly as Democrats. That is why conservatives who attack
government programs and spending can still talk about safeguarding
and saving the very programs beloved by liberals.
The “Back
to Basics” of the “conservative” Republican budget
only means to go back to the level of government that existed during
the Bush years. It shows that Republicans are firmly committed to
the welfare/warfare state.
The Republican
Party is hopeless statist and interventionist at home and abroad.
It cannot be reformed. It cannot be made libertarian. It cannot
be re-branded. It cannot be trusted to form a coalition with libertarians.
It is the enemy of the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, limited
government, economic freedom, and individual liberty; that is, everything
it claims to stand for. And why would anyone want to bring the party
back to its roots? The roots of the Republican Party are intertwined
with Abe Lincoln and his senseless war, bad economic policies, attacks
on civil liberties, and violations of the Constitution. It is, after
all, the Party of Lincoln.
April
10, 2013
Laurence
M. Vance [send him mail]
writes from central Florida. He is the author of Christianity
and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State, The
Revolution that Wasn’t, Rethinking
the Good War, and The
Quatercentenary of the King James Bible. His latest book
is The
War on Drugs Is a War on Freedom. Visit his
website.
Copyright
© 2013 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.