Conservatives are constantly being accused of wanting no government. When we talk about wanting to eliminate things like the IRS, the Departments of Energy and Education or rein in rouge agencies like the EPA and the NLRB we are accused of wanting no government at all. That’s simply false. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a conservative speak about wanting to eliminate all government, or even the federal government.
Most conservatives understand that the absence of functional government brings chaos. In an environment where chaos reigns, at some point someone will step in and impose order. That person or group then becomes the de facto government. Perhaps the clearest example of this in recent history was the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in the mid 1990’s. Although pockets of resistance remained, by the late 90’s the Taliban were firmly in control of the country. Most Afghanis didn’t like the Taliban, but they appreciated the relative order they brought to the country.
Here in America our problem is not a lack of government, but the opposite, too much of it. The strings of regulation end up wrapped around the wheels of the American economy and ends up clogging what might otherwise be a well oiled machine. An unfettered economy would not be flawless, but it would be far more dynamic than the straitjacketed one we have today.
To put this in perspective, take the IRS tax code. According to the Heritage Foundation, it will cost America just more than $400 billion in 2011 to comply with the tax code, and that does not include the cost of the actual taxes themselves. Given that the federal government will take in approximately $2.2 trillion in taxes this year, that means Americans will spend an additional 20% of their tax bill just trying to figure out how to pay the bill in the first place!
How is that even possible? Well, the tax code is approximately 72,000 pages long and it’s broken down into 750 subchapters. Imagine if you are a widget manufacturer with 10,000 employees spread out over 20 states. How many employees would you need to have on staff to make sure that that company was complying with the regulations written on every one of those 72,000 pages? How much time (read: money) would your accounting and legal staffs have to spend to ensure that everything you did was within the IRS’s guidelines? How much time would management have to waste evaluating what product or service to provide or what energy provider to choose depending on what provides the best tax advantage? How about deciding how employee benefits should be allotted between taxable and non-taxable to maximize employee compensation?
As difficult as scenario is, at least large companies can pay for the necessary accounting and legal staffs. Imagine you are a struggling businessman with 5 employees who has to choose between spending money on another employee to help him compete in the marketplace or on someone to decipher the 72,000 pages of the IRS tax code. The fact that an employer (or homeowner or parents of a college student or someone approaching retirement…) has to base many of their financial decisions on what the IRS rules are is bad enough, but for the rules to be so numerous and incomprehensible that it restricts productivity borders on criminal. And to put a cherry on top of it, all of that effort is spent just to figure out how to give the money to the government so they can spend much of it on stuff you’d never pay for if you had the choice.
Lucky for Americans, the tax code is not the only sign of a government gone wild. There is also the Code of Federal Regulations (the codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government). The Code covers 163,333 pages, in 226 books. Those are the regulations that cover everything from that ticket on your mattress to the kind of gas you can put in your car to how long an airline can delay a flight to what can be labeled diet in the supermarket to the endless pages of directions and warnings provided with medicine bottles. Unless you are living in Ted Kaczynski’s summer home, not a day goes by that you do not cross paths with hundreds or thousands of these regulations. Like microwaves, you may not see them, but they are there nonetheless, impacting everything from hiring (or not, as the case might be) or marketing or investment decisions for everyone from Fortune 500 companies to neighborhood entrepreneurs.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that federal regulations cost Americans $1.75 trillion each year. That includes everything from environmental regulations to cable rates to the number of hours employees can work to months of tax compliance research. Add to that the $2.2 trillion Uncle Sam collects in taxes and you have almost 25% of our GDP being directly driven by government. Given the suffocatingly large and restrictive presence of government in our lives, is it any wonder that our economy is moving along at a dying snail’s pace? At the end of the day conservatives don’t propose no government, just limited government. We’d like to free up the American people to transform this moribund economy into a juggernaut of creativity, productivity, jobs and prosperity. That can’t be done while they are being strangled by government rules and regulations…
See author page
It’s all part of the liberal’s false meme game. They set up a false premise (straw man) and then proceed to knock it down. If they actually had the guts to debate in a civil tone, they would just sit their dumbfounded at the depth and breadth of the knowledge that most conservatives have about the issues, all based on pragmatic common sense and the Constitution. They cannot engage in honest debate without resorting to raised voices and name calling or just plain derision.
