I like the sound of this:
Cantor laid out a three-part rule he by which he would seek to abide in the new Congress, which would entail asking every day if the Republican majority’s actions are focused on 1) job creation and economic growth, 2) cutting spending, and 3) shrinking government while protecting and expanding liberty. And if not, to ask, “Why are we doing it?”
The new “results-driven” majority would act quickly to advance its “cut-and-grow playbook” in the next few weeks leading up to President Obama’s State of the Union address on Jan. 25, focusing primarily on reducing government spending — bringing new measures to the floor each week — and doing away with excessive government regulations. “To this day we continue to see the drum beat towards more and more reach by this government and it is impeding job growth and impeding the access to capital for small business,” he said.
Let’s hope they can stick to it.
If within the first year (I’m being charitable) there’s no serious drug legalization legislation proposed, we’ll know they’re not really serious about #3.
I’m down with that.
I still think you should need a super-majority in both houses to pass any law and only a 1/3 plurality to repeal any law.
The easiest cure for “tyranny of the majority” is “veto of the minority.” Only measures which really do benefit all would stay as law.
I’d like to see oil shale unlocked.
High tax rates and wealth redistribution does not actually require a large government.
I wonder if it would be possible to promote a position of government cut backs so that more money could be given to the poor. Do the powers that be even see this relationship? This would give Democrats and Republicans alike a socially motivated justification for reducing the cost of government.
If only the government actually cared that much about the poor (instead of themselves).
If only the government actually cared that much about the poor (instead of themselves).
Sure, we could do a lot with a race of beings who could be programmed to care more about the needs of various humans than about their own wishes and wants. Isaac Asimov wrote loads of stories about them. But there are those of us who would not welcome robot overlords…
“If only the government actually cared that much about the poor (instead of themselves).”
Sure, we could do a lot with a race of beings who could be programmed to care more about the needs of various humans than about their own wishes and wants. Isaac Asimov wrote loads of stories about them. But there are those of us who would not welcome robot overlords…
That is my point, the left particularly is the party of the poor – they need to create more poor people in order to survive. Can not have aristocracy without poverty stricken subjects to vote for them. The irony being that on the one hand they superficially take greater care of the poor, while on the other they force more people into poverty.
This government is too powerful in our lives while at the same time cutting national defense. All three points are about reducing the power of government. 60 or so new guys may not be enough.
Color me Missourian. After 30 years of voting Repugnican, I won’t believe this until I see it happen. Otherwise it’s just happy talk for the base.
The last thing I want is for “the government” to “care” about me.
If they care about me it means they’re thinking about me.
If they’re thinking about me it means they’re plotting to do me harm in some fashion.
Ergo…
Indeed, perhaps the poor would actually fair better if they did not have the vote – then the government might “care” much less about them and leave them alone.
Pete, I think you’ve captured the essence… but of course this makes you evil and uncaring for actually speaking the truth.