Many 3s who cannot learn from past mistakes had been on the GOP campaign trail, hoping to succeed a president who hasn't learned a thing in seven years of making mistakes. They constantly called for more tax cuts with the idea they will stave off a second George W. Bush recession; ignoring the fact that a series of tax cuts for the very wealthy and for corporations is what created the debt approaching $10 trillion and which threatens the financial well-being of the nation. They argued that tax cuts would pay for themselves by spurring economic growth and that growth will result in tax receipts for government that more than exceed the amount of taxes reduced. Not true.
Even the architects of the first wave of tax cuts in the Reagan administration never claimed that. They projected that for every $10 in tax cuts, the economy would increase tax collections by $3. But that left a $7 deficit. After Reagan engineered a huge tax cut in early 1981, sure enough, tax receipts eventually climbed, but the deficit also increased by billions. In fact, tax receipts in the 12 years of the Reagan-Bush regime climbed 82 percent while population increased 12 per cent and inflation was up 70 percent. To keep tax receipts consistent with population and inflation growth, Reagan obtained from a Republican Senate and conservative House much higher taxes on the workers of America to offset the tax reductions that went to the aristocracy. Tax cuts might be a good idea when the government is running a budget surplus, but when it is running a deficit, as was the case when Reagan took office with a manageable deficit, results can be disastrous.
One of the greatest mystifications of the conservative mind is its view on the effect on the economy by spending. The conservative will rail all day long about the harmful effects of "government spending" on the economy, claiming it is the root of all societal problems. But when a recession looms, as is the case with both recessions of the George W. Bush reign, conservatives were front and center about giving several hundred dollar rebates per person to be spent in the economy. It doesn't matter who uses the dollars ~ government or individuals ~ the money given out by government is "government spending." The difference is that individuals may spend it all on foreign items, if spent at all, and the money will flow out of the US economy. If government spent the money to buy a fleet of American-manufactured autos or upgrade the nation's infrastructure, the money stays in the US economy and produces better results.
On the international stage, we can remember when the World War II far-right regimes of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan starved hundreds of thousands of wartime prisoners ~ those they didn't murder first ~ while the leftist American administration took reasonable care of foreign prisoners. In one instance, Italian prisoners of war incarcerated in Seattle received much better treatment than did the black American GIs who guarded them.
On political rights.
As Scottish ~ and newly naturalized American ~ comedian Craig Ferguson jokes on his late-night television talk show, "If it's written down, it has to be true." Conservatives view our rights in a similar way because they claim that a right "has to be written down if it is to be true." Conservatives can't find certain rights written in the Constitution, therefore those rights don't exist in their minds. A Bill of Rights was not included in the original Constitution because many Founders said that to list a few rights in writing would lead future generations of Americans to believe that the only rights that existed and are to be protected were the few written down. They said that government would then run roughshod over those rights not named. They were absolutely correct, as conservative arguments attest.
Conservatives can't find a right to privacy, to marry the person of one's choice, to be left alone by government, to have an abortion, to burn an American flag in protest, to protest a government action, to sue a government agency or numerous other rights not written into the Constitution, so they claim there are no such rights.
They often have a distorted view of where rights come from.
On campaign finance reform, Texas GOP libertarian Rep. Ron Paul (a conservative 3) said, "The First amendment unquestionably grants individuals and businesses the free and unfettered right to advertise, lobby and contribute to politicians as they choose." In slamming the Supreme Court for the Roe v. Wade decision Paul claimed the judges created "new rights out of thin air."
Richard Nixon (a 5) once proclaimed that the right of free speech didn't extend to "abuse" of speech, therefore that right could be rescinded by government since government granted the right in the first place.
Inept former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (a 3) once testified before Congress that the Constitution didn't grant a right of Habeas Corpus, only protected it if it were to be granted by law.
Supreme Court Judge Antonin Scalia, a 3 who couldn't find a right to privacy in the Constitution, said that if the people want such a right, they should just pass a law securing that right.
In all these instances, right-wingers are saying that government is the source of all our rights.
The Founders didn't say that; in fact their statements mean just the opposite. In the Federalist Papers, John Jay said Americans would be giving up some of their rights in order that the new government have necessary powers. To give up some rights clearly means rights existed before the government was formed and therefore government couldn't be the source of rights. When a Bill of Rights was included, the Ninth Amendment protects those rights "retained by the people," again clearly saying rights existed before government came into existence.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
