The Revolution That Wasn't

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T by

Laurence M. Vance

Books by Laurence M. Vance The Other Side of Calvinism A Brief History of English Bible Translations The Angel of the Lord Archaic Words and the Authorized Version A Practical Grammar of Basic Biblical Hebrew Double Jeopardy: The NASB Update Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State King James, His Bible, and Its Translators Greek Verbs in the New Testament and Their Principal Parts War, Foreign Policy, and the Church Guide to Prepositions in the Greek New Testament The Myth of the Just Price and the Biblical Case for Laissez Faire Guide to Nouns in the Greek New Testament Guide to Adjectives in the Greek New Testament Guide to Pronouns in the Greek New Testament The Revolution that Wasn’t

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T by

Laurence M. Vance

Vance Publications Pensacola, FL

The Revolution that Wasn’t Copyright © 2009 by Laurence M. Vance All Rights Reserved

ISBN: 978-0-9823697-0-8

Published and Distributed by: Vance Publications P.O. Box 11781, Pensacola, FL 32524 Phone: 850-937-1970 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.vancepublications.com

Printed in the United States of America

INTRODUCTION The so-called Republican Revolution began on January 3, 1995, after the Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress in the 1994 midterm elections. The last time this happened was the congressional elections of 1952. The Revolution officially came to an end on January 20, 2009, when George Bush’s second term as president came to a well-deserved and much-anticipated end. It is my contention that conservatives who think the Republican Party is the party of conservatism are mistaken, Christians who think the Republican Party is the party of God are deceived, and anyone who thinks the Republican Party is the lesser of two evils is ignorant. These eight essays chronicle the Republican revolution that wasn’t. The first essay, “What a Republican Majority Has Not Meant,” was published in the July 2004 issue of Freedom Daily, the monthly publication of the Future of Freedom Foundation. It is actually a revision of an earlier essay called “What a Republican Majority Will Not Mean,” which was written just after the Republicans regained control of the Congress in 1994. The other essays all originally appeared on the anti-state, anti-war, pro-market website, LewRockwell.com. Along with their dates of publication, they are: “The Myth of Republican Conservatism” (July 12, 2004), “Four Years Growth” (Jan. 24, 2005), “Irritating, Lousy, Liberal Republicans” (Aug. 1, 2006), “What Republican Revolution?” (Nov. 11, 2006), “Not a Dime’s Worth of Difference” (Aug. 24, 2007), “Ichabod!” (Sept. 5, 2008), and T.G.I.F. (Jan. 26, 2009). For further reading one may consult the in-depth examinations I authored of the legislation passed by the Republican-controlled 108th and 109th Congresses: “The 108th Congress: An Analysis” (Jan. 17, 2005) and “Our ‘Conservative’ Republican Congress” (Jan. 14, 2006). On George Bush, see “The Christianity of George WMD Bush” (May 23, 2005). All three are in my article archive at LewRockwell.com. The Republican Party had a chance to roll back the size, scope, and cost of the federal government, but failed miserably. It is truly the party of Lincoln—the party of war, crony capitalism, pious platitudes, empty rhetoric, big government, and an imperial presidency. 5

6

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

WHAT A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY HAS NOT MEANT It has been more than a year now since the Republicans gained an absolute majority in Congress and the White House. The road to this majority began in the third year of Bill Clinton’s first term. The Republicans gained complete control of the 104th Congress (1995–1997), held on to control in the 105th Congress (1997–1999), and remained in power during the 106th Congress (1999–2001) through the end of Clinton’s presidency. After 40 years of Democratic rule, the Republican majority in the Congress during most of Clinton’s term in office appeared at the time to be a welcome sight. But because the presidency eluded them, the Republicans seemed to have an excuse for not rolling back the welfare state, even though it is the legislative branch that passes all legislation—not the executive branch. And besides, Clinton made a good scapegoat. Then, if only for a brief moment, it appeared finally to be official—there was an absolute Republican majority in the House, a 50–50 split in the Senate with a Republican vice president to break ties, and a Republican president in the White House. But when Jim Jeffords, the Republican senator from Vermont, switched from being a Republican to being an Independent on May 24, 2001, the Republican majority fizzled, giving the GOP another excuse. But then, no more excuses. The 108th Congress, which took office in January of last year, was solidly Republican. But since the Republicans have gained control of the Congress, the federal budget (over $2 trillion) and the federal deficit (over $500 billion) are the highest ever, the national debt is over $7 trillion (and increasing an average of $2 billion per day), hundreds of Americans have died on foreign soil, and Americans have even less liberty now than they had before. This time, however, the Republicans have no excuses. The lame excuse that they are not responsible because they didn’t control the entire government will not work anymore. And the even lamer excuse that the defection of Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffords so early in Bush’s presidency didn’t give the Republican majority enough time to do anything won’t work either. The Republicans have now had total control—an absolute Republican majority—for more than a year. And what did they do during this time? The usual—nothing. No egregious legislation was

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

7

repealed. The welfare state was not rolled back an inch. No federal programs or departments were eliminated. No budgets were cut. In fact, legislation got worse (the USA PATRIOT Act), the welfare state was strengthened (a new prescription drug plan), and a new federal department was created (Homeland Security). So now that the initial euphoria over an absolute Republican majority has subsided and the Republicans have been in charge for a year, the Republican record can be soberly addressed. There is only one way to describe the record of the Republican majority during its first year: a dismal failure. To students of political history, however, this was not only no surprise, it was to be expected and, in fact, predictable on the basis of the actions of the Republican Party in the 20th century, whether they held the presidency, the House, the Senate, or any combination of the three, including an absolute majority. Because the history of the Republican Party is one of compromise after compromise and sellout after sellout, there are a number of things that a Republican majority has not meant, and in fact, will never mean. Republican Sellouts A Republican majority has not meant any more than it did the last time the Republicans controlled both the Congress and the Oval Office, since the intent of Republicans is not to dismantle the welfare state with its entitlements and income-transfer programs. The 83rd Congress of 1953–1955, which had the advantage of serving under the Republican president Dwight Eisenhower, represented the last time in recent memory that the Republicans commanded both houses of Congress and the White House. Before then, it was during the first two years of Herbert Hoover’s presidency that a Republican Congress convened under a Republican president. With the Republican Eisenhower in the White House, and a Republican majority in Congress, one would think that the entire New Deal could have been repealed and the government restored to at least its pre-New Deal levels. Yet during this period, the Bricker Amendment to protect U.S. sovereignty went down in defeat, the Cold War took shape, and the judicial activist Earl Warren was appointed to the Supreme Court. This Republican majority was

8

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

short-lived, as the voters turned out the Republicans for what was to be the longest tenure of one-party rule in U.S. history. A Republican majority has not meant anything different from the last time a Republican Congress had to contend with a Democratic president, because the Republicans have no desire to rid the country of affirmative-action policies, anti-discrimination laws, or anything else granting special privileges based on race, sex, perceived victim status, disability, or “sexual orientation.” Before the Clinton regime, the last time a Republican Congress found itself in this position was during the 80th Congress of 1947–1949, which assembled during the second half of the first term of the Democrat Harry Truman. One would have to go back to the last half of Woodrow Wilson’s second term to find a like occurrence. It is apparent that a Republican majority in Congress for the first time since the New Deal would at least have been able to block the legislative agenda of Harry Truman. But ability and willingness are two different things. After authorizing $400 million in aid to Greece and Turkey in 1947 and the $17 billion Marshall Plan in 1948, the Republicans in Congress were still replaced by Democrats in the next election. A Republican majority has not meant anything different from the last time the Republicans held a majority in the Senate, because the practice of appointing and confirming judges and bureaucrats who trample the Constitution and infringe the liberties of American citizens has never abated. Throughout Ronald Reagan’s first term, and for the first half of his second one, the Republicans had a majority in the Senate under a Republican president. The only other two times this century that this occurred were during the terms of Hoover and William Taft. Although not possessing a majority in the House of Representatives, with a majority in the Senate, and the most conservative president since Calvin Coolidge, the repeal of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society seemed within reach. Some good was done during the period of this Senate majority, but Sandra Day O’Connor, who proved to be a dismal failure to conservatives, was installed on the Supreme Court. The Social Security tax rates were also gradually raised throughout this period, something that cannot be blamed exclusively on a Democratic-controlled House. Further compromise with the Democrats resulted in additional “tax reform.” A Republican House was never

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

9

elected to complement the Republican Senate, and the Republicans lost the Senate for the remaining two years of Reagan’s final term. A Republican majority has not meant something dissimilar from a Democratic majority with a Republican president, because the Republicans have made no effort to eliminate the laws, mandates, regulations, and restrictions that strangle business and burden the American people. The last Republican president to preside over a Democratic Congress was George H. W. Bush. Every Republican president since Eisenhower has had the disadvantage of serving with a Democratic majority in Congress for at least part of his term, and usually for the entire duration. It was expected that an attempt would be made by Bush to block Democratic legislation. But not only were some horrendous bills passed with the help of Republicans in the House and Senate, President Bush signed them instead of using his veto power. The Americans with Disabilities Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Civil Rights Act are three notable examples, not to mention the disastrous budget deal that raised taxes. A Republican majority has not meant any more than business as usual with a complete Democratic majority, because the reckless, globalist foreign policy of the United States is adhered to by most Republicans. The total Democratic control of the government, such as existed under Roosevelt, Truman (second term), Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton (first half of first term), has done much damage to the country. Yet many of the increases in taxes, social spending, and federal powers, with their assault on liberty and private property, were passed with the help of Republicans at the time they were supposed to be the opposition party. Republicans in the House and Senate supported Clinton’s crime bill and the annual multi-billion dollar foreign aid package. The Solution It is understood that with a Democrat in the White House, a presidential veto can squelch Republican plans. That excuse may have seemed plausible under the Clinton regime, but it does not hold anymore. No matter how often Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh sing their praises, the Republicans cannot be taken seriously. A Republican majority in Congress and the White House has meant virtually nothing

10

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

positive for liberty, and will never do so, until they undertake a systematic dismantling of the welfare, regulatory, interventionist state. It is not just a matter of enacting more legislation to combat 40 years of Democratic rule. Limiting spending increases to the rate of inflation is not satisfactory. A balanced-budget amendment is not the answer. Indexing taxes on capital gains to inflation is not the solution. A freeze on federal spending is not enough. Welfare and Social Security reform are not needed. More crime bills will not do. It is pointless to argue that the Republicans will feed the federal leviathan less than the Democrats. Instead of slaying the federal leviathan, bipartisanship, sellout, and compromise will ensure that a Republican majority feeds it instead. Unless the emphasis is on the elimination of all facets of the federal monstrosity, including the repeal of the New Deal of FDR, the Fair Deal of Harry Truman, the Great Society programs of LBJ, the blunders of Republican presidents, and the sellouts of Republican Congresses, a Republican majority will never mean anything positive for freedom. Ultimately, the solution lies in the hands of the American people. The libertarian principles of the Founders, and especially the limited role of government in a free society, should be on the lips of every American. It is then, and only then, that elected representatives can begin to eliminate the funding and power of the FDA, FTC, EEOC, OSHA, EPA, HHS, HUD, BATF, CPB, NEA, IRS, and all the other acronyms that rob the American people of their money, property, and liberty. _______ THE MYTH OF REPUBLICAN CONSERVATISM The latest “Conservative Index” that has just been published by The New American, (a biweekly publication of The John Birch Society), is an eye-opener for those who think that the Republicans in Congress are “conservative.” The index once again refutes the myth, based on the voting records of Republicans in Congress, that the Republican Party is the party of “conservatism.” The “Conservative Index,” according to The New American, “rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, to fiscal responsibility, to national sovereignty,

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

11

and to a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements.” The New American views conservatism as an ideology that believes in “preserving our Constitution, the freedoms it guarantees, and the moral bedrock on which it is based.” This is the third time The New American has published a “Conservative Index” of the 108th Congress. For those who have forgotten their high school American Government class, the U.S. Congress meets for a two-year term, divided into two sessions of one year each. Every Congress since the first one to meet under the Constitution has a number. Thus, the 108th Congress is the 108th time in this country’s history that a new Congress has been elected. A new Congress begins its term in January of every odd year, after elections in November of every even year. After the election coming up in November of 2004, the 109th Congress will convene in January of 2005. The purpose of this index is to present how all members of Congress have voted on certain key issues. This certainly makes it easier to see how members of Congress voted than calling their offices in Washington or checking the results of each bill on the Internet. To get an overall picture of the political philosophy of each congressman (their ideologies actually range from socialist to statist to interventionist to libertarian), the votes they cast on certain key issues are assigned a plus (good) or a minus (bad). Scores from 1 to 100 are determined by dividing a congressman’s plus votes by the total number of votes cast and multiplying by 100. Thus, the higher the number the stronger the degree of conservatism of the congressman. If it be objected by libertarians that a congressman scoring a 100—a “perfect” conservative score—is not necessarily something good, it should be pointed out that libertarian Ron Paul (R-TX) consistently scores 100 on this index. Therefore, this “Conservative Index” is a good indicator of how devoted members of Congress are to the philosophy of liberty. Some of the House congressional votes that are counted in this particular index relate to extended unemployment benefits (H.R. 3030), child nutrition programs (H.R. 3873), transportation (H.R. 3550), abortion at military facilities (H.R. 4200), and job training (H.R. 444). Some of the Senate congressional votes relate to gun show background checks (S. 1805), transportation (S. 1072), assault weapons (S. 1805),

