Did They Change The Labels When We Weren't Looking??

[Guest]

I've spent most of my life believing that capitalism, the free-market system, trickle down economics, all those economic terms that have defined "conservative", are best. For a long time conservative meant "Republican", and that meant small government, low taxes, fiscal conservatism, etc. "Democrats" were the free-spending, socially liberal, tree-hugging proponents of having the government provide everything and sticking its nose in everything. But in the most recent couple of decades those terms seem to have changed. The Republicans and Democrats aren't acting as they used to. The old tried and true economic approaches simply haven't worked. The labels seem to have changed.

Why, I ask myself? A free-market approach should work, conservatism should work--but it hasn't. Why not?

Two factors seem to have caused the erosion of those tried and true conservative approaches. First has been the drift towards a dramatic difference in the compensation of top corporate managers and the working class. When I first entered the work force out of college the CEO's of companies might have been paid 20-30 times what the workers in their companies were paid. Nowadays it's not uncommon for CEO's and top managers to be paid 200 or even 300 times what the workers are paid. How that happened I don't know--but it happened. For lack of a better explanation, maybe too many people watched the movie Wall Street in which Gordon Gecko said, "Greed is good."--and believed it!

The second reason why conservative approaches are less effective may be associated with the first. That is the emergence of a whole new industry--lobbying legislators. The number of registered lobbyists in Washington alone has skyrocketed in recent years. The last time I looked there were more than 50 lobbyists for every member of Congress. That number has doubled just since 2000. "Lobbying" has grown to include even writing the legislation which the people who pay the lobbyists wish to be enacted. Lobbyists have become expert at showing legislators--even individual legislators--how to tack desired legislation onto bills as amendments, earmarks, whatever. And after the legislators or their staff people push legislation to enactment, the lobbyists often provide those involved with high-paying corporate jobs or even jobs in their own lobbying firms.

How are these two things connected? It's pretty clear that the more highly-paid corporate executives are those hiring the lobbyists to create and even buy if necessary the types of legislation that will permit and enhance corporate profits--and result in even more compensation to those executives.

So I've concluded--after a number of years and a number of elections I might say--that I'm not going to blindly support "conservatism" or Republicans in the future. For the reasons I've noted, it's not working as it used to and as I believe it should. Our government seems to have been hijacked by lobbyists representing moneyed special interests. Republicans have become self-serving big spenders, lining up at the trough for the largesse provided by lobbyists and beginning to run re-election campaigns shortly after they are sworn in. I've concluded that the political approach that I supported for so many years has been re-defined when I wasn't looking. I should also say that the change in conduct doesn't only apply to the philosophy and party I used to support. The Democrats are just as bad. I'm only writing this from the perspective of where I started personally.

My reaction to what has happened is a severe loss of confidence in the way our democracy seems to be working. On the question of what I can do about it--as a single voter unrepresented by any lobbyists (except AARP, of course)--I realize I don't have much influence. But I now try to listen carefully to the plans, policies and arguments being made by political candidates more than I ever did in the past. And now I vote for the candidate that most closely represents what I believe. If a candidate that I did vote for doesn't fulfill his campaign promises, I'll vote for his opponent in the next election. I'll even actively campaign against him. I guess that might be called becoming an INDEPENDENT.

One thing is sure, though. While I don't consider myself a liberal--I know with certainty that I'm no longer a conservative.

[Guest]

:agree:...........Wholeheartedly!

Shirleevee........Republican turned Independent

[Guest]

But I now try to listen carefully to the plans, policies and arguments being made by political candidates more than I ever did in the past.
__________________________________________________ ________--

REMEMBER....this is great....but NEVER has a candidate done what he/she says they will do thus it is more important to look at the incumbents !!!!!!

Also, curious what economic policy was passed during the last few years, or NOT passed that you feel so strongly about ?