The National Federation of Independent Business has a video on You Tube.
It costs $10,000 per year per employee for small businesses to comply with gov’t regulations.
And gov’t regulations cost small businesses 36% more than they do large businesses.
4,200 NEW regulations impact small businesses just since Obama took office.
Unemployment is higher because of these than it would be if some of the regulations were simplified or rolled back to BO (before Obama).
Also the Obama regulators leave small businesses hanging, not knowing what new horrors will be coming next in the form of new regulations.
These small businesses are the ones (if they are an LLC or a C-corp) who Obama is targeting (as ”the rich”) for new higher taxes.
The NFIB has all of its videos here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/NFIBSmallBusiness
I agree with this analysis wholeheartedly – I am way too aware of the bureaucrats, for I be an entrepreneur, for having been fired from four or five jobs for being gay I decided to strike out on my own. And now I’m more encased in this nonsense. Meanwhile, to counter the Communist in Chief in DC, by whichever names they call themselves this week, I’m to be confronted by Theocrats, with a similar mindset, willing, apparently, to spend billions to round up millions of gay folks and cure us against our will, and/or incarcerate us in what they will think is punishment, and we will think is the weirdest Club Med ever devised by the folly of mankind. Let us get serious now, sissy smooching is not your problem — hetero Socialists are – -but if the Republicans or the Tea Party keep on wanting to castigate us gay folks, then you will lose us and our families, and you be beset by Obama for 4 more years. Come now; time to say “OK< we don't understand this gay thing, but we will no longer attack it." Come now, 'tis our nation at stake; for gay folks will survive, as we have survived every other maelstrom come upon any people anywhere at any time. Consider it; stop the gay attacks, we ain't your problem, save the nation. Thanks.
Jim…you also set up a bunch of “straw men.” Most conservatives (and religious conservatives) aren’t out to lock up gays – but don’t want government endorsement of the gay life style. We aren’t attacking gays – but we do want to prevent further encroachment. Civil unions – sure, why not. But it is silly to call same sex “unions” as marriage. And calling it marriage won’t make it so!! On the other hand – I can take a libertarian approach to gay lifestyles …do your own thing – just don’t ask for government payments or sanctions!! Rather than gay Partners gettin social security (or disability for gay lifestyle) – shut down social security. Cut things for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. Libertarian approach – let people be responsible for their own choices….and let companies choose who to employ or not employ. I don’t and won’t attack gays … As someone said – the homosexual lifestyle has gone from “The love that dare not speak its name….to the love that just won’t shut up!!”
Our nation is at risk because of too big a government …and gay demands for more government protections – more AIDS research, more benefits, etc. – are part of that problem! So …vote liberal if you must…but understand most conservates just want less/smaller government .
As a regular reader of The Gay Patriot I can see when a gay has blinders on.
I am glad I know the gays I know.
Proud to be conservatives.
Yes, they have to be as courageous as blacks who are conservatives.
Or as Hispanics who are conservatives.
Or as women are who are conservatives.
There is no shortage of liberals ready to demand gays toe the leftist gay agenda line or be labeled as ”self-hating gays.”
Those same liberals expect blacks to toe the leftist black agenda line or be labeled as ”house n******s.”
Over and over.
We are all free to think for ourselves and decide to be conservative fiscally and/or socially.
But throwing all fiscal conservatives out because of the presence of social conservative elements is self-defeating.
The bloggers at the Gay Patriot and members of GOProud are proof that you can thread that needle.
Or, you can just go back to tossing glitter.
Oh, no, I’ll vote with you all – -but I got to kvetch, or otherwise I would not feel good. :)) — I have but one life to give for my country, and I aim to give it!
Wait a minute, you’re a glitter throwing homosexual? That tears it. Glitter in the eye is no laughing matter. I almost lost an eye to a glitter throwing gay guy. Now I must attack you.
You’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
Gee whiz Jim, are you sure you got fired for being gay? That’s kind of hard to achieve in this day and age.
Maybe you got fired for being a loud, complaining, goldbricking, histrionic piece of deadwood.
Considering that the “conservatives’ in the USG have BLOWN THE BUDGET BEYOND THAT OF THE DEMS, it is laughable to say conservatives want small government.
$2.4Trillion in deficit spending? Give me a break!
@Ivan:
Ivan,
I think you are conflating the two terms:
There are ”conservatives.”
AND….
There are “Republicans.”
Two different animals.
This is a Great Website, A real eye opener…
http://famguardian.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=5553
@Ivan:
Conservatives do want smaller, more efficient government, Ivan. Your statement would be more correct if you inserted “establishment Republicans” in place of “conservative”. You know damn well that they are different, and that the establishment GOP is more liberal than conservative.
It cuts both ways. When I blog about smaller government I’ve been called an anarchist more often by social-cons who think big government is the answer to impose their views on gay marriage and abortion than by liberals. Unfortunately, the left doesn’t have the market cornered on twisting definitions to suit their goals. We should be above that.
@Nan G:
Horse$hit. In my 50 years on this planet, every time the Republicans came to power in some form or manner they’ve grown government.
1981 to 1987: Exploded government spending
1995-2000: Dramatically grew government
2003-2009: Dramatically grew government
2011 to present: Dramatically grew government spending.
Give it a rest with the bullshi*, Nan G, you voted for these clowns so you’re part of the problem.
@johngalt:
What a load of bovine fecal matter.
Name me a time when the Republicans actually decreased spending over the last 50 years.
You can’t. And you voted for these Republican “liars”. Just admit you were fooled, as I was, over these past 30+ years and I’ll actually have SOME respect for you.
Talking about “conservatives” and government policy is a fantasy. You might as well be telling me stories about Beowulf for all I care.
Ivan, during the Reagan years Congress was controlled by Democrats.
@Wm T Sherman:
Okay, you didn’t take a poli-sci class in college? No, let me guess: you didn’t go to college?
The REPUBLICANS controlled the Senate from 1/2x/81 till 1/2x/87.
They could have stopped the spending.
Now, will you admit you were wrong and apologize?
In the Eighties, Democrats controlled the House of Representatives – where spending originates. You should have at least mentioned that.
I am not really in disagreement with you. The Bush years are the most clear-cut example of big-government Republicans increasing the deficit.
For you to claim that anyone who voted for a Republican as the lesser of two evils bears full repsonsibilityfor everything that’s happened – absurd. They tried to limit the damage and what else could they do? What did you do, genius? I’ve voted for third party candidates twice out of digust and of course it was like I never voted at all. Things had to get real bad real fast for the public to be awakened. Hopefully the GOP establioshment is in as much danger as the Democrats now.
As far as an apology – I’m sorry that you’re a foaming-at-the-mouth egomaniac who rages and insults and then demands politeness and respect from others. You clearly do not want an apology. You want to run around with no pants and get into bar fights.
Good day.
I didn’t need to mention it. The Republicans HAD THE POWER in the SENATE to stop the growth of government. But, you’re too busy shilling for them instead of holding them to a higher-CONSERVATIVE-standard.
WRONG-you are ticked at me that I, like the boy who stated the king has no clothes, call the Republicans out on their broken promises. If you agreed with me you would have said so initially instead of belatedly.
Continuously fooled. Again and again and again. I grew up-no more voting Republican for me! You still going to be Charlie Brown and have the football pulled away from you in the last minute?
