Sunday, February 05, 2006

The death of Libertarianism within the Republican party?

Like many political junkies I watched the State of the Union Address last Monday, in where President Bush. One of the many subjects he raised, this one I loved:

Every year of my presidency, we've reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending, and last year you passed bills that cut this spending. This year my budget will cut it again, and reduce or eliminate more than 140 programs that are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities. By passing these reforms, we will save the American taxpayer another $14 billion next year, and stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

Unfortunately the Republicans are still spending on many pork-barrel programs. Worse, many of those programs are places which the government has NO BUSINESS being in, like this one:

Congress approved a $750 million, five-year plan aimed at building healthier marriages Wednesday as part of its deficit reduction bill.

The measure now goes to President Bush. It includes $100 million a year for marriage-related programs and $50 million a year for fatherhood programs. This is the first time Congress has earmarked money for marriage programs, says Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution's Center on Children and Families.

I really thought this was a joke! The words "Deficit reduction" and 150 million dollars in new spending a year for a social program in one bill one hell of an oxymoron.

The government of Quebec is a clear cut example of how the more the government spends money to "strengthen" families, the worse the situation gets. I have to be honest, I have no idea how any self-proclaimed "Fiscal Conservative Libertarian" in the U.S. can vote Republican with a straight face in the upcoming mid-terms this fall.

(H/T Andrew Sullivan)


At Tuesday, 07 February, 2006, Blogger aliandra said...

Arabian Knight;

I’d like the explain the marriage thing. Most of the kids who are poor in the US, are in that condition because their parents aren’t married. Pop isn’t supporting his kids, either because he doesn’t care, or more commonly, he’s no longer involved with the mother. So, the taxpayers are forced to do his job. Since the research is pretty consistent in showing that two parent families are MUCH less likely to be poor, Bush wants to get these folks married so they can cease being a burden on the rest of us. It’s not really as silly as it sounds.

My own solution is not to subsidize out-of-wedlock breeding, but too many folks to the left of me would call that harsh.

Cuts on social spending are just icing on the cake. The real burden is entitlement spending, which is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about. I’ll give Bush credit for having the balls to propose social security reform last year. However, the Democrats, naturally, shot it down – not because they had a better plan, but just to be contrary. It’s a problem that’s getting worse and until politicians grow the cojones to do something, there’s gonna be a generation war down the road.


At Thursday, 15 July, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

借貸 借錢 票貼


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home