Dorgan, Dodd and Ritter retiring. Democrats on alert.
In a string of rapid announcements we learn that Senator Byron Dorgan of ND, Senator Chris Dodd of CT and Governor Bill Ritter of CO are all planning to retire. Given their polling numbers in their respective states none of this should come as a big shock, although Dorgan was planning to run again as of very recently.
This of course has the Republicans salivating harder than Congress over tax revenues. Should it? In the case of Ritter, possibly, in the case of Dorgan/Dodd probably not. Dodd is an especially interesting case considering how much corruption is circulating around this man stemming back from the mortgage crisis. Even if Dodd runs and somehow manages to win his primary he has virtually no chance against the Republicans. In fact the Republicans would use Dodd as a battering ram to humiliate and highlight the Democrat party as the party of corruption, given that 9 of the 10 most corrupt politicians happen to be Democrats. Now that this battering ram has been removed, Republicans are back to slinging their rocks of "fiscal conservatism" - a term that has by now become nothing more than a punch line. At the same time Democrats can regroup and place someone in the primary with a much cleaner message and an even cleaner history.
So what does this mean to the average American sick and tired of Democrat's liberal policy and equally sick and tired of Republicans paying cheap lip service in the name of fiscal responsibility? This means that before you begin cheering for the casualties of ObamaCare, take extra care and caution in examining the inevitable Republicans lining up to take the spots. For example there are several candidates vying for the Connecticut position and only Peter Schiff will offer anything new from the usual Republican rhetoric, rhetoric that has already failed.
Example of failure: Charts are nice, they can say more in one glimpse than I can say in an entire post. Keep in mind too, that the average pay of Federal employees is higher and their benefits better. To make matters worse these employees vote more regularly and support all candidates pledging to maintain or grow growth of government. This chart would make the Communist Party very proud.
I would like to remind my Republican friends that under Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 government grew by leaps and bounds. Yes, I said Reagan despite what appears to be a minor blip in federal employees (federal spending still increased)! The marginal tax rate may have been cut, but under Reagan Social Security was saved and taxes raised, Departments of Energy and Education remained. Bush Jr. expanded Medicare more than any other time since it's original inception in 1965 and solidified Department of Education's role in school via the deplorable No Child Left Behind. Without even examining the individual programs the level of spending starting in the 1980s grew at a steady clip only slowing down under Clinton and a Republican Congress. Unfortunately for you and me this unchecked spending means that more and more money is leaving the private sector thus making every recovery that more difficult and ordinary life harder, not to mention the increasing burdern of supporting more and more federal employees and their gigantic pensions. A Federal Reserve with a free ticket to print money and debt monetization exacerbates the issue significantly or if you prefer, may very well be the root cause of it all.
Either way, unless you want more of the same, unless you are perfectly content with the direction and infiltration of Federal and State expansion in the past 30 years - stop repeating the same mistake over and over. As the 2010 elections heat up, find candidates that do not represent the status quo of "limiting" government, find candidates committed to really eliminating spending. Limiting did not work, does not work and will never work. Cutting spending works, make them earn your vote.
This of course has the Republicans salivating harder than Congress over tax revenues. Should it? In the case of Ritter, possibly, in the case of Dorgan/Dodd probably not. Dodd is an especially interesting case considering how much corruption is circulating around this man stemming back from the mortgage crisis. Even if Dodd runs and somehow manages to win his primary he has virtually no chance against the Republicans. In fact the Republicans would use Dodd as a battering ram to humiliate and highlight the Democrat party as the party of corruption, given that 9 of the 10 most corrupt politicians happen to be Democrats. Now that this battering ram has been removed, Republicans are back to slinging their rocks of "fiscal conservatism" - a term that has by now become nothing more than a punch line. At the same time Democrats can regroup and place someone in the primary with a much cleaner message and an even cleaner history.
So what does this mean to the average American sick and tired of Democrat's liberal policy and equally sick and tired of Republicans paying cheap lip service in the name of fiscal responsibility? This means that before you begin cheering for the casualties of ObamaCare, take extra care and caution in examining the inevitable Republicans lining up to take the spots. For example there are several candidates vying for the Connecticut position and only Peter Schiff will offer anything new from the usual Republican rhetoric, rhetoric that has already failed.
Example of failure: Charts are nice, they can say more in one glimpse than I can say in an entire post. Keep in mind too, that the average pay of Federal employees is higher and their benefits better. To make matters worse these employees vote more regularly and support all candidates pledging to maintain or grow growth of government. This chart would make the Communist Party very proud.
I would like to remind my Republican friends that under Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 government grew by leaps and bounds. Yes, I said Reagan despite what appears to be a minor blip in federal employees (federal spending still increased)! The marginal tax rate may have been cut, but under Reagan Social Security was saved and taxes raised, Departments of Energy and Education remained. Bush Jr. expanded Medicare more than any other time since it's original inception in 1965 and solidified Department of Education's role in school via the deplorable No Child Left Behind. Without even examining the individual programs the level of spending starting in the 1980s grew at a steady clip only slowing down under Clinton and a Republican Congress. Unfortunately for you and me this unchecked spending means that more and more money is leaving the private sector thus making every recovery that more difficult and ordinary life harder, not to mention the increasing burdern of supporting more and more federal employees and their gigantic pensions. A Federal Reserve with a free ticket to print money and debt monetization exacerbates the issue significantly or if you prefer, may very well be the root cause of it all.
Either way, unless you want more of the same, unless you are perfectly content with the direction and infiltration of Federal and State expansion in the past 30 years - stop repeating the same mistake over and over. As the 2010 elections heat up, find candidates that do not represent the status quo of "limiting" government, find candidates committed to really eliminating spending. Limiting did not work, does not work and will never work. Cutting spending works, make them earn your vote.
Comments
Post a Comment