12

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

extended unemployment benefits (S. 1637), and extending the Internet tax moratorium (S. 150). As mentioned, this issue of The New American (July 12) is the third time a “Conservative Index” has been published. The other two were in the July 14 and December 29 issues in 2003. Each index used ten key votes from the House and the Senate. An added benefit this time is that an average score for all three indexes is also given to assess the overall philosophy of each member of Congress on a wide range of issues. The results of the index are shocking. The average score in the House was only 46. The average score in the Senate was only 41. The high score in the House (100) was made by Ron Paul (R-TX). The high score in the Senate (80) was made by John Ensign (R-NV). The low score in the House (13) was made by Diane Watson (D-CA). The low score in the Senate (10) was made by two Republicans—John Chafee (R-RI) and George Voinovich (R-OH). The Democratic ticket of Senators Kerry (D-MA) and Edwards (D-NC) have no meaningful score since they were out campaigning so much that they hardly voted. Their overall scores are 15 for Kerry and 35 for Edwards. So how does this index refute the myth that Republican Party is the party of “conservatism”? Bernie Sanders (I-VT), the only member of the House of Representatives who admits to being a socialist, scored an overall 47–about average. Former Republican Jim Jeffords (I-VT) scored an overall 37. But 174 Republicans in the House (76%) and 23 Republicans in the Senate (45%) scored less than Sanders. Twenty-one Republicans in the Senate scored the same as or less than the 40 of Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. None of the Republican leadership in the House or the Senate managed to score over 50. House Republican Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) scored a 50. Senate president pro tempore Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Senate Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) each scored a 40–tying Senate Democratic Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD). As should be obvious, the Republican Party is not the hope of America. Nothing has changed since George Wallace said that there was not a “dime’s worth of difference” between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. It is pro-lifers, grass-roots conservatives, the Christian Right, and the disciples of Rush Limbaugh

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

13

and Sean Hannity who are wasting their votes by voting Republican—not conservative and libertarian critics of the Republican Party who vote for a third party or not at all. _______ FOUR YEARS GROWTH “The American people have been overcharged for Government, and they deserve a refund.” ~ President George W. Bush (The Budget Message of the President, 2002)

The year 2000 Platform of the Republican Party implied that the Republican Party was the party that held the supposedly conservative ideas of fiscal responsibility and smaller government: Since 1994, with Republicans leading the House and Senate, spending has been held to an annual 3.1 percent rate of growth, and the nation’s debt will be nearly $400 billion lower by the end of this year. The federal government has operated in the black for the last two years and is now projected to run a surplus of nearly $5 trillion over the years. We intend to downsize this mess and make government actually do what it is supposed to. A Republican president will run the federal government much as the Republican governors run state agencies. Bureaucracy will be reduced and trimmed in size at its upper echelons.

Nothing could be further from the truth, for as has been documented, the idea that the Republican Party is the party of conservatism is a myth. The Republican Party has always been the party of big government, plunder, and sellouts. A look at the “four years growth” of the federal government under the presidency of George Bush confirms and amplifies these facts. The Republicans gained control of the Congress in the third year of Clinton’s first term. They had complete control of the 104th Congress (1995–1997), held on to control in the 105th Congress (1997–1999), and remained in power during the 106th Congress (1999–2001) through the end of Clinton’s presidency. After George

14

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

Bush was inaugurated in 2001, he had a Republican-controlled 107th Congress (2001–2003) until May 24, 2001, when Jim Jeffords (R-VT) switched from Republican to Independent, changing the Senate from 50/50 to 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent. The House remained in Republican hands. The 108th Congress (2003–2005) was once again solidly Republican, giving the Republicans an absolute majority in Congress and the White House for the last two years of Bush’s first term. This means that the Republican Party has no excuse for the size and scope of the federal government as it exists right now. Republicans can’t blame anything on the Democrats like they did for the fifty years before they gained control of the Congress. Now that we are at the end of Bush’s first four years, a simple question needs to be asked: Is the government at the end of Bush’s first term in any way smaller or less expensive than the government at the beginning of his first term. If it is, then Bush and the Republican Party told the truth, but if it isn’t, then Bush’s rhetoric was just hot air and the 2000 Republican Party Platform wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. The Federal Budget According to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, the president must annually submit a budget to Congress by the first Monday in February. The government’s fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30. This means that the budget submitted in February is actually for the next fiscal year that begins in October. An outgoing president is not required to submit a budget. And because it is not practical for a new president, who takes office on January 20, to submit a budget within a few days of taking office, he is given extra time to submit a budget his first year in office. On February 28, 2001, President Bush submitted to Congress a FY 2002 summary budget plan called A Blueprint for New Beginnings–A Responsible Budget for America’s Priorities. In his message to the Congress that begins this document, two comments by the president stand out: Excessive taxation is corroding our prosperity. Government spending has risen too quickly.