See, you still are on the plantation. Sad. Guys like you are the problem.
If you vote GOP you’re voting for record government spending. I’m done with them-obviously you’re not and will vote for them again and again and again.
Free your mind, William, and your ass will follow.
Right, just keep telling yourself that.
Y
Ha! I knew you couldn’t admit you were wrong without being a smart ass. Thanks for proving me right, again.
@Ivan:
It is interesting that you won’t admit there is a difference between the establishment Republicans, and true conservatives. That makes it quite obvious that you don’t understand the difference.
Also, it is quite funny that you would presume to lecture me about who I voted for, why I voted for them, and that I should admit, somehow, to being fooled by them.
And, what’s more, you continue to come here and blast everyone here who considers themselves conservatives, simply because they voted Republican, yet, you fail to offer any sign of who you might be supporting. Would you have everyone denounce the GOP in it’s entirety, and give the country over to the liberal/progressives in the Democratic party?
Tell us, Ivan, who you support and why.
@johngalt: @Ivan:
Again, let me spell it out for you: There is no such thing as a “Conservative Republicans”. They are legends, just like Beowulf. I’ve got 50 years of evidence to support my claim that they DON’T exist. You can babble on about how they do co-exist, but you’re wrong.
Oh so this is where you say you didn’t vote a mostly Republican ticket in previous elections? I’m all ears.
The GOP is a faux opposition party. You claim there are only two choices: Strychnine and arsenic. I say to hell with both the GOP (big government) and the Democrats (bigger government). You, Nan G, are like a slave on the plantation who continues to shill for the plantation owner.
Just admit I’ve outed you as a shill and you’ll regain a small fraction of the cred you once had.
What are you going to do, Ivan? What can you do, other than try to recruit a critical mass of people to your point of view? And you are certainly not doing that here — all you’re doing is feeding your ego and venting your spleen and p*ssing on the rug.
What course of action are you proposing? What is your plan?
ah… come on. Fish in a barrel.
Is there anything in Vince’s post that talks about conservative elected officials in Congress (which is, of course, a non existent critter…)?
Is there anything in Vince’s post here that gives accolades to any GOP leadership for small goverment?
But of course not. Because Vince wasn’t talking about elected official conservatives. He was talking about citizen conservatives.
Don’t you all know that Ivan has a reading comprehension problem, as well as an endless stock of blind hatred, yet? Waste of bandwidth, that one.
Well, considering that you’ve only been around since the early 60s, punk, I would guess that you still haven’t figured out that in the 26 sessions since you’ve been around, the GOP has held the majority in the Senate only 8 of those session, and one was an even split.
In the House, the GOP has held the majority only seven times. This year, and the years under Bush.
Now, braintrust… considering that spending originates in the House, and to curtail spending it generally involves repealing laws that increased spending (i.e. SS and Medicare) under the long hold of the Dems, why would you think they could “cut spending”?
I certainly have no love for either. But your venom for the GOP… considering their brief powers in the House chamber, show you are the hyper-ventilating, angry-without-a-cause idiot we know you to be.
@Wm T Sherman:
There is nothing to do, aside from not supporting the beast. Both parties have a stranglehold on power and won’t let real reform enter the debate.
We’re eff’ed and you know it.
In other words, Wm T…. Ivan has no plan but to whine, complain, and shoot off insults to all. The man is a walking barbiturate.
@MataHarley:
1. Calling me a “punk” shows a lack of intelligence and debating skills.
2. 8 sessions and what did we get from it? Bigger, more expansive government each and every time.
3. I don’t count the sessions prior to 1981 as the Republicans didn’t hold either chamber of the congress. Of course, I can count Nixon and his “conservative approach” to government and Ford.
Hey Mata, consume fecal matter and expire if you have nothing nice to say to me.
Of course that is “okay” with you as you’re a shill for the RNC.
And you know what else is funny about conservatives? The love Nixon.
Nixon was a socialist rat-bastard who set back “conservatism” at least 10 years.
