Browse News+Opinion
Browse Calendar+Scene
Browse Arts+Movies
Browse Food+Drink
Browse Music+Clubs
Friday, June 11, 2010
Tim Scott and Paul Thurmond Ignore the Biggest Earmark: American Empire
Posted by Jack Hunter on Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:22 PM
In the upcoming runoff for South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District, the losing Tea Party-anointed candidate in that race, attorney Larry Kobrovsky, has said that both primary winners—Charleston County Councilman Tim Scott and fellow Councilman Paul Thurmond—are too “establishment” to deserve an endorsement from grassroots conservatives. This is true, but there’s also another reason to be reluctant to endorse such Republicans: Because neither one of these men is really as conservative as he claims to be—and not just in the obvious ways establishment-weary Tea Partiers might think.
In his recent column “A Tea Party to Nowhere” former CIA counter-terrorism specialist Philip Giraldi writes “Most Tea Partiers claim to want smaller and cheaper government, less interference from Washington in their daily lives… (but) Most also want a strong, assertive national defense and are supporters of an aggressive foreign and security policy.” Giraldi notes the incoherence of conservatives holding both positions:
“They fail to understand that it is precisely the interventionist defense and foreign policies that are driving the bad things they see in government… Ballooning defense and security spending… all accomplished without raising taxes, has been the engine of growth for a $13 trillion national debt, a total that increases by $4 billion every day. The United States now accounts for 45% of the entire world total for military spending, euphemistically referred to as ‘defense.’ The Pentagon budget has gone from $432 billion in 2001 to a projected $720 billion in 2011, not including the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Federal Government is twice as big as it was in 2001… Tea Partiers have unfortunately been fed a line of hokum by politicians aided and abetted by the mainstream media.”
The good news is conservative voters are not as emotionally wedded to the pro-war insanity that characterized the George W. Bush years as they once were. The bad news is most GOP politicians still are, and remain just as pro-war, any war as ever, while simultaneously pretending to be for smaller government and less spending. In SC, congressional candidates Scott and Thurmond are perfect examples of this, where both men claim to be more conservative than the other, yet are still enthusiastic about spending trillions of taxpayer dollars on the most expensive government program in this country’s history—American global empire. Liberal Congressman Barney Frank complained last year that if we hadn’t wasted so much money on the Iraq War we would have enough for national healthcare. The problem with “conservative” Republicans like Scott and Thurmond is that they essentially agree with Frank on the need for astronomical government spending—they just disagree on where to spend.
It would be helpful if Tea Party folks reluctant to endorse men they perceive as establishment candidates, like Scott and Thurmond, would finally make the connection that the most crucial membership requirement for being part of the Republican establishment is a politician’s support for the foreign policy status quo. The reason so many GOP bigwigs went after Rand Paul in his bid for US Senate in Kentucky recently was not simply because Paul has an interest in smaller government, but because he is comprehensive enough in his conservatism to be willing to look at all of government spending—including the Pentagon. This is the same reason the GOP establishment does not attack Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin to the extent that they do Paul, as Palin’s foreign policy views differ little from Dick “deficits don’t matter” Cheney—who understandably, has admitted to being a Palin fan.
True to form, the establishment always tries to frame any criticism of our national security status quo as unrealistic and coming from those who don’t believe in having any defense at all. This is preposterous. There’s a world of difference between actually defending the nation and trying to defend the entire world, our current policy and never-ending predicament. But it is true that we do have a disproportionate view of the actual terrorist threat versus what we sacrifice, or as Giraldi notes “The Tea Partiers should instead understand that terrorists will only tear down the United States if we Americans help them to do so. Irrational fear of a small group of men hiding in a cave in Asia is what drives larger government, the infringement of civil liberties, and more taxes and regulation.”
Comments (9)
Showing 1-9 of 9
why back in the day we would have called you an anti-imperialist! after spending most your adult life jizzing on autographed ronald reagan glossies, you've seen the light! very encouraging. now if we could just get you to drop the infantile ayn rand fetish.
like
dislike
When you add in the cost of the wars, it's over 1 trillion/year.
And people are bitching about health care?
Mario, Jack Hunter " A.K.A. the Southern Avenger," was questioning the war when it was unpopular to do so. This was well before President Bush was re-elected. Jack hasn't just "seen the light."
The tea party movement began with Ron paul supporters and not those in the Republican party who have recently tried to merge themselves with the movement. True tea partiers have always questioned the need for an overseas empire with military bases all over the globe.
Mario is obviously clueless. Those who spout off at the mouth without any knowledge tend to be oblivious to how rediculous they sound.
Jack has it right. The tea party must not let itself be co-opted by the rino hawks.
The Federal budget should be treated like a household budget. Income is down, so we must cut back. Time to have the cable disconnected, stop eating out, and get on the beans and rice and rice and beans diet (maybe a little ramen noodles, too). And for heavens sake, we definitely shouldn't be out having elective health care procedures performed.
Bring the troops home and cut defense by 40%.
Repeal health care and the seventeenth amendment.