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

15

And what did Bush propose to do about these things? He proposed an increase in the federal budget from $1.856 trillion in FY 2001 to $1.959 trillion in FY 2002. That is an increase of $103 billion over Clinton’s last budget. Then, on April 9, 2001, Bush submitted his FY 2002 budget to Congress. But the actual budget he proposed was up to $1.961 trillion. “A Note to the Reader” at the head of one of the budget’s accompanying documents, “A Citizen’s Guide to the Federal Budget,” puts this figure in perspective: “Next year, your Federal Government will spend nearly $2.0 trillion. Needless to say, that’s a lot of money. In fact, that’s almost $7,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country; nearly $5.4 billion per day; and about $3.7 million per minute. And most of that money comes from taxes on the American people.” But it gets worse, for according to the “Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits” in the FY 2005 budget, the federal government actually spent $2.011 trillion in FY 2002. In the FY 2002 budget, the estimate for the FY 2005 budget (the last budget of Bush’s first term) was $2.169 trillion. But by the time this budget was actually submitted to the Congress on February 2, 2004, it had grown to $2.4 trillion. It was only ten years ago that the federal budget was about a trillion dollars less than it is now. Will the federal budget shrink or even stay the same during the next four years that Bush is in office? The answer should be quite obvious. The projected budget for FY 2009 is a whopping $2.853 trillion. Finding what to cut in the federal budget is not a difficult matter. The series of LRC articles by Jim Grichar on “Cutting the Federal Budget To Prevent U.S. Bankruptcy” should be required reading for all members of Congress. The Federal Deficit The federal deficit is the amount by which the government’s spending exceeds its revenues for a fiscal year. Clinton had a budget surplus his last four years in office. When FY 2001 ended during Bush’s first year in office (9/28/2001), there was a surplus of $127 billion. Bush turned that into a budget deficit of $157 billion for FY 2002, $375 billion for FY 2003, and $413 billion for FY 2004. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated last September that the

16

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

deficit for FY 2005 would be $348 billion. The Federal Debt The federal debt is the total of all the deficits and surpluses that the federal government runs each year. The daily change in the debt can be seen on the website of the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Public Debt. At the time of Bush’s first inauguration in 2001, the federal debt stood at $5,727,776,738,304.64. At the time of his second inauguration on January 20, 2005, the federal debt stood at $7,613,772,338,689.34. Thus, the federal debt increased almost $2 trillion under the first four years of Bush’s reign. The federal debt at the end of the last three fiscal years is as follows: Fiscal Year

Federal Debt

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

$6,228,235,965,597.16 $6,783,231,062,743.62 $7,379,052,696,330.32

As anyone with high credit card balances knows, maintaining a high debt level costs a lot of money in the form of interest payments. The interest expense for the last three fiscal years is as follows: Fiscal Year

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Interest Expense

$332,536,958,599.42 $318,148,529,151.51 $321,566,323,971.29

The interest expense for the first three months of FY 2005 (Oct., Nov., & Dec.) was $120,248,160,823.07. The interest expense on this massive debt is the third largest expense in the federal budget. The Federal Bureaucracy According to the FY 2005 budget, the estimated total of executive branch full-time equivalent (FTE) federal employees (excluding postal employees) at the end of FY 2005 is 1,875,000. This is up substantially from the number of 1,737,000 at the end of FY 2001. The federal

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

17

bureaucracy mainly consists of the executive branch departments, the offices under the Executive Office of the President (EOP), and other assorted federal agencies and commissions. Executive Branch Departments When Bill Clinton was president, Republicans talked about eliminating some executive branch departments. As usual, their actions did not match their speech. However, at least no new departments were added under Clinton’s rule. It is too bad that the same thing cannot be said about no new departments being added on Bush’s watch. The following is a list of the executive branch departments along with the dates of their creation: Department of Agriculture (1862) Department of Commerce (1913) Department of Defense (1947) Department of Education (1979) Department of Energy (1977) Department of Health and Human Services (1979) Department of Homeland Security (2002) Department of Housing and Urban Development (1965) Department of the Interior (1849) Department of Justice (1789) Department of Labor (1913) Department of State (1789) Department of Transportation (1966) Department of the Treasury (1789) Department of Veterans Affairs (1989) [The Department of Commerce was originally the Department of Commerce and Labor (1903); the Department of Defense was originally the Department of War (1789); the Department of Health and Human Services was originally the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1953); the Department of Labor was originally the Department of Commerce and Labor (1903)]

No one is saying that all of these departments should be eliminated—just the majority of them. The original four (Justice, State, Treasury, and War) might conceivably serve some useful purpose— if

18

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

they were scaled down considerably. But what about the other departments? What did we do in this country without a Department of Education until 1979? Were people not being educated properly until then? Is it the job of the government to provide health and human services? Is it the job of the government to oversee housing and urban development? And to those who say that we need the new Department of Homeland Security to defend us from terrorist attacks, I say: What about the Department of Defense? If U.S. troops were not scattered all over the globe then perhaps they might be able to guard our borders, patrol our coasts, and defend us from terrorist attacks. Executive Office of the President The EOP consists of individuals and agencies that directly assist the president. The EOP is a New Deal increase in the federal bureaucracy. It was created by Congress in the Reorganization Act of 1939, at the instigation of President Roosevelt. Here is the official list from the White House EOP website: Council of Economic Advisers Council on Environmental Quality Domestic Policy Council National Economic Council National Security Council Office of Administration Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Office of Management and Budget Office of National AIDS Policy Office of National Drug Control Policy

Office of Science & Technology Policy Office of the United States Trade Representative President’s Critical Infrastructure Protection Board President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board USA Freedom Corps White House Military Office

The number and size of EOP agencies varies from administration to administration. President Bush could have eliminated any one of the above agencies.

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

19

Federal Agencies and Commissions And then there are the numerous federal agencies and commissions. Here is the official list from the White House “Federal Agencies and Commissions” website: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation African Development Foundation Agency for International Development American Battle Monuments Commission AMTRAK Appalachian Regional Commission Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board Ballistic Missile Defense Organization Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms Bureau of Arms Control Bureau of Engraving & Printing Bureau of Labor Statistics Bureau of the Census Bureau of Transportation Statistics Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Central Intelligence Agency Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigations Board Commodity Futures Trading Commission Commission on Civil Rights Commodity Futures Trading Commission Consumer Product Safety Commission Corporation For National Service Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Defense Information Systems Agency Defense Intelligence Agency Defense Logistics Agency Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Defense Security Service Defense Threat Reduction Agency Drug Enforcement Administration Environmental Protection Agency Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Export-Import Bank of the U.S. Farm Credit Administration Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

20

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T Federal Aviation Administration Federal Bureau of Investigation Federal Communications Commission Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Federal Election Commission Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal Highway Administration Federal Housing Finance Board Federal Labor Relations Authority Federal Maritime Commission Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission Federal Railroad Administration Federal Reserve System Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Federal Trade Commission Food & Drug Administration General Accounting Office General Services Administration Ginnie Mae Immigration & Naturalization Services Institute of Museum and Library Services Inter-American Development Bank Inter-American Foundation Internal Revenue Services International Bank for Reconstruction & Development International Labor Organization International Monetary Fund International Trade Commission Legal Services Corporation Medicare Payment Advisory Commission Merit Systems Protection Board National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Archives and Records Administration National Bioethics Advisory Commission National Capital Planning Commission National Commission on Libraries and Information Science National Council on Disability National Credit Union Administration National Endowment for the Arts

