Congressman Eric Cantor, the House Majority Leader, has a rather persuasive column in the Washington Post about the negative impact of President Obama’s big-government agenda.
… the Obama administration’s anti-business, hyper-regulatory, pro-tax agenda has fueled economic uncertainty and sent the message from the administration that “we want to make it harder to create jobs.” There is no other conclusion for policies such as the new Environmental Protection Agency regulations, including the “Transport Rule,” which could eliminate thousands of jobs, or the ozone regulation that would cost upward of $1 trillion and millions of jobs in the construction industry over the next decade. The administration’s new maximum achievable control technology standards for cement are expected to affect nearly 100 cement plants, setting over-the-top requirements resulting in increased costs and possibly thousands of jobs being offshored. There is the president’s silence as the National Labor Relations Board seeks to prevent Boeing from opening a plant in South Carolina that would create thousands of jobs. Such behavior, coupled with the president’s insistence on raising the top tax rate paid by individuals and small businesses, has resulted in a lag in growth that has added to the debt crisis, contributing to our nation’s credit downgrade.
The Congressman’s criticisms certainly are substantive and accurate, but I can’t help but wonder why he didn’t write this column years ago. Or, more important, why didn’t he object to big government when Bush was in the White House.
And, most important, why did he vote for all the wasteful spending and increased regulation of the Bush years. Such as:
Congressman Cantor voted for the no-bureaucrats-left-behind bill that further centralized education.
He voted for the Sarbanes-Oxley regulatory regime that dramatically raised the cost of red tape and drove business out of America.
He voted for the Medicare prescription drug entitlement that did more to increase long-term debt than Obamacare.
And he voted for the TARP bailout, exacerbating moral hazard and facilitating the corrupt mix of Wall Street and Washington.
I’m not trying to pick on Cantor. Most other GOPers were equally guilty of going along with big-government conservatism.
And I actually give Cantor a bit of credit for acknowledging that Republicans bear some of the blame for the current mess. The second sentence of his column refers to “decades of fiscal mismanagement by both political parties.”
All I’m really saying is that big government is the wrong approach, regardless of which party is in charge.
So while I’m glad Republicans are opposing Obama’s statist agenda, they would have more credibility if they also had opposed Bush’s statist agenda.
But the real purpose of this post is to wonder what will happen if we somehow wind up with a President Romney. Will congressional Republicans continue to do the right thing and oppose big government?
Or will they once again decide that the Washington cesspool is really a hot tub and join with Romney in making government even bigger and more wasteful? The experience of the Bush years does not give me much cause for optimism.
[…] But even those modest commitments will be difficult to achieve if he isn’t willing to gain credibility with the American people by admitting that Republicans helped create the fiscal mess in Washington. Especially since today’s GOP leaders in the House and Senate were all in office last decade and voted for Bush’s wasteful spending. […]
[…] But even those modest commitments will be difficult to achieve if he isn’t willing to gain credibility with the American people by admitting that Republicans helped create the fiscal mess in Washington. Especially since today’s GOP leaders in the House and Senate were all in office last decade and voted for Bush’s wasteful spending. […]
[…] But even those modest commitments will be difficult to achieve if he isn’t willing to gain credibility with the American people by admitting that Republicans helped create the fiscal mess in Washington. Especially since today’s GOP leaders in the House and Senate were all in office last decade and voted for Bush’s wasteful spending. […]
[…] And let’s be blunt about assigning blame. Yes, Obama has been a reckless big spender, but he is merely continuing the irresponsible statist policies of his predecessor. […]
[…] But even those modest commitments will be difficult to achieve if he isn’t willing to gain credibility with the American people by admitting that Republicans helped create the fiscal mess in Washington. Especially since today’s GOP leaders in the House and Senate were all in office last decade and voted for Bush’s wasteful spending. […]
[…] But even those modest commitments will be difficult to achieve if he isn’t willing to gain credibility with the American people by admitting that Republicans helped create the fiscal mess in Washington. Especially since today’s GOP leaders in the House and Senate were all in office last decade and voted for Bush’s wasteful spending. […]
[…] But even those modest commitments will be difficult to achieve if he isn’t willing to gain credibility with the American people by admitting that Republicans helped create the fiscal mess in Washington. Especially since today’s GOP leaders in the House and Senate were all in office last decade and voted for Bush’s wasteful spending. […]
[…] But even those modest commitments will be difficult to achieve if he isn’t willing to gain credibility with the American people by admitting that Republicans helped create the fiscal mess in Washington. Especially since today’s GOP leaders in the House and Senate were all in office last decade and voted for Bush’s wasteful spending. […]
[…] But even those modest commitments will be difficult to achieve if he isn’t willing to gain credibility with the American people by admitting that Republicans helped create the fiscal mess in Washington. Especially since today’s GOP leaders in the House and Senate were all in office last decade and voted for Bush’s wasteful spending. […]
[…] But even those modest commitments will be difficult to achieve if he isn’t willing to gain credibility with the American people by admitting that Republicans helped create the fiscal mess in Washington. Especially since today’s GOP leaders in the House and Senate were all in office last decade and voted for Bush’s wasteful spending. […]
INEED HELP
we have a house and two small on both sides almo alviksvägen 235 postalcode 79395 SWEDEN runs a true WAR against Monica Ingegerd Andrea Larsson 53 years Born 10 June 1961. One of the greatest innovators in Sweden. In URGENT bred for International Aid.