Yet “conservatives” love the prick.
You guys are bi-polar.
Yo…. amoeba Ivan. The only one here that has mentioned Nixon is you. What makes you assume that “conservatives” love him? Your imagination is in overdrive. Lay off the downers.
Have a drink, Ivan.
More Wodka.
@Ivan:
I certainly don’t need to be lectured by you, nor do I crave your “respect”. I do comment, however, on your lack of intellectual honesty regarding conservatives and Republicans, and especially what you assume to be true of myself. I know, for example, that the Republican establishment is not conservative as a whole. In general, they are a lite form of the Democratic party. However, there are conservatives within the party, despite your protestations to the contrary. That they happen not to have any power at all escapes you, and you continue berating conservatives and Republicans in the same breath.
But, I asked, who are you going to support. You didn’t really answer in your response to me. It took someone else asking specifically, and then the only answer you had was to whine and bitch about the situation and call us all “effed”. And guess what? I agree that we are. But it isn’t due to conservative policies, of which there have been exactly none instituted in the area of cutting back government. No, it has been liberal ideas, from Republicans and Democrats both, that have continued the increase in size and influence of government on our everyday lives.
But go ahead. Keep assuming conservatives are to blame. Not only are you wrong, but you continue to attack windmills believing them to be giants, Ivan Quixote.
@johngalt:
And, yet, time after time you give them your vote. Hmmmm…..a real puzzle there.
And, yet, time after time you continue to give them your vote.
Sure there are **some** conservatives, but after 30+ years of Republicans controlling one chamber or the Presidency one has to ask-of course you don’t ever ask-are “conservatives” relevant to the policy of the party?
Don’t you think after 30+ years of watching these clowns we can say that the “conservatives” are nothing more than votes for the GOP?
And you continue to give your allegiance to a party which betrays you time and time again.
You’re like a slave on the GOP plantation. You’re free yet you fail to know it or act on it.
Who is there to support? Palin (Guffaw), Romney? Perry? You’re kidding, right?
Both parties are corrupt and have a stranglehold on power. There is no way anyone who would reduce government could get into power.
Now you name me who you’ll support. Go on. Watch what happens.
So you admit you continue to support Republicans who screw us over. There you have it: You’re part of the problem.
Conservatives voted in this congress: A congress which has raped us. YOU BROKE IT, YOU OWN IT.
@MataHarley: @MataHarley:
There you go again with the name calling. Every post, almost, has an insult. Yet you claim to have some incredible debating skills? Hey Mata, the last act of the desperate mind is the personal insult.
The fact you keep insulting me means I must really be hitting home with my comments.
YES!!!! Consume fecal matter and expire, l***a.
@johngalt:
So, John, when “conservatives” ran the government from 2003 to 2007 and the government spending skyrocketed and the Sub-prime blew up, who was too blame???
Typical “conservative”: the failure to accept responsibility for one’s actions. Just like a liberal.
Hey, Ivan.
When you come down from whatever it was that hit you yesterday, contemplate this:
How many, many groups has Obama thrown under his bus?…..and yet they are STILL constituencies of his.
He can count on them.
Some of them will be 96% for Obama.
Others a firm 80%.
They WILL vote for him in 2012.
I don’t want ”the Devil I know,” as Obama is.
I would rather take a chance on a lesser evil than sit home and watch him win.
If any of you ever wonder what happened to the kid who ate paste in kindergarten…just read Ivan’s posts.
@Aye:
Wow, the man with no honor, Aye, has risen to spew his venom.
@Aye, truth be told, I never “wondered”. The paste-eaters fell into the too stupid to bother with category. But apparently, they are alive and well, thriving in their little world as the passe sexist pigs of the 21st century.
@Ivan:
Speaking of lost honor…Check out this one, this one, and this one.
Of course, we both know that you don’t have the stonz to fess up now don’t we?
Life is too short to wait for something with the same odds as winning the lottery, Aye….