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T National Endowment for the Humanities National Highway Traffic Safety Administration National Imagery & Mapping Agency National Institute of Justice National Institute of Mental Health National Institute of Standards & Technology National Institutes of Health National Labor Relations Board National Mediation Board National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration National Park Service National Science Foundation National Security Agency National Skill Standards Board National Technology Transfer Center National Telecommunications Information Administration National Transportation Safety Board Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office of Government Ethics Office of Personnel Management Office of Special Counsel Office of Thrift Supervision Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development Organization of American States Overseas Private Investment Corp. Pan American Health Organization Patent & Trademark Office Peace Corps Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Postal Rate Commission Railroad Retirement Board Securities Exchange Commission Securities Investor Protection Corp. Selective Service System Small Business Administration Smithsonian Institution Social Security Administration Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration Surface Transportation Board

21

22

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T Tennessee Valley Authority Trade and Development Agency U.S. Customs Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Forest Service U.S. Government Printing Office U.S. Institute of Peace U.S. Office of Government Ethics U.S. Treasury United States Holocaust Memorial Council United States Postal Service United Nations Information Center Voice of America Walter Reed Army Medical Center White House Fellows White House Commission on Remembrance Women’s History Commission

Are all these agencies and commissions necessary? Are any of them constitutional? Most Americans have probably never even heard of half of them. Conclusion This brief look at the four years growth of the federal budget, deficit, debt, and bureaucracy shows without a doubt that a Republican president and a Republican Congress cannot be trusted to roll back the welfare/warfare state even one-tenth of an inch. Given their track record, you can count on them to increase it substantially during the next four years. Never, never, never trust any document written by the Republican Party or anything that comes out of the mouth of any Republican president, congressman, or politician about reducing the size and scope of government. And yes, the same thing goes for the Democrats. George Bush was right when he said a few years ago: “The American people have been overcharged for Government, and they deserve a refund.” The only problem with his statement is that it is now Bush and the Republicans who have overcharged the American people for government, and there is no refund in sight. _______

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

23

IRRITATING, LOUSY, LIBERAL REPUBLICANS National Review is upset with Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI). The midterm elections are coming up later this year, it’s almost primary time, and Chafee may win reelection. Chafee’s crime is that he is a “liberal” Republican. Not just any liberal Republican, but a “spectacularly lousy Republican” who “might be the most irritating Republican in the Senate.” Those who paid attention in their high school American Government class know that an election is held every two years for one-third of all U.S. Senate seats. This is in contrast to the U.S. House of Representatives, where members only serve for two years instead of six years like the Senate. Writing in the August 7 issue of National Review on the midterm elections, John Miller introduces us to Stephen Laffey, the mayor of Cranston, Rhode Island, and a “mainstream conservative” who is running against Chafee in the Rhode Island Republican primary on September 12. A surprise Laffey victory “wouldn’t be merely pleasant, but positively exhilarating.” Is that so? Republicans are forever telling conservative voters that if they could only get rid of irritating, lousy, liberal Republicans like Senator Lincoln Chafee then the U.S. Congress would be transformed into a conservative Republican utopia. But are liberal Republicans like Chafee really the problem? Miller writes that “a close look at Chafee’s congressional record suggests that the senator would fit comfortably within the Democratic fold: The American Conservative Union gives Chafee a lifetime rating of 37 out of a possible 100.” But how about a look at the record of the “conservative” Republicans in Congress? Are they any better than the “liberal” Democrats? Fortunately, this is an easy thing to do. The latest “Conservative Index” that has just been published by The New American, (a biweekly publication of The John Birch Society). As usual, it is an eye-opener for those who think that the Republicans in Congress are “conservative.” The “Conservative Index,” according to The New American, “rates congressmen based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements.” The New American views conservatism as an ideology that believes in

24

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

“preserving our Constitution, the freedoms it guarantees, and the moral bedrock on which it is based.” The latest “Conservative Index” is the magazine’s third look at the 109th Congress, and was published on July 10, 2006. As in previous indexes, the votes cast by congressmen on certain key issues are assigned a plus (good) or a minus (bad). Scores from 1 to 100 are determined by dividing a congressman’s plus votes by the total number of votes cast and multiplying by 100. Thus, the higher the number, the stronger the congressman’s commitment to the constitutional principles just mentioned. The overall average score for the three indexes prepared thus far for the 109th Congress is also given. The results of the index show, as usual, that the Republican Party is not the party of real conservatism at all. It is the party of interventionism, big government, the welfare state, the warfare state, plunder, compromises, and sellouts—just like the Democratic Party. The average score in the House was only 36; the average score in the Senate was only 26. The high score (100) was once again made by Representative Ron Paul (R-TX). Since Chafee is a senator, I will focus on the Republicans in the Senate. The party breakdown in the Senate is 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 1 Independent. The average score for the Republicans was a dismal 24. The Democrats at least managed a 29. The lone Independent scored a 30. Ten Republican senators scored a 0. None of the Democrats did. In the fourteen states that have both a Republican and a Democratic senator, only in four of them did the Republican have a higher score than the Democrat. Two Republicans were tied for the high score of 60, but one Democrat (Byron Dorgan [D-ND]) also scored a 60. The Republicans and Democrats each had five senators score 50 or above. None of the Republican leadership managed to score over 50. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) received a 20 as did Senate Assistant Majority Leader (the Whip) Mitch McConnell (R-KY). The third in command, Conference Secretary Rick Santorum (R-PA), beat them out with a 22. Senate President Pro Tempore Ted Stevens (R-AK) received a 0. The Republican leadership all scored less than Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), and John Kerry (D-MA). The 1994 Republican revolution is a failure. It is such a dismal failure that despite the Republican rhetoric about the virtues of