Be aware these a tricky and lure you to be meet somebodyelse. This is worst than theft stealing here they do murdering in silence hoping to steal homes art business money bankmoney………I can pay with hov.money for the ones that help me to solve the troubles with the swedish people maybe some finish are involved.
INEED HELP
we have a house and there small on both sides SWEDEN runs a true WAR against Monica Ingegerd Andrea Larsson 53 testa Born 10 June 1961. One of the greatest innovators in Sweden. In URGENT bred for International Aid.
[…] But even those modest commitments will be difficult to achieve if he isn’t willing to gain credibility with the American people by admitting that Republicans helped create the fiscal mess in Washington. Especially since today’s GOP leaders in the House and Senate were all in office last decade and voted for Bush’s wasteful spending. […]
[…] But even those modest commitments will be difficult to achieve if he isn’t willing to gain credibility with the American people by admitting that Republicans helped create the fiscal mess in Washington. Especially since today’s GOP leaders in the House and Senate were all in office last decade and voted for Bush’s wasteful spending. […]
[…] But even those modest commitments will be difficult to achieve if he isn’t willing to gain credibility with the American people by admitting that Republicans helped create the fiscal mess in Washington. Especially since today’s GOP leaders in the House and Senate were all in office last decade and voted for Bush’s wasteful spending. […]
[…] And let’s be blunt about assigning blame. Yes, Obama has been a reckless big spender, but he is merely continuing the irresponsible statist policies of his predecessor. […]
[…] And let’s be blunt about assigning blame. Yes, Obama has been a reckless big spender, but he is merely continuing the irresponsible statist policies of his predecessor. […]
[…] And let’s be blunt about assigning blame. Yes, Obama has been a reckless big spender, but he is merely continuing the irresponsible statist policies of his predecessor. […]
[…] And let’s be blunt about assigning blame. Yes, Obama has been a reckless big spender, but he is merely continuing the irresponsible statist policies of his predecessor. […]
There are so many issues with the government, the “glass house effect” should apply to every lawmaker in Washington. Why would you not want to expand government when you stand to gain for every back that is scratched? Lobbyist keep the politicians greased to keep expanding old programs and creating new ones. Most americans feel like no matter who is in office, you continue to get the same old same old. Politicians dig in once elected and given the seniority of a lot of these “lawmakers”, the glass house has no choice but to keep expanding. Americans should not throw stones, but continue to cast votes for fresh new faces that want to limit government, cut waste, cap the spending and have a real desire to limit terms of everyone in Washington. Our problem is that we leave them there too long until they learn how to fool most of the people all of the time. Romney is not the answer. Perry keeps the left pot stirred up as well as some on the right. If we could get him to chunk a big enough rock, we might be able to break some glass.
great article. the Tea Party will really show their mettle once the Republican party has the White House again (whenever that may be). I was certainly guilty of reflexively defending GW Bush during his presidency when I shouldn’t have been, though, in my defense, I must admit it was hard not sometimes considering the grossly unfair treatment he was given by the MSM. but, regardless, one big-govt conservative was enough to teach me my lesson: no mas. the next Republican president will have to act like a true conservative or incur the wrath of a resurgent conservatism that’s big on liberty and small on govt.
Well … looks like the head of S&P announced he will step down at the end of this year. I wonder if was pressured from the top (McGraw-Hill) and if the top was pressured by law makers (both the right & the left), the White House, the Fed and the Dept. of Treasury! And if it couldn’t get any worse … the guy replacing him is the COO of Citigroup’s North America Citibank!!!! Are you kidding me!? Boy, will the post-2011 ratings be a lot more objective or what! The head of one of the top 3 rating agencies, the agency that downgraded the US, will be replaced by an executive from one of the big banks! So now, we literally have the banks running the country and controlling Wall Street. You’ve got Goldman Sachs guys literally at nearly all levels when it comes to monetary and fiscal power positions, now you’ve got a Citigroup executive at the rating house. This is scary!
[…] FROM: https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/republicans-in-glass-houses-should-be-careful-when-t… […]
The only difference is that now, GOP congressmen have to fear losing primaries thanks to the Tea Party movement. Bob Bennett of Utah losing is by far the most overlooked political story of the last election cycle.
Big-government Conservatism is an oxymoron. Therefore, the nonPC term is RINO.