The Republican View of Small Government and Freedom Contradict Their Record

Republicans pontificate the efficiencies of a limited federal government. They preach on how freedom needs to be restored after the attack on it by Barack Obama. However, in light of their congressional record, their words are not to be believed. The starkest contrast between todays Republicans and Democrats is their different positions regarding a limited federal government. Republican presidential candidates, like all republicans, preach the efficiencies of a limited government. They believe the creation of wealth and supporting economic wellbeing for a few will trickle down to be the rising tide that lifts all boats and that that will bring everyone else, including those in poverty, to realize the American Dream and reduce the need for entitlements. Republicans believe in strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution. They believe that only within the structure of a limited federal government and a free market economy greater individual freedom is achieved. Republicans say the way to a limited federal government is for individual states to take on powers not specifically delineated in the Constitution to the federal government. They believe the private sector would be more efficient if they took up some of the services now provided by the federal government. So that means state governments would need to decide whether they would provide those services. In that case, one would expect federal government to shrink and state government to grow. That shift in the tax burden, however, would not necessarily mean tax reductions, and taxes may even increase. But doesnt it seem that Republicans are for smaller government only when the shoe is on the other foot. When they had the congressional majority and the presidency, smaller government was not a concern. Republicans held the majority in Congress from 2000 to 2006. From 2001 to 2009, they had a Republican President, George W. Bush. When President Clinton left office in January of 2001, federal spending stood at $1.9 trillion. For FY 2009, Bush proposed federal spending at about $3.1 trillion. President Obama's spending proposal for fiscal 2012 is approximately $3.7 trillion. That increase in spending under Bush was largely a result of the unfunded costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars and providing Part D Medicare prescription drug benefits. That when coupled with a tax cut that benefited mostly wealthy Americans was certainly not prudent and contributed to the problem.

Bush was the captain of the ship and congressional Republicans his shipmates when the economy took a dive. It resulted in government intervention in order to bailout failing financial institutions and an economy on the verge of collapse. And as a result of their failure to act, the economy has been struggling to recover ever since. In view of that six-year record, its hard to reconcile not only the Republican stance on small government, but their words on freedom fail the test, too: On October 26, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the Patriot Act, one of the greatest infringements on constitutional rights and a free and open society in the history of the United States. Ron Paul observed that conservatives enjoyed spending money, only "on different things. They like embassies, and they like occupation. They like the empire. They like to be in 135 countries and 700 bases." They enjoy spending on endless war, but not on helping ordinary Americans. If they had their way, social programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, would become profit for the Private Sector -- some of the same folks who got us into this economic mess in the first place. In light of the Private Sector and the Republicans record on the economy, its hard to fathom that the Private Sector, without regulation, which Republicans detest, would really provide services that would reduce cost for Americans. Corporate enterprise would undertake ventures like prisons, education, and healthcare only if they were profitable. The Private Sector competes not for lower prices, a price to you that may be competitive, but that competitiveness is the drive for more and more profit -- the profit motive is for greater, not less. And, the claim that free enterprise creates greater freedom is a misleading notion, for the extent of ones freedom/liberty is defined by whether youre rich or poor.