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

25

conservatism, the benefits of the free market, and the need for less government intervention in the economy and society, the increasing Republican majority in both houses of Congress can only be counted on to further increase the size and scope of government. This, of course, comes as no surprise, since the history of the Republican Party is one of compromise after compromise and sellout after sellout. Is the Republican Party the party of conservatism? Sure, Republicans can talk a good conservatism, especially when it comes time for an election. But real conservatives need to wake up: Republicans are now not only proudly embracing New Deal- and Great Society-like programs—they are expanding them at record levels. Conservative Christians likewise need to open their eyes: The Republican Party is not the salvation of America—how hard is it to position oneself to the right of the Democratic Party? As I said on another occasion: The Republican Party is not the lesser of two evils, it is pure evil, just like the Democratic Party. If you ignore Republican campaign rhetoric about how they are for free markets and limited government, and focus on Republican performance, it is readily apparent that the old adage is true now more than ever: there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two major parties. _______ WHAT REPUBLICAN REVOLUTION? Since the Democrats took control of the Congress in the recent midterm elections, we have heard and seen numerous references to the Republican victory in the 1994 midterm elections as the Republican revolution of 1994. What Republican revolution? We can see the results in history of revolutions like the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the Russian Revolution, but what evidence is there of a Republican revolution? When the 104th Congress began in January of 1995, it was the first time since the 83rd Congress of 1953–1955 that the Republicans had control of both the House and Senate. They had never controlled the House during the forty-year period of Democratic rule, and only briefly controlled the Senate, during the 97th through 99th Congresses of

26

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

1981–1987. After forty years of being out of power, a revolution was certainly in order. True, the Republicans did not yet also control the White House as they did during the 83rd Congress when Dwight Eisenhower was president, but it is Congress that writes the laws, not the president. And unlike the Congress under Eisenhower, which reverted to Democratic rule in the next election, the Republican control of the Congress under Bill Clinton continued unabated through the end of his second term. When what looked like a Republican revolution seemed to stagnate under Clinton, excuses began to be made for the fact that the Republicans were acting like anything but the conservatives who voted them into office. Republican control of the White House, we were told, and a larger Republican majority in Congress, were needed to complete the revolution. After all, Clinton could veto any bills passed by a Republican Congress, and the Republicans did not have a veto-proof majority. It turns out that in eight years Clinton only vetoed seventeen bills, making Republican fears unfounded. And then came George W. Bush. Republicans were ecstatic. A Republican president was once again elected. This time, however, things were different. When George Bush was inaugurated in 2001, he had a Republicancontrolled Congress. This is something a Republican president had not had for forty-five years. The millennium was now here. The Republican revolution was now ready to be completed. Enter Jim Jeffords. The Republican controlled 107th Congress (2001–2003) had a weak link: the Senate. Jeffords was a Republican senator from Vermont. Early in Bush’s first term, Senator Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent, changing the 50/50 balance of power in the Senate. Although the House remained in Republican hands, those hands were tied, so we were told, because the Republicans no longer controlled the Senate. The Republicans always seem to have an excuse. Big government, intrusive government—it is always the fault of those evil Democrats. But then, finally, no more excuses. The midterm elections of 2002 gave us a new Congress (the 108th, 2003–2005) that was once again solidly Republican. This gave the Republicans an absolute majority for

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

27

the last two years of Bush’s first term. This scenario was confirmed by Bush’s reelection and the further increase of the Republican majority in the 109th Congress. Republicans could no longer blame everything on the Democrats like they did for so long before they gained their absolute majority. So, now that the Republicans have controlled the House since 1995, now that the Republicans have controlled the Senate for the same period except for about a year and a half, now that a Republican president has been elected and reelected, and now that we have had several years of an absolute Republican majority, a simple question needs to be asked: What Republican revolution? Jacob Hornberger, the president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, recently asked some pertinent questions about the Republicans: ! How many departments were abolished when Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress? ! How many agencies? ! How many spending bills were vetoed? ! How many pork-barrel projects were jettisoned? ! How much was federal spending reduced?

The answer to every question is, of course, a big fat zero. No egregious legislation was repealed, and the welfare/warfare state is bigger and more intrusive than ever. Some revolution. Although many Republicans who claim to believe in a limited government can talk a good conservatism, especially when it comes time for an election, one statistic is all it takes to see that there has been no limit to the growth of government under the Republican Party. On the eve of the new Republican-controlled Congress in 1995, the national debt was just under $5 trillion. At the time of Bush’s first inauguration in 2001, the national debt stood at $5,727,776,738,304.64. At the time of his second inauguration in 2005, the national debt stood at $7,613,772,338,689.34. On the day of the recent midterm elections, the national debt was up to $8,592,561,542,263.30. The Republican revolution is a failure, a dismal failure. Despite the Republican rhetoric about the virtues of conservatism, the benefits of the free market, and the need for less government intervention in the economy and society, the Republican majority in both houses of

28

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

Congress did nothing but further increase the size and scope of government. This, of course, comes as no surprise, since the history of the Republican Party is not one of real conservatism at all; it is the history of interventionism, big government, the welfare state, the warfare state, plunder, compromises, and sellouts, as Clyde Wilson and Thomas DiLorenzo have showed us in great detail. Those who voted for a third party candidate for Congress in the recent election are not the ones who wasted their vote. Republicans who voted for Republican candidates hoping that “this time” perhaps the performance of the Republicans might improve are the ones who wasted their vote. Conservatives who, against their better judgment, voted Republican because they feared what would happen if the “liberals” were in control, wasted their vote on a party that deserved to lose. Evangelical Christians who held their nose and voted Republican because they thought they were choosing the lesser of two evils not only wasted their vote, but are sadly mistaken. Do I celebrate the Democratic victory in the midterm elections for Congress? Hardly. The socialist and statist policies of the Democratic Party are well known, but at least Democrats are usually honest about being advocates of bigger government and increased government intervention instead of masquerading as advocates of smaller and less intrusive government like the hypocritical Republicans do. It is too bad that the Republicans did not at least win control of the Senate (the Senate is now 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 liberal Independents). It is great to have gridlock between a Democratic Congress and a Republican president, but it is better to have gridlock between the House and Senate as well. We can only hope and pray that this government comes to a grinding halt—for the sake of the liberties of the American people. _______ NOT A DIME’S WORTH OF DIFFERENCE Not only is there not a “dime’s worth of difference” between the Democratic and Republican Parties when it comes to just about anything, there is certainly no difference at all when it comes to

