Givernment, The GOP and the Velocity of Light (squared)
There is a profound difference between the primary role, the moral role, of a legitimate government and what now passes for effective governance as so well stated recently by Spiritofpublicus, what I would call givernment. Moreover, the engine that drives givernment is the redistribution of the wealth of those who earn it out to those who have the givernmental representation and clout necessary to receive it – whether they “need” it or not.
The engine is the thing, and we currently have a political party occupying the White House as well as both houses of the federal legislature whose representatives state time and again that lower tax rates are good because, primarily, they increase revenues. Colloquially known as supply side economics, “conservatives” argue that lowering taxes is a good thing because it increases revenues. That a conservative economic principle actually funds government better than a higher taxing regime. The idea being that whenever you tax something less, you end up getting more of it - in this case more income and more profits, which beget higher tax revenues.
Well, all of the above is certainly true. Supply side economics absolutely works, and it works every time you try it. However, what is profoundly misguided by the Republicans in just about every case is this implicit notion that increasing revenues to the federal givernment is “good.” The truth is that there is nothing inherently good about increasing the flow of money from those who produce it to an entity responsible for sending back out to those who happen to have legislators adept at “earmarking” and otherwise squandering other people’s hard earned money. For that matter increasing revenue to the federal givernment is the antithesis of what it means to be a Republican because it increases, by definition, the size of givernment.
Since I was a small boy, my understanding of the GOP was that it was based on three foundational principles (post abolitionist period): smaller government, lower taxes, and more individual freedom. From these three concepts the Republican Platform evolved. However, it has become profoundly clear at this point in our political history that the above three principles are completely absent. The results of the labors of Republicans from President Bush through much of Congress and throughout state and local government is clear: larger government (more givernment), relatively unchanging levels of taxation (actually increasing), and less liberty. Any reasonable analysis of our financial and social state will bear out my argument that the Republican party no longer holds those principles as foundational. Instead, we have principles of effective givernment running the show combined with ethical issues such as the Right to Life as litmus tests. Effective funding and federal controls on education, an expanding military industrial complex, a fixation on tort reform, tax reform, health care, medicare reform, social security funding, etc, etc. are the focus today and not the aforementioned foundational principles. Principles that, by the way, are the antithesis of many of those items to which our elected leaders focus almost exclusively.
What America needs, and what potentially could save the GOP, is an absolutely ruthless expulsion of the superfluous and a clear focus on those core principles that drove the party long ago. Principles that emphasize individual responsibility, liberty, economic freedom and growing prosperity. A simple recognition that lower taxes are good not because they increase revenue, but because they increase individual prosperity which reduces the need for more givernment would go a long way. That when personal incomes rise, the size of givernment should fall – such an axiom would truly catapult the party forward. The GOP must abandoned this nonsensical fixation with the idea that givernment is good as long as they are both the expropriator and appropriator. This notion that givernment is a virtue (provided it is run by Republicans) is what is tearing the party apart at the seams and nothing that George W. Bush has offered to date will repair those rifts – in fact, he is digging the hole deeper.
The party is in deep trouble right now and there are many card carrying Republicans who have simply had enough. They will stay home, they will not renew their card; it is already too late for the GOP this fall and it may be curtains for the GOP altogether. But such drama begs the question, can a new political party be formed and be successful and where do the disenfranchised go? This question has been asked for many many years by people who are deeply frustrated with the status quo. Most attempts at this fail from conception. Whether or not a viable new party is on the horizon is unknown at this point. What may be needed is a reflection on the Einsteinian notion of energy.