“Honor” and “Ivan” are two words that constitute an oxymoron… emphasis on the *moron* part… as a phrase.
Now we can add sexist pig. LOL Gawd, Ivan… so mid 20th century of you…. He’s clueless as to the balance of Congressional power prior to 2000 as well. duh…. It’s that senile and/or alzheimers bit, ya know. Life, death, taxes and debt began only with GWB, according to IVan.
@Ivan:
I said this;
And you stated this;
,and this;
,and this;
,and this;
You continue to assume a conclusion about me that you assert to be the truth, without actually knowing anything about me. Continue on, though. You are showing exactly why everyone here considers you a dishonest, ignorant fool who one cannot hold a reasoned debate with.
@Mike: @Nan G:
Just what exactly do you fear from gays? They live in America and pay taxes just like you do. Why not treat them as breathern as opposed to the “other”? That is the thing about Republicans. As often as they say they are for America, they are not. They just don’t accept ANY “outsiders” whether they are gay, latino, black or woman. Buddies. We are all in this together as a community. It does no one any good to discriminate.
@James Tarr:
How you got to your conclusion from what I wrote is beyond me!
I look at people as individuals.
I am very proud of the gay conservatives I know.
I understand how difficult it is for them, as I stated above.
It is liberals who desire to impose a mindset on ALL gays (or else they are ”self-hating gays) not me!
Those same liberals want to impose a mindset on women (or else they are not liberated) too.
Those same liberals want to impose a mindset on blacks (or else they are ”house-n*****s) too.
Those same liberals want to impose a mindset on Native Americans (or else they are putting themselves back on the reservation) too.
I don’t demand a mental straight-jacket on people.
Liberals try to and are failing.
I would call myself a liberal in the sense of classical liberalism as embodied by the thinkers of the Enlightenment. I agree on the basic premise that government itself is a necessary evil. There is, as far as I know, no complex society in the history of man which has ever existed without some form of governing body, nor body of law. In the absence of governance, people will always come together to form some sort of governance to ensure mutually agreeable concepts of life and property are protected. So yes, I believe government is a necessary evil, but just barely. I would personally prefer that the government were so small as to be virtually non-existent, putting me much farther into the minarchist camp than most conservatives are willing to venture ideologically.
I wholeheartedly feel that our original founding documents, the oft maligned Articles of Confederation, were and are for the most part wholly adequate to the needs of the people and in many cases superior to the federalist Constitution that supplanted it. Each state essentially operated as it’s own sovereign nation with little interference, and was spared the suffering of the involvement of a heavy handed centralized authority which dictates it’s demands regardless of the cultural differences in each state.
The only legitimate function of government is to establish a framework under which individuals are provided protection from aggression and coercion, retribution for crimes committed against them, and ensuring the binding force of legal contract. Government should protect individuals from the abrogation of their rights and no more. As such government should never breach the contract of non-aggression made with it’s citizens. All participation in the matters of the state should be strictly voluntary. If you do not wish to participate in matters of the state and it’s services you should be left to your own devices unless your activities interfere with the rights of another.
This means putting an end to federal income tax, the federal reserve, the three letter agencies, superfluous executive departments, coerced collection of welfare, and social security. I would also support reducing the military to it’s original scope as a strictly all volunteer militia whose organization should be left in the hands of each individual state.
Big government can be scary but I feel that the alternative is big business which is even more scary in my opinion. At least we can still select government officials whereas there is nothing we can do about poor corporate leaders. And we saw what they are capable of during the recent economic meltdown. These folks claim to be capitalists yet they lavishly reward themselves for poor performance. If you doubt that, check out what their compensation were during 2001-2002 and compare that to the company’s earnings. CEOs were getting bonuses of up 100s of millions while their company stock price fell by as much as 70%! And we’re talking about publicly traded companies where they are required by law to seek profits. At times like this, “small government” likes to sit back and do nothing.