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

29

increased federal spending, the expansion of government power, the destruction of liberty, and interventionism in general, both at home and abroad. One quick way to see this is “The Freedom Index,” published about every six months by The New American magazine. This index, which used to be called “The Conservative Index,” rates Congressman “based on their adherence to constitutional principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and a traditional foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements.” The higher the number, the stronger is a congressman’s commitment to these constitutional principles. The latest “Freedom Index,” which looks at the 110th Congress, has just been released. The average score in the House was a 40; the average score in the Senate was a 38. This is just as one would expect since both houses of the 110th Congress are controlled by the Democratic Party. In the Senate, there are 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents who are Democrats in all but the name. In the House, there are 231 Democrats, 202 Republicans, and 2 vacancies. But how does this compare with the 109th Congress, which was controlled by the Republicans? The party division in the Senate for the 109th Congress was 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 1 Independent. The party division in the House for the 109th Congress began as 233 Republicans, 202 Democrats, and 1 Independent. When the 109th Congress ended, there were 229 Republicans, 202 Democrats, 1 Independent, and 3 vacancies. The average score in the Senate for the 109th Congress was 35.5, based on the four times The New American complied “The Conservative Index” for the 109th Congress. The average score in the House was 37.5, again, based on the four times The New American complied “The Conservative Index” for the 109th Congress. This means that the average score is higher for the Democratic-controlled 110th Congress than it was for the Republican-controlled 109th Congress. Barely half of the Republican members of the current House scored above a 50. And the Republican Party is the party of conservatism? Admittedly, “The Freedom Index” is not a comprehensive analysis of the voting patterns of each member of Congress, but if we look at a

30

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

key piece of legislation where we would expect a conservative/liberal divide, it is clear that the Republican Party is not the party of real conservatism at all. The 110th Congress had barely begun in January when an attempt to raise the minimum wage was undertaken. H.R. 2 passed in the House by a vote of 315-116. All the Democrats voted for it, which means that it didn’t need any Republican votes to pass. So what did the Republicans in the House do? Eight-two Republicans voted for it anyway. When the bill was sent to the Senate, only three Republican senators voted against it. The only real conservative in Congress in the Old Right sense is Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who scored a perfect 100 on the index in both the 109th and 110th Congresses. (I should note, though, that those on the Old Right didn’t call themselves conservatives.) For the liberty-loving American who wishes that Congress would at least try to follow the (admittedly imperfect) Constitution, the Republican Party is not an alternative to the Democratic Party. They are two peas in a pod; they are two sides of the same coin; they are the two faces of Janus. Yet, in the typical election, millions of “conservative” Americans will vote Republican (especially if Hillary is the Democratic nominee) because they see the Republican Party as the lesser of two evils instead of the party of the interventionist welfare/warfare state—just like the Democratic Party. A more compassionate militarism, interventionism, and statism: Vote Republican. _______ ICHABOD! “And she named the child Ichabod, saying, The glory is departed from Israel: because the ark of God was taken, and because of her father in law and her husband.” ~ 1 Samuel 4:21

It’s done, it’s over, it’s official: The Republican Party nominated John McCain to be its 2008 presidential candidate. Conversely, and more importantly, this means that the Republican Party failed to nominate Ron Paul to be its 2008 presidential candidate.

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

31

It wouldn’t normally matter whom the Republican Party nominated. Bigger government and less liberty have always been the result. And if you think Reagan was an exception then you are sadly mistaken. This time, however, the Republicans had a chance to nominate the only candidate who embodies everything good that the Republican Party has ever claimed to stand for. Ron Paul is undoubtedly the most pro-life, pro-family, pro-property, pro-liberty, pro-Constitution candidate in history. The Republican Party and its apologists that write for the red-state fascist blogs and magazines and host the reich-wing nationalist TV and radio talk shows did everything they could to persuade people from voting for Dr. Paul in the Republican primaries. The nomination of John McCain over Ron Paul means that the Republican Party should never again be taken seriously when it comes to even the slightest pretense of being a friend of liberty, free markets, and limited government. Ichabod! In the Old Testament book of First Samuel we read of the death of Eli, who judged Israel for forty years, and the birth of his grandson. During a battle with the Philistines, Israel lost thirty thousand men, including the two sons of Eli, and had their ark of the covenant taken. A messenger ran to the Israelites and, after a tumult was raised, Eli inquired of the man what the problem was. After the messenger told him what had befallen Israel, his two sons, and the ark of God, Eli fell backwards and broke his neck. When his daughter in law, who was great with child, heard that the ark was taken by the Philistines, and that her father in law and her husband were dead, she died after giving birth to a child, but not before naming the child Ichabod, because “the glory is departed from Israel: for the ark of God is taken” (1 Samuel 4:22). Whatever glory the Republican Party may have had when it came to liberty and limited government is now departed, and with a vengeance, judging by the treatment given to Ron Paul supporters at the Republican convention I have written about the evils of the Republican Party here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Others, like Thomas DiLorenzo, Clyde Wilson, Jacob Hornberger, and Chris Leithner, have done the same, and in great detail. Here are the Republican Party

32

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

campaign slogans that you will never hear this year: ! ! ! ! ! !

Interventionism, at home and abroad: Vote Republican. Nationalism, fascism, and statism: Vote Republican. Militarism, puritanism, and collectivism: Vote Republican. Debt, deficits, and a declining dollar: Vote Republican. Big government, big brother, big budgets: Vote Republican. The warfare state, the welfare state, the surveillance state: Vote Republican. ! Corporate welfare, the military-industrial and security-industrial complexes: Vote Republican. ! Compromises after compromise, sellout after sellout: Vote Republican.

There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties when it comes to peace, liberty, property, free markets, sound money, and the size and scope of government. The Republican Party is not the lesser of two evils. It is, like the Democratic Party, stupid and evil. Ichabod! _______ T.G.I.F. The Republican Revolution has been gasping for breath since the Democratic Party won the congressional midterm elections in 2006. After the Republicans were soundly defeated in the 2008 elections, the Revolution was in its death throes until noon on January 20 when George Bush’s second term as president ceased and the Republican Revolution officially came to an end. Thank God it’s finished. The Republican Revolution began on January 3, 1995, after the Republican Party had won control of both houses of Congress for the first time since the 83rd Congress (1953–1955) under Dwight Eisenhower. Although a Democrat (Bill Clinton) occupied the White House for the remainder of the decade, the Republicans hung on to the House and Senate until the election of a Republican president (George Bush) in the year 2000 gave them an absolute majority. The Revolution had reached its zenith. Republicans were ecstatic.