From the genius that was Albert Einstein, we learned that energy and mass are really one in the same; this idea was revolutionary round about 1930. It did not take long however for physicists to clearly understand that it was a two-sided equation. A very small mass contains an incredibly large amount of energy due to the size of the magnifier – the velocity of light squared. The equation, in theory, works in both directions. Well, in a political context, we are pre-1930 right now. No one has figured out how to split the political atom in a way the gives off more energy than was put in, but it is a two-sided equation and there are some very bright eyes working on this very problem. My thought on this is that there are political neutrons floating around that just might be firing right now at the GOP atom - a split will be energetic to say the least.
bildanielson @ OnTheBorderLine
The engine is the thing, and we currently have a political party occupying the White House as well as both houses of the federal legislature whose representatives state time and again that lower tax rates are good because, primarily, they increase revenues. Colloquially known as supply side economics, “conservatives” argue that lowering taxes is a good thing because it increases revenues. That a conservative economic principle actually funds government better than a higher taxing regime. The idea being that whenever you tax something less, you end up getting more of it - in this case more income and more profits, which beget higher tax revenues.
Well, all of the above is certainly true. Supply side economics absolutely works, and it works every time you try it. However, what is profoundly misguided by the Republicans in just about every case is this implicit notion that increasing revenues to the federal givernment is “good.” The truth is that there is nothing inherently good about increasing the flow of money from those who produce it to an entity responsible for sending back out to those who happen to have legislators adept at “earmarking” and otherwise squandering other people’s hard earned money. For that matter increasing revenue to the federal givernment is the antithesis of what it means to be a Republican because it increases, by definition, the size of givernment.
Since I was a small boy, my understanding of the GOP was that it was based on three foundational principles (post abolitionist period): smaller government, lower taxes, and more individual freedom. From these three concepts the Republican Platform evolved. However, it has become profoundly clear at this point in our political history that the above three principles are completely absent. The results of the labors of Republicans from President Bush through much of Congress and throughout state and local government is clear: larger government (more givernment), relatively unchanging levels of taxation (actually increasing), and less liberty. Any reasonable analysis of our financial and social state will bear out my argument that the Republican party no longer holds those principles as foundational. Instead, we have principles of effective givernment running the show combined with ethical issues such as the Right to Life as litmus tests. Effective funding and federal controls on education, an expanding military industrial complex, a fixation on tort reform, tax reform, health care, medicare reform, social security funding, etc, etc. are the focus today and not the aforementioned foundational principles. Principles that, by the way, are the antithesis of many of those items to which our elected leaders focus almost exclusively.
What America needs, and what potentially could save the GOP, is an absolutely ruthless expulsion of the superfluous and a clear focus on those core principles that drove the party long ago. Principles that emphasize individual responsibility, liberty, economic freedom and growing prosperity. A simple recognition that lower taxes are good not because they increase revenue, but because they increase individual prosperity which reduces the need for more givernment would go a long way. That when personal incomes rise, the size of givernment should fall – such an axiom would truly catapult the party forward. The GOP must abandoned this nonsensical fixation with the idea that givernment is good as long as they are both the expropriator and appropriator. This notion that givernment is a virtue (provided it is run by Republicans) is what is tearing the party apart at the seams and nothing that George W. Bush has offered to date will repair those rifts – in fact, he is digging the hole deeper.
The party is in deep trouble right now and there are many card carrying Republicans who have simply had enough. They will stay home, they will not renew their card; it is already too late for the GOP this fall and it may be curtains for the GOP altogether. But such drama begs the question, can a new political party be formed and be successful and where do the disenfranchised go? This question has been asked for many many years by people who are deeply frustrated with the status quo. Most attempts at this fail from conception. Whether or not a viable new party is on the horizon is unknown at this point. What may be needed is a reflection on the Einsteinian notion of energy.
From the genius that was Albert Einstein, we learned that energy and mass are really one in the same; this idea was revolutionary round about 1930. It did not take long however for physicists to clearly understand that it was a two-sided equation. A very small mass contains an incredibly large amount of energy due to the size of the magnifier – the velocity of light squared. The equation, in theory, works in both directions. Well, in a political context, we are pre-1930 right now. No one has figured out how to split the political atom in a way the gives off more energy than was put in, but it is a two-sided equation and there are some very bright eyes working on this very problem. My thought on this is that there are political neutrons floating around that just might be firing right now at the GOP atom - a split will be energetic to say the least.bildanielson @ OnTheBorderLine
posted by Anonymous @ 10:12 AM
<< Home