I cant even try to explain how I feel about the situation you describe. It is just a bunch of jumbled thoughts....our nation is now totally lazy....our nation is now filled with folks who are "entitled" in their mind.....so much of this affects the economy in my opinion.
Lobbyists are not new...nor or they any worse than before. POLITICS has just become a "game" and yes the labels have become blurred. I am still conservative in the sense that I believe in our economy totally...it works if left to work. The economy has moved from national to global and we have yet to come to terms with that !

[Guest]

Thank you for clarifying my thoughts with your words. Your evolution is mine, I've been a registered Republican forever. I have never missed an election and while I didn't always follow the ticket, I voted for the person who most closely espoused my views...usually the conservative party.

Now, the game is different. I am angry, feel betrayed and let down by both parties. Greed is the common denominator for both our politicians and corporate leaders. I don't believe this country is "for the people, by the people and of the people anymore." Somewhere along the line, the corporations purchased our politicians and our country.

We have become a society run by the money mongers, Wall Street, Insurance Companies, Banks and their flunkies, our elected officials.

The Middle Class has always supported this country, but now it is being sucked dry. The disparity between the rich and the poor is no longer buffered by the majority in the middle. The backbone of this country is being broken by greed.

The format of political campaigns has changed dramatically since my first election. I remember reading about the issues and politicians used to let their opinions be known. Now I doubt that they were 100% honest in what they told us, but at least they stood for something. I don't get that feeling anymore. Today I think they are all dishonest, oversexed, racist, liars.

Strong words you say...but they are not my words, they are the words the politicians have used to describe each other. I have heard them rip each other down so many times that I now agree with their descriptions and don't believe any of them. If they sound good and seem to believe as I do, I think they are just good at rhetoric and I am being taken in by their con.

I have said for a long time how dumb politicians were to conduct their campaigns in such a negative manner....that the mud slinging was turning the public off and we would think they were all bad. Well, most of us did loose confidence in them and in record numbers we stopped voting because there was no one to vote for and nowhere to get an unbiased look at the issues.

But I was wrong, the politicians were not dumb to conduct their campaigns as they did. They got exactly what they and their corporate masters wanted...our apathy. Our apathy allows them to do as they please and drain us dry without whimper of protest.

[Guest]

As I recall, there were two times in the past few years when the Congress had the opportunity to reinstate the PayGo requirement for government budgeting and spending. The refusal of the Congress to reinstate PayGo has been in large measure responsible for the ballooning Federal deficit in the last two presidential administrations.

First enacted during the administration of George H.W. Bush as part of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, PayGo required all increases in direct spending or revenue decreases to be offset by other spending decreases or revenue increases. These rules were in effect from 1991 until 2002 when sunset provisions in the original legislation permitted the PayGo requirement to expire. PayGo is widely seen as having assisted the US Congress in maintaining budget discipline during the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In 1991 the Federal deficit was 4.5% of GDP; by 2000 the Federal surplus was 2.4%. Total Federal spending as a percentage of GDP decreased each and every year from 1991 through 2000, falling from 22.3% to 18.4%. Since the expiry of PayGo, our Federal Treasury has gone from a healthy surplus to a deficit of just shy of $10 trillion dollars. To put that in perspective, since PayGo was permitted to expire the U.S. went from a balanced budget to overspending to the extent that as of now every man, woman and child in the U.S. owes $31,599.96 worth of the Federal deficit.

The other legislation that the Congress failed to enact was the proposal that earmarks be largely eliminated. Earmarks are funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction circumvents the budgeting process or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to properly manage funds. Congress includes earmarks in appropriation bills, the annual spending bills that Congress enacts to allocate discretionary spending. Current rules permit earmarks to be added to legislation after it has been passed. The number of earmarks--otherwise referred to as "pork" spending-- has more than doubled since the budgetary discipline of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 was permitted to expire by the Congress during the first administration of our current President.

Without the discipline of PayGo, even John McCain has described the performance of the Congress since then as "pigs at the trough". I might also point out that it has been since the expiry of PayGo that the number of lobbyists in Washington has doubled. Yes, there have always been lobbyists, but they have never had the unfettered opportunities to effect legislation in their favor that they do now.