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

33

Although Vermont senator Jim Jeffords soon attempted to derail the speeding Republican train by leaving the Republican Party—temporarily shifting the balance of power in the Senate to the Democrats—Republican victories in the 2002 midterm elections restored the GOP’s absolute majority. After enjoying this absolute majority for the last two years of Bush’s first term, Republicans coasted to victory in the 2004 election—retaining the presidency and further increasing their control of the Congress. And the country is worse off for it. So worse off, in fact, that I, a conservative Christian who has nothing but contempt for the Democratic Party, much prefer the presidency of Bill Clinton the fornicator in chief to that of George Bush the warmonger in chief, spy in chief, and spender in chief. The Republican Revolution was a failure from the beginning. The Contract with America that was introduced by the new Republican-controlled Congress in 1995 was bogus because it focused on reforming government agencies and programs instead of eliminating them. It was pointed out in 2000 that “the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%.” I remember speaking with Joe Scarborough, my congressman at the time, on a local call-in radio talk show in late 1994 or early 1995. I asked him about the new Republican-controlled Congress repealing some of the legislation passed during the first two years of the Clinton administration. He would have to stand in line to introduce such legislation, he said, because of everything his fellow Republicans had planned. Okay, let’s take two of the worst pieces of legislation passed during Clinton’s first two years. Did the new Republican majority in the 104th Congress repeal the Family and Medical Leave Act (PL 103-3) or the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (PL 103-159)? Of course it didn’t. Just like it didn’t repeal the Motor Voter Act (PL 103-31) or the Violence Against Women Act (PL 103-322). And what did the Republican majority in Congress do throughout Clinton’s terms? Sure, there were a few good things that Congress did—like repealing all federal speed limits in 1995—but how many major federal agencies, programs, or regulations were actually

34

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

eliminated? How much really egregious legislation was repealed? How many pork-barrel projects were denied funding? How much was overall federal spending reduced? Was the government any less intrusive at the end of six years of Republican control of the Congress? What was actually done to limit the government to that prescribed by the Constitution? The size and scope of the federal government were not reduced by one inch during the first six years of the Republican Revolution. All we heard during the six years of a Republican-controlled Congress under Clinton were excuses about needing a larger majority, a veto-proof majority, or, better yet, a Republican president to really complete the revolution. But what happened when the Republican-controlled Congress finally got a Republican president? We got an unprecedented increase in the welfare/warfare/surveillance/nanny state. First came the ignoble USA PATRIOT Act (PL 107-56). This was followed by the No Child Left Behind Act (PL 107-110). Then came the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (PL 107-243), which gave us the senseless, immoral, unconstitutional, unjust war in Iraq that has already cost the American taxpayers about $1 trillion. Although the seed of the Iraq War was planted by the Iraq Liberation Act (PL 105-338), that was also passed by a Republican-controlled Congress. And then there is the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (PL 108-173)—the largest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society. Even LBJ would be shocked at the cost of this welfare scheme. And who can forget the increase in farm subsidies, the crony capitalism, the mockery of the Constitution, the Republican acceptance of the neoconservative agenda, and the imperial presidency. No wonder Republicans earned the wrath of voters in the recent election. They deserved to lose as bad as they did, and more. As I pointed out the following in my article on how bogus the Republican Revolution was, one statistic is all it takes to see that there has been no limit to the growth of government under the Republican Party—the national debt. Consider the following: ! On the eve of the new Republican-controlled Congress in 1995, the national debt was just under $5 trillion.

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

35

! At the time of Bush’s first inauguration in 2001, the national debt stood at $5,727,776,738,304.64. ! At the time of Bush’s second inauguration in 2005, the national debt stood at $7,613,772,338,689.34. ! On the day of the 2006 midterm elections, the national debt stood at $8,592,561,542,263.30. ! On the last day of Bush’s second term, the national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08.

Who is responsible for this tremendous increase in the federal debt? Not the Democrats. Not Bill Clinton. It is the party that laughingly said in its 2004 platform that it was committed to “lower taxes, limited regulation, and a limited, efficient government.” Yes, the same party that helped the Democrats pass the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the Bailout Bill). But is this really a surprise? Not if one knows anything about the history of the Republican Party—a history of state capitalism, militarism, presidential power, big government, plunder, compromise, and sellout. Just look at the Republicans latest outrage: the confirmation of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. Since the day her husband became the president, the personification of evil according to all Republicans has been Hillary Clinton. So, what did the Republicans do when Mrs. Clinton appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to receive the first vote toward her confirmation as secretary of state? With but one exception (David Vitter of Louisiana), the Republicans on the committee voted for Hillary. Then, when the full Senate took a vote on Clinton’s confirmation on January 21, only two Republican senators (the aforementioned David Vitter and Jim DeMint of South Carolina) voted against her. During the presidential campaign, before it became evident that Barack Obama would get the Democratic Party nomination, John McCain never ceased to remind us how bad it would be if we voted for Clinton instead of him. And then he turns around and votes for her confirmation for secretary of State. This, of course, does not mean that I prefer the Democratic Party. There is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Neither party is the lesser of two evils; they are both pure evil.

36

THE REVOLUTION THAT WASN’T

Nevertheless, I rarely bother to write about the evils of the Democratic Party. The socialist and statist policies of the Democratic Party are well known. And since the Democrats don’t masquerade as advocates of smaller and less intrusive government, it is pretty obvious that the Democratic Party is the party of liberalism, socialism, organized labor, environmentalism, affirmative action, wealth redistribution, the nanny state, and increased government intervention in the economy and society. Another reason I don’t bother is that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and Michael Savage need something to rant about. Strom Thurmond was right. He left the Democratic Party because the party was “leading the evolution of our nation to a socialistic dictatorship.” I would just go a step further: The Republican Party during the so-called Republican Revolution was leading the evolution of our nation to a faith-based, compassionate, fascist dictatorship. When bad revolutions have run their course, they often lead to something just as bad or even worse. The Republican Revolution, like the French and Russian Revolutions, was an absolute disaster. And just as these revolutions gave the world Napoleon and Lenin, so the Republican Revolution has given us Barack Obama—a man with a radical left-wing congressional voting record, with even more radical associations, with a life spent in the service of racial preference, with an aberrant vision of Christianity, and with plans to further redistribute the wealth of taxpayers to tax eaters. That being said, whether he can possibly top George Bush in the “one of the worst presidents ever” category remains to be seen. The Republican Revolution failed because it was not based on any real principles. Contrast this with the Ron Paul Revolution, which continues unabated because it is based, not on empty Republican rhetoric about the benefits of the free market and the need for less government intervention, but on the bedrock principles of peace, nonintervention, economic freedom, personal liberty, sound money, and a drastically limited state. Any Republican who really believes in these principles should abandon the GOP’s sinking ship of war, statism, and fascism. _______