"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them". Thomas Jefferson
One of the most frequently used words by presidential candidates is “change”. That’s because they know that the people are tired of the self-serving politicians in Congress. Polls show consistently that Congress’ approval ratings are among the lowest ever, hovering recently around 12%. However, the change promised is never explained in any detail, leading one to think it is just another campaign promise.
With the advent of the internet we don’t have to accept these promises without doing a truth check on their past stances and votes. The candidates are still spinning, but a cursory examination of their backgrounds, via the internet, reveals their core values.
The three leading Democrat candidates are senators who have been part of the poor legislation passed. They are all for amnesty for illegal aliens They are all pandering to the Hispanic vote, hoping their amnesty votes will endear them to that special interest group. One problem with this is that their reliable black constituency is beginning to see that the illegal aliens are causing them problems. Hispanic gangs are threatening the inner cities. Also, illegals are taking the jobs that blacks need, because they will undercut the wage structure. They must, because they have to work outside the law and are hostage to the greedy employers who exploit them.
None of the Democrat candidates want to talk about illegal immigration, and the so-called mainstream media obliges them by not asking questions of them about the subject. When the Kennedy/McCain amnesty bill was being put forward, almost all the Democrats were on board. They still seem to be. No change there.
These Democrat senators all would like health care for everyone, but have no solutions as to how it will be provided. How much more can the average citizen be taxed to provide for another entitlement? We have heard over and over again that Social Security is going broke, even faster than ever due to the boomers coming of age to draw Social Security. What solution do these senators have? They will not suffer any loss of health care or Social Security benefits. They are wealthy and can afford to pay for their own, even if the plan provided to members of Congress did not give them a handsome benefit.
There is no real change proposed by Democrats, but the same pandering to their voting blocs. There isn’t an original idea among them. No change is in sight.
The Republicans, who talk of fiscal responsibility, are represented by some who also would give amnesty to the twenty-five+ million illegal aliens here. These illegals are draining our social safety nets. They use our welfare systems. They are allowed to go into hospitals for any kind of ailment. The emergency rooms are used as primary care, a most expensive proposition. No one is allowed to question them as to their legal status. Meanwhile, American citizens, who subsidize this, are losing their own health care at an unprecedented rate.
John McCain is now talking tough about stopping these draining illegals. He says that now he “gets it”. This is after outraged citizens shut down the congressional switchboard when he was pushing for amnesty. He is betting that enough people will forget his amnesty bill, co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy, that would have made all the illegals suddenly legal. But does McCain really “get it”? He has appointed Dr. Juan Hernandez as head of his Hispanic outreach. Hernandez, who holds dual citizenship (Mexican/U.S.), and was part of President Vincente Fox’s cabinet, showed up regularly on TV to tout amnesty and declared that Mexico and the U.S. were not two nations, but a “region”. Did McCain really “get it”? Any change here?
Mitt Romney has a spotty record on basic Republican principles. When he was running for office in Massachusetts, and when he was governor there, he helped the same-sex marriage push. He also came very late to opposing abortion, although the Mormon religion has always been pro-life. While campaigning for Massachusetts governor in 2002 he said, in a NARAL survey, that:
“I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government’s. The truth is no candidate in the governor’s race in either party would deny women abortion rights. So let’s end an argument that does not exist and stop these cynical and divisive attacks that are made only for political gain”.
Was Romney speaking out of conviction or ambition in 2002? Now that he has declared that he is pro-life, is he speaking out of conviction or ambition? Because of this position, and others, he has been accused of flip-flopping and cannot be considered a reliable Republican conservative.
Mike Huckabee also has a spotty record, especially as it relates to illegal immigration. He recently defended his position on giving in-state tuition breaks to illegal alien students, claiming to be compassionate. However, how compassionate is it to make American students who are citizens obey the rules and pay the full tuition?
Rudy Guiliani insists on running as a Republican, although most of his ideas are on the liberal side and he would feel comfortable in the Democrat party.
The Rodney Dangerfield of the Republican candidates, (he gets no respect), Congressman Ron Paul, is the one who talks consistently about adhering to the Constitution. He insists that Congress fulfill its role in going to war by voting on it, which the Constitution mandates. He says he has never voted for a tax hike or an unbalanced budget. In fact, he has earned the nickname “Dr. No” because of his insistence that the country live within its means. Yet, he is regularly called a “radical”. It would be a change if Congress would balance the budget and quit raising taxes.
Both parties are addicted to pork. Before the Christmas recess they passed an obscene appropriations bill. It was perfect for the incumbents to tell their constituents how they brought home the bacon. Congressman John Shadegg, (R - AZ), writing for his constituents on January 3, 2008, noted that this bill was passed by trickery by the House so its members could avoid voting on the actual bill as it passed the Senate. Shadegg calls it a dangerous precedent. He also had this to say:
“The 3,417 page bill (34 pounds) was dropped barely 20 hours before final consideration by the House. It included 9,170 Member-directed spending projects. Over 300 of these had never been made public, seen by rank-and-file Members, or passed by either House. Combined with the 2,161 passed earlier, Members gave themselves a total of 11,331 self-serving projects, costing Americans over $20 billion this year……….”
And:
“This legislation continues an embarrassing trend in government pork-barrel spending, funneling untold billions into pet projects designed to re-elect incumbents. Most such projects are not requested, or even supported by the Departments obligated to deliver them. Many are outright corrupt - directing funds to Members’ contributors, former staffers, and even family members. The Democrat leadership promised to ‘make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history’, yet under their guidance Members of both parties continue brazenly using tax dollars to benefit themselves”.
Any change here?
It isn’t as is the country is awash in dollars to spend on these self-serving projects. The stock market is doing nip-ups and the dollar is losing value and respect all over the world. Current debt is over $9 trillion dollars. In times past, when the fiscal ship was listing, we were assured that borrowing was harmless, because “we just owe the money to ourselves”. If that was ever true, it certainly is not now. Representative Shadegg again:
“Who, exactly, is lending us all this money? Well, Japan has lent us $586 billion. We owe communist China $400 billion. Our ‘friends” in Saudi Arabia and other oil producing nations have lent us $123 billion. And here is the really bad news: they expect us to pay them back - with interest. In fact, we paid $430 billion in interest on our debt last year alone”.
These countries have little confidence in our government securities and are buying up our companies and financial entities as fast as our leaders will allow them to do so. However, there seems to be little objection to this sell-out of the control of our resources.
While the presidential candidates are trumpeting “change”, there is little evidence to suggest that they will actually change their spending habits. There is little talk of cutting government spending and lots of promise of more spending to come. So, the change they say they are for is just a change in the cast of characters, while the script remains the same. Meanwhile, the two parties, a tag team of tax and spend, still talk about change.
Change, change, the people cry, but there is no change.
Barbara regularly writes for CapitolHillCoffeeHouse. She also appears in California Chronicle, Border Patrol, and Citizens Caucus. Her primary interest is illegal immigration, but she writes about other subjects as well.
Barbara lives in a large city on the West Coast. Her loyalties are with God, family, country, heritage and borders.
She enjoys music, painting, poetry and song writing.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
