Republican Deception

Republican politicians claim that they are going to succeed in completing the following tasks if they win back the White House:

• Reduce the federal debt
• Cut taxes
• Shrink the federal government
• Bring jobs back to America

Republican supporters across the nation rejoice in jubilee as if they have caught the Holy Spirit whenever they hear those four points. Now when I hear those four points common sense immediately kicks in. Those points contradict each other.

• Reduce the federal debt

The reason for the increase in the federal debt is simple. A reduction in tax revenue due to a few factors: George Bush tax cuts (The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003), The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, a war in Iraq based upon a lie and millions of Americans out of work. Anyone owing debt knows that a job loss or even a reduction in salary will cause you to either fall behind on the debt that you owe or incur more debt trying to stay current.

No matter how much you want to reduce your debt; that won’t happen without either an increase in income or drastic budget cuts. So which will the Republicans choose? Currently they are willing to cut everything that doesn’t matter. If they are really serious about reducing the debt they should reduce defensive spending and spending entitlement programs for senior citizens; however both areas are where they get the majority of their votes, so that won’t happen.

• Cut taxes

So with everything that has caused the federal debt to increase, is cutting taxes really a good idea? I have heard the Republican spill about how cutting taxes will spur economic growth. Maybe back in Ronald Reagan’s era (Reagan believed that deficits did not matter) when a tax cut would give a corporation the incentive to expand; but not in the age of the global economy.

The George W. Bush tax cuts are proof that tax cuts will no longer result in economic growth; hence the anemic jobless recovery during the George W Bush era. US corporations will add that tax cut to the bottom line and expand their operation in India or some other foreign country that has an emerging (cheap) work force. Plus, aren’t you trying to reduce the deficit? How are you going to reduce it by cutting tax revenue? You cannot pay off debt if you voluntarily reduce your income.

• Shrink the federal government

There are many federal employees that support the Republican Party. They clap and cheer whenever they here a Republican politician talk about shrinking the federal government. I wonder do they really understand what that means. Congress will not shrink and neither will their legion of aids and associates. So guess what it means? Yep those same supporters will be voting themselves out of a job. Shrinking the government means cutting jobs. Cutting jobs also reduces the amount of tax revenue that can be collected. That means a further reduction in the ability to pay down the federal debt.

• Bring jobs to Americans.

Now that is the most misleading of them all. The reality of things is that many of those jobs that left are not coming back. Why hire someone for American wages when you can pay someone in India considerably less without the overhead cost of benefits. You have a workforce sitting at home trusting you to bring their old job back without informing them that 21st Century jobs will require an overhaul in their skill set. And overhauling skill sets will require an investment in the people in the form of training. Republicans would consider that to be a socialist endeavor (the word socialist used by Republicans will be dedicated to a future article).

Yes the Republican Party is deceiving those that are willing to take their message at face value. While their message may sound good on the surface the results will be disastrous to America.

States' Rights

States' Rights.  I hear these terms quite often when listening to conservatives in today's political landscape.  It is a term that has been used by conservatives (democrats, dixiecrats, republicans) for centuries.  But when you really look at their pro-states' rights arguments they tend to have an unconstitutional tone.
 

Let’s take, for instance, Slavery.  Many southern conservative lawmakers felt that the slavery issue should not have been decided by the federal government but instead left up to the individual states.  If one did not agree with a state's decision to continue slavery, one could just move to another state.  Well that would work out pretty fine for a white person who was against slavery but not so much for a black person who was a slave.  Hence some refer to the Civil War as the “War of Northern Aggression”.

Let's skip ahead to public and state school desegregation.  Again many southern conservatives felt that school desegregation was overreach by the federal government and that the issue should be decided by the states.  Once again many of the southern conservative lawmakers were completely against school desegregation.  For a white person your school was just fine as it was but not so much for a black person going to a substandard "separate but equal school".

In both examples, had "states' rights' won slavery might still exist in some states or at the very least slavery would have had a longer lifespan in the United States and school segregation would probably still be the law of the land for public and state schools.

What is the lesson here?  We hear a lot of commentary about not trusting the federal government; however considering the track record of state governments vs. the federal government, some of us probably should look at our state governments with an even higher degree of suspicion.