I'm sure I could come up with other examples of failed fiscal policies by our current administration and Congress, Bucco, and yes I feel very strongly about the failure of our elected officials to govern "for the people". I intend to do all I can to change that.

[Guest]

Susan and Kahuna..your posts are just another reason I admire you both.
I am also a lifelong Republican. I now feel disenchanted, disenfranchised and sick at the overall incompetence displayed by our governing bodies. The one thing they seem to excel in is feeding in the trough of our tax money.

[Guest]

. . . . . .

In 1991 the Federal deficit was 4.5% of GDP; by 2000 the Federal surplus was 2.4%. Total Federal spending as a percentage of GDP decreased each and every year from 1991 through 2000, falling from 22.3% to 18.4%. Since the expiry of PayGo, our Federal Treasury has gone from a healthy surplus to a deficit of just shy of $10 trillion dollars.
. . . . . . .


The Clinton surplus resulted primarily by massive cuts in military and intellligence services spending. The result was a weakened military and intelligence services which lost capacity to collect, analyze and react on several fronts.

Yes, we had a budget surplus, but that was solely due to a 'risk management' policy which later proved spendthrift. The military could not afford to train as effectively, equipment maintenance was reduced and acquisition of replacement systems was delayed beyond logical affordability. Several intelligence programs were scaled back or eliminated altogether, and once shut down are almost impossible to restart within the same decade, if at all.

The same budget decisions as made during the Clinton administration happen every 30 years of so, and always with the same effect - short term bonanza with a long-term pricetag. It's like the old FRAM oil finter commercial: "You can pay me now or you can pay me later [and later is always MUCH MORE expensive]!

The Clinton era decisions were not made maliciously, and probably seemed like a reasonable action at the time to several economics and social scientists.

Defense and intelligence services are like insurance. When you don't have a claim to file, it seems like money down the toilet. However, when the storm comes you just never have enough of it - and by then it's way more expensive, if you can get it at all!

So, here we are again, as after World War One, World War Two, Korea, Vietnam and Gulf One. There will be the cry to slice the military and the intelligence services (because we just can't cut 'entitlement' programs...) for the sake of the deficit. It probably will happen, resulting in a reduced defense capacity (China and Russia and others are not buddies, and they are patient!), a reduced intelligence capacity to forecast and react, and an overall reduction in Homeland security - but we will be solvent without having to reduce the domestic giveaway programs. . .

[Guest]

Steve, I don't disagree that the Clinton administrations cut back on military and national security expenditures. Those cutbacks, along with some less than stellar top management in the security agencies, and to a lesser degree the military, had bad results. I'm not sure our awful foreign intelligence was the result of cost reductions or simply bad management. The inadequate equipping of the military prior to the invasion of Iraq was clearly the result of both spending cuts and bad management.

But spending $10 billion more than we took in in just eight years was the result of a whole lot more than just catching up on spending for national security and funding the war in Iraq. I could do a lot of research on government spending since we last had a surplus, but my guess is that increases in national security and military funding wouldn't amount to even 10% of the deficit.

I remain of the strong belief that without the spending discipline of rules like PayGo, the Congress went wild--like pigs at the trough, as John McCain describes them--spending, making politically expedient decisions to cut taxes several times, and creating a fiscal problem that will likely take several generations of Americans to resolve. Sure, the Republicans can be blamed for the first six years, but the Democrats have done little to correct the fiscal imbalance in the two years since they had some control. To me, they're all complicit, all the while being "egged on" by an increasing number of special interest lobbyists.

As John McCain says in his campaign ads, "Our government is broke." The question facing all of us is who will be more likely and more politically able to begin to fix our fiscal problems? Remember, "wanting to" and "being able to" are two different things the way our democracy works. Both factors have to be taken into consideration when deciding which candidate is more likely to create real change in our government.