So far, so good

During the last election season I wrote that I was voting a straight Republican ticket in hopes that this time they were really serious about reigning in our runaway national debt. I was trying to be optimistic, but in truth my expectations were pretty low. I’ve been burned too many times in the past by big-spending Republicans (I’m looking at you, George W. Bush) who haven’t governed according to their supposed limited-government principles.

Anyone who knows me at all knows that I am not quick to praise politicians, but I have to say that so far I’ve been pleasantly surprised by what the Republicans are trying to accomplish in House of Representatives. Not only did Rep. Paul Ryan propose a long-term budget plan that deals with our deficit situation in realistic way, the House actually passed the thing.

Of course the plan, which includes future spending caps on Medicare and does not raise taxes on “the wealthy”, has no chance of passing the Democrat-controlled Senate or being signed by our current president. But it is a start. And it has even forced the president to introduce his own less serious but still impressive (for a left-wing Democrat) deficit-reduction plan of his own.

The Republican plan is revenue-neutral and relies on spending reductions to put us on the road to fiscal sanity. Obama’s plan would (of course) raise taxes on the well-to-do and would preserve entitlement programs much as they exist now. Although I think the president is wrong to think that we can tax our way out of this crisis I am encouraged that we are now having a real debate about just how much spending we need to cut and/or taxes we need to raise to back us away from a financial cliff.

The truth is I am not completely opposed to some combination of tax increases and spending cuts if (and this is a very big “if”) it is part of a budget plan that seriously deals with our debt situation. Realistically speaking, any deficit reduction plan that would have a chance of passing our currently-divided government will need to represent a compromise between the two parties. Rich folks (as defined by the Democrats) are probably going to have to pay at least a little more in taxes and we have to come up with some way of capping entitlement spending that won’t cause the AARP to have a meltdown.

I’m not sure how likely it is that we will see the two parties reach such a compromise, but it seems that a sense of urgency is at long last present in their deliberations. But they need to work fast as another election season will be bearing down on us very soon.

Already liberal lobbying groups are buying air time to whip senior citizens into a frenzy over Ryan’s plan to end the open-ended nature of the Medicare program, even though his proposal would not affect anyone who is currently over the age of 55. Things could get ugly really fast and the spirit of compromise could fall apart very easily.

If that happens, the voting public might have to settle the debate next year. The Democrats will likely promise to rescue our sinking financial ship by soaking the rich while preserving entitlement programs in their current form and Republicans will probably tell us that we can’t tax our way out of an economic sinkhole.

And I would be fine with that. I would welcome a national referendum on entitlement reform. It’s time that we made a decision on whether we want a government that is grounded in reality or fantasy.

If it comes to that, I hope that the Republicans stick to their guns and provide us with that choice. If they do, they can count on my support next year and for many years to come.

Can we really stand four more years of this?

This week got off to a very bad start for me. One of the first news items that caught my attention Monday morning relayed the tragic news that Barak Obama has already launched his reelection campaign for 2012.

To tell you the truth, I have yet to really accept the fact that my fellow Americans saw fit to elect an ultra-liberal “community organizer” who had never held a non-government job in his life to be our commander-in-chief two years ago. Now I must face the reality that this sad spectacle could go on for another six years.

Wasn’t eight years of George W. Bush enough punishment for any generation of Americans to endure? What possible sins could we have committed as a nation to deserve two helpings of Bush followed by eight long years of Obama? Those sins must have been very bad indeed.

But, you say, just because Obama is running again is no guarantee that he will win. Perhaps a sober, level-headed challenger will appear on the Republican side who will sweep Obama out of the White House and return a long-absent air of competence to the office. If you hear that such a person intends to jump in the race be sure and let me know, because as yet that person has not appeared.

Brushing aside potential candidates who have trouble speaking coherently (Palin, Bachmann), and those who couldn’t even best a weak McCain for the 2008 nomination (Huckabee, Romney), what do we have to look forward from the Republicans? Could that be Newt Gingrich riding in on his white horse, ready to elevate the 2012 campaign with intelligence, wit, and passion?

It certainly appears that someone who looks and sounds like Newt is making noise about running for president, but this person certainly can’t be the same guy who shook up congress in the Clinton years with his radical ideas and clearness of purpose. He seems to have been replaced with someone who is acting like a Stephen Colbert- like parody of a real conservative politician.

Witness Newt’s recent high-profile speech before a group of evangelical Christians, where he warned that America is in grave danger of becoming “a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists.” Now remember, this was not an off-the-cuff remark made during a live interview. No, this was a prepared speech. He actually meant to say that secular atheists (who do not believe in God and do not believe religion has any place in government) and radical Islamists (who ardently support a very specific version of theocracy) are somehow going to work together to take over our country.

That’s not pandering to conservative Christians - that’s pandering to people who are unfamiliar with what words in the English language actually mean. Newt was trying to get his audience worried about people who don’t share their religious beliefs, but I’m afraid instead he’s gotten us all worried about the state of his mental health.

I think I understand, at least a little bit, how those protesters in the Middle East are feeling. I do not feel connected to my government and I do not feel they represent my interests. However, the problem is not institutional. We have a great Constitution, one that is designed (when followed properly) to protect our freedoms and bless us with a limited government in which power is derived from the will of the people.

That is a rare blessing that not many people in this world enjoy, and it is most frustrating that such a good system is being run into the ground by a bunch of morons who seem to be unfamiliar with how it was designed to work.

Is there any chance we could do a Jurassic Park and clone Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, or Washington? Whatever those guys had on the ball when it came to running a government seems to have been bred out of our gene pool.