Cut all other federal budget items immediately by 10%.
End all forms of foreign aid with the exception of disaster relief.
Have the stones to tell Americans "no" to any new entitlements.
It's the only way to avoid falling into a financial abyss.
As to the remaining candidates in the run off for Ol' Henry's seat, we must decide which one is most likely to walk the Tea Party planks.
Not bad, IP, but if I was hurting I would not only cut back but work more.
Balancing the budget at this point will take both painful and massive spending cuts and painful and massive tax increases.
Had we stayed on the Clinton financial path none of this would have been needed.
What's your estimate for the cost of the health plan?
Hey Jack, a friend of mine from the Army who I went to Iraq with was just sent a certified letter saying he was being ordered back into the Army for another deployment to Iraq. He got out after doing his 4 years and has been a civilian for almost 6 months now. Yes, it's legal. I do wonder 1) how we can say we have an all-volunteer military in light of such policies, and 2) why Obama and the Democrats haven't done anything to stop it.
Unfortunately, your Army friend is needed over there and will be gearing up for the attack on Iran this year.
FCB,
I agree with the "work more".
I think the best way to create more work and jobs is to provide an economic environment in which entrepreneurs can access the capital necessary to start new businesses and hire new workers. In my estimation, raising taxes is counter-productive to that goal. Unfortunately, our current economic policies have a vast majority of wealth holders scared shitless.
Tax cuts sunset next year, so those who have control over the kind of money that funds business start-ups are instead front loading next years personal earnings into this year. Add the uncertainty of a new health care mandate on businesses, to the currently depressed economic environment, then couple that with high unemployment and increased government debt, and it's no wonder that investors are leeching liquidity out of the markets.
So, if it were up to me, we would freeze all taxes at 2009 levels for a period of five years. Next, we should cut spending to decrease the amount of debt we are acquiring and paying interest on. Finally, we should offer tax incentives to entrepreneurs who will create the sort of businesses which lower the operating costs of the Federal government, and benefit taxpayers at large. Those three things alone could send a powerful signal to investors that market stability is around the corner. As unemployment goes down, receipts to the treasury will come up. If we remain frugal in spending and even handed in tax policy, we could eventually grow our way out of this hole.
What do I think health care will cost? Well, I'm no expert, so I will have to base my opinion on the past performance of similar government programs. Sadly, there is very little anecdotal evidence of any government program costing less than originally promised. A good example of a similar program might be Medicare, which was signed into law as a part of the Social Security Act of 1965. In 1965, it was projected that twenty five years later (1990) medicare funding would require 9 billion annually. In 1990, we spent 67 billion on medicare funding, a seven and a half fold increase. The number currently touted by the administration for health care is 900 billion (had to keep it under the magic "trillion" number), and a seven and a half fold increase of that number means we would be spending 6.7 trillion a year on health care in 2035. Our entire federal budget is currently a little over three trillion, one third of which is "borrowed" money. (Borrowed from the SS trust fund, foreign lenders, and most comically, from the Federal Reserve Bank. Yes, that's right, we have no money, but we have created our own personal bank from which to borrow money, which we don't have! And the printing presses churn on....... ;) One of the things that affected medicare costs was the increasing enrollment of retiring baby boomers. Couple that with improved medical care, which has extended the lives of those folks who are receiving benefits (which ultimately means they require still more care), and you end up with an unsustainable spiral of debt.
That is what I expect Health Care to cost. More than estimated. More than we can afford. With lower quality of care and more expensive than if we had just handled everything ourselves.
If you haven't checked it out yet, you should go to:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
DISCLAIMER: Be sure your sitting down............
- Author William G. Lord is a cold warrior for Christ7 comments
- Lata's Ordinary Oyster Hall revealed5 comments
- The same-sex marriage debate is a distraction48 comments
- Do conservatives want Obama to throw citizens in jail without trial?2 comments
- Five tips for surviving Spoleto Festival5 comments
- Truth & Salvage Co. sift through 50 songs to make the perfect record1 comment
-
Charlie Brown Seafood
Garlic crabs we're delicious. Wish it was a small restaurant where you could sit and… -Danielle Ashe England
-
Little Tokyo
ITADAKMASU = Let's eat! -Christopher Bernique
-
Brittlebank Park
Tehn maybe you should go back to New York. -Chrystal McConnell
-
Diamonds North
There is nothing worse than a bitter fired employee. I work at a plant near… -boeingguy51
-
Pearlz
Fantastic service!
We visited on a busy Friday night and the restaurant was… -twa318
-
The War on Women enters its Creed years thanks to Nikki Haley and Pinata-Gate
-
Do conservatives want Obama to throw citizens in jail without trial?
A Permanent Police State
-
50 Shades of Grey's most notorious scene as read by Stephen Hawking
No strings attached
-
Is S.C. State University's board of trustees really so bad?
A Matter of Degrees
-
Author William G. Lord is a cold warrior for Christ
The thinking Baptist's Glenn Beck sees socialism as a pervasive enemy of the church
