Posted by
Sean Engmann on Friday, July 10, 2009 1:28:09 AM
I was browsing Real Clear Politics the other day and I came across this article by Robert Parry entitled: "Republicans: A Threat to the Republic." It was really some of the most intellectually dishonest crap that I've ever read, but it underscores brilliantly the opposition that we face. I felt the need to comment, so here is my response:
There are so many faulty and simplistic statements in this article that it’s hard to figure out where to begin my response. I’ll start with the title, “Republicans, A Threat to the Republic?” I cannot underscore enough how scary it is that someone can even contemplate the point that the party in the extreme minority, the ONLY opposition to this administration, the only check on its power, can be contemplated as a threat to the Republic. That mentality is despotic and astonishing, especially coming from someone who was undoubtedly decrying the Bush Administration for being too authoritarian.
Say what you will about George W. Bush and his policies, but he accomplished his primary objective in keeping the American people safe from a terror attack after 9/11 and bringing the fight to the terrorists. Say what you will about our motivations for going into Iraq, but we now have a democracy there rather than a brutal, unstable tyrant, and the seeds of democracy are spreading throughout the region. He won election, and was re-elected by a comfortable margin in 2004. He is no lightweight, and history will be the judge of his presidency. Attacking Reagan as a lightweight, out of touch with reality, was much more popular when he was alive than it is now. While the left derided Reagan and feared a nuclear war, it was precisely those policies that brought the USSR to its knees. Reagan inherited an economy in shambles and by the end of his term, he had laid the groundwork for 20 years of prosperity. He is already remembered, and will always be considered as one of the greatest presidents in American history.
One thing that we agree on is that deficits are bad, but the deficits are created not by tax cuts, which have consistently spurred the economy forward, but on reckless spending policies. The argument for lowering taxes is that it will lead to economic growth, and ultimately more tax revenue. The Bush “tax cuts for the rich” led to growth and increased revenue for the government. From 2001-2006 tax revenues collected from the top 1% rose from $301B to $408B and the share of total tax payments paid by the top 10% went from 64.89% to 70.79%. Revenues did not fall off, spending just exceeded it.
So, clearly the remedy to deficits is to increase government spending using a flawed Keynesian model, right? Obama’s response was to propose a budget which had a deficit higher than the combined deficits of all of the previous budgets in US history. That seems sane. He also wants to create massive new entitlements which will inevitably lead to health care rationing, as well as an experimental cap and trade system that puts environmental theory ahead of needs of struggling American companies. The intellectual response to Bush’s foreign policy that has kept us safe has been to run around apologizing to other countries, to offer to negotiate with a government in Iran while it is repressing its citizens after a sham election and to support the ousted President of Honduras who tried to trample over that country’s Constitution. I guess we can expect more of this enlightened leadership, especially when we demagogue the opposition by calling them a threat to the republic. Come on.