Examples Of Conservatism Part I

  Back on March 19,2009,  the U.S. House of Representatives voted to impose a 90% tax on the income of certain executives of financial institutions who had received federal funding during the bailouts.

  Considering that the house is controled by the Democrats this is not all that remarkable. What is remarkable is that eighty-five Republican congressmen also voted to impose this tax.

  Now it is not unheard of for Republicans to vote for tax increases, but normally this happens under pressure from a Republican president and as part of some budget deal that cuts spending in other areas. Neither was the case with this tax increase. There was no cuts to spending or of any other taxes to accompany this tax hike.

  There was no economic necessity for this tax increase, it was nothing more than punishment for bonuses paid out to AIG executives .

  Many believe that this bill was illegal, in that it violates the Constitution’s  prohibition against bill of attainder, or laws that singal out specific people for punishment.

  We would expect that the populist Democrats would vote for a bill such as this, but it is shocking that Republicans would. It is twice as shocking that none of these Republicans cared enough about free market economics let alone the Constitution to consider the long-term ramifications of such a tax bill.

  By the way , for those of you that maybe don’t follow along as closely as some others, our very own Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware was one of the eighty-five Republicans that voted for this un-constitutional bill.

 Just another example of Mr. Castle’s conservative credentials !!

  Be looking for more examples coming in the future .

Advertisements

9 Responses to “Examples Of Conservatism Part I”

  1. Ed Heath Says:

    Thanks for bringing this to my attention! Even more reason to vote for Christine O’Donnell.

  2. Chris Slavens Says:

    Government intervention to fix the results of government intervention will always lead to a chain reaction in which the government repeatedly intrudes into the private sector, causes unintended consequences, and then must intrude again to address those consequences, all the while eroding the personal and economic freedoms of the individual. Of course the bill in question was illegal, just as the bailout itself was illegal, and any further federal bunglings in the matter will probably also be illegal, given our representatives’ disdain for the Constitution.

  3. JUDSON BENNETT Says:

    RNC Members Propose Purity Test

    Posted: Nov 25, 2009 10:38 AM EST

    FYI:

    UNDATED (FOX)- A group of Republican National Committee members is considering a litmus test to rate candidates for their run in the 2010 elections. Candidates that do not support eight of the 10 resolutions would not receive campaign funding from the RNC.

    The proposal would be a purity test for candidates to demonstrate they “espouse conservative principles and public policies” that are in opposition to “Obama’s socialist agenda.” Some of the main points of the proposal include support of smaller government and smaller debt; opposition to President Obama’s health care plan; and support of the Defense of Marriage Act.

    “The goal of the resolution is to take a position … towards reclaiming the Republican Party’s conservative bona fides,” said Committeeman James Bopp, who authored the resolution, reported The Los Angeles Times . “We are open to diverse views. But you have to agree with us most of the time.”

    According to The New York Times , the proposed resolution was signed by 10 Republican National Committee members and was distributed on Monday morning. The members also invoked President Ronald Reagan and his call that the Republican party should be devoted to conservative principles but open to diverse views.

    The Wall Street Journal noted that The Republican party is conflicted by the notion, supported many core conservatives, that the party has lost elections because it strayed from its ideological foundations. But RNC Chairman Michael Steele and others argue that the party can gain ground by welcoming a wider diversity of viewpoints.

    The proposal could reportedly come up for consideration when the RNC meets this January in Honolulu.

    Titled the “Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates,” the 10 principles in the proposed resolution, which was circulated by Bopp , are:

    (1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill

    (2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care

    (3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation

    (4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check

    (5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants

    (6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges

    (7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat

    (8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act

    (9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion

    (10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

    http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=11572137&nav=menu222_5

  4. frankknotts Says:

    Well, well the light may not be on but they have found the switch. It would seem as if some within the party have realized that the move towards moderates has been detrimental to the party’s ability to win elections. I do think that the use of Pres. Obama’s name may tend to narrow the focas of the goal of the proposal.
    ” 1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill”
    Okay, we support smaller government and debt and deficits and taxes, but do we only support them in oppisition to Pres. Obama ?
    My point is we need to make real change within the party and oppose the things that can destroy the foundation of the nation( and yes I agree that Pres. Obama is one of those things) but we must oppose them for all times , not just while we have a Democrat president.
    I want real reform within the GOP not just some silly pledge that can be broken at any time after they are elected. I want candidates that will say these things to crowds of people out on the stump and not just to partisan crowds. I want candidates that will carry the message because they believe in it and not just because thay think it is the current trend. I want honest conservatives.

  5. DanQuail Says:

    Did this gang of 10 GOP “conservative” thugs ever stop to think that The Defense of Marriage Act didn’t exist when Reagan was president? And didn’t Reagan SUPPORT Amnesty for illegals? This is just more proof that today’s so-called “Reagan conservatives” have bastardized his legacy to fit their agenda.

    Reagan once said that if you agreed with him 8 out of 10 times you were his friend, does anyone believe that if you agreed with him only 7 times you were his opponent and he’d pull your funding and tell you to leave the GOP?

    • Chris Slavens Says:

      While Reagan is a role model for many Republicans, having been a highly successful candidate and leader, there remain many conservatives that support moving past Reagan’s policies, farther to the right. This concept of “What would Reagan do?” is inappropriate, counterproductive, and just plain wrong–Reagan faced a foreign threat to freedom, while we face a domestic threat. Apples to oranges. Suggesting that conservatives are “thugs” or, somehow, not true “conservatives” because they pursue a slightly different agenda from that of Reagan’s, is an ineffective propaganda tactic that only serves to be divisive, and promote further extremism. After all, if the Republican Party chooses to move farther to the right, is that not a good thing for Democrats, who will then be joined by so-called moderates?

      • DanQuail Says:

        “Suggesting that conservatives are “thugs” or, somehow, not true “conservatives” because they pursue a slightly different agenda from that of Reagan’s, is an ineffective propaganda tactic that only serves to be divisive, and promote further extremism.”

        I’m glad you agree that the “Resolution on Reagan’s Unity Principle” is nothing more than divisive and extremism.

      • Chris Slavens Says:

        As a matter of fact I was accusing you of being deliberately divisive. How many points on the list do you agree with? I don’t agree with all, but even so I recognize that the Republican Party needs to change course. Moving to the far right might not be the answer, but it’s certainly preferable to the current continuous slide towards the left. It’s very easy to be critical and dismissive, but that is also unproductive; discussing the positive aspects of this list would be a better use of time.

  6. frankknotts Says:

    As someone who has called for a move back to the right , I too would say that this is window dressing that is nothing more than an attempt to distract people like myself. What I want to see are candidates that speak and work towards conservative ideals, not candidates that sign a silly little piece of paper . The idea is to move to the right and convince the voters to go with you. That is where the power of the message comes into play. To often the candidates believe they must change the message to fit the crowd. I believe that the real work is to work harder to articulate the same conservative message to all people in a way that will bring them to the party. That is truly Reagan’s legacy.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: