CONSERVATISM

This was a response to Michael Quinn's post on MyFamily.com, calling out the conservatives in the family to articulate a political platform:

Ask and ye shall receive, Michael. I was going to let Jeffrey and
Thomas speak for me, but since you
called me out, I gotta sound off. They articulated some of my feelings on
some of the issues, but I’ll
elaborate a little further – perhaps provide you with a more concrete
political “platform.” Although, I must
warn you, the platform is based on IDEOLOGY (I could not disagree
more with your statement that
“ideology doesn’t really mean anything”). This ideology – the set of
beliefs in certain principles that are
eternal (inalienable, if you will) – guides everything true conservatives
say and do, no matter the
circumstance, no matter how much times have changed. And if people
would rely on these true
principles, many of our country’s problems would be alleviated, if not
completely eradicated.

To give one example, the solution to the so-called healthcare crisis
(which is almost as big a hoax as the
global warming hoax – oh wait, it’s now been changed to global “climate
change” now, since the whole
warming thing has started to cool down – no matter what the
temperature is, we can blame it on climate
change! which can’t possibly be caused by anything other than
humans) is not UNIVERSAL
HEALTHCARE provided by the government.

When Senator Clinton as First Lady advocated universal healthcare
coverage for all Americans, 560
economists wrote her husband to plead with him to put a stop to her
madness. They argued, based on
eternal free market principles, that “price controls produce shortages,
black markets, and reduced
quality.” So government instituted price controls don’t “control” the true
cost of goods at all. People end up
paying in other ways.

The answer to the “crisis” is not more government regulation, but more
privatization. The healthcare
system needs to be opened up to market forces. Healthcare services
would be based on market prices,
and healthcare providers would compete for patients. “Compete” is the
key word here; “competition,” the
eternal principle. With private health insurance, private medical practice,
and private healthcare
establishments, competition would drive costs down and enhance the
quality of the healthcare, and would
provide patients with a CHOICE between a much wider range of
services depending on their needs and
the quality of service required for that need.

In order to afford healthcare, a person will have to work for it, just as a
person has to work for food and
shelter, just as a person has to work to make a car payment, just as a
person has to work if he wants to
go the movies on the weekend. Thank God we live in a country where
we can work where we want to
work, be what we want to be, and earn what we want to earn. Of course
there are exceptions! People get
laid off, people are disabled, etc. And there’s nothing wrong with
providing subsidies for the people in
these circumstances. But the vast majority has the choice to make of
themselves whatever they want to
be.

This is a far cry from the liberal idea that everyone is a “victim” – of
racism or sexism or whatever other –
ism there is out there – and that salvation lies in the government. The
truth is, no matter the
circumstance, whether others have been blessed with more money,
better connections, a better home
environment, or even better looks, a person can succeed through hard
work, perseverance, and
education.

Which brings me to my next point: Education! And the solution for the
problem with the education system
is the same solution to the problem with the healthcare system:

EDUCATION – Take the government out!

Before the mid 1800s, elementary and secondary education was largely
parent financed. Today,
taxpayers spend more than $6,000 a year per student, more than
virtually any other country, including
Japan. With what result? Poor test scores, high dropout rates, kids
incapable of filling out employment
applications… The private sector ought to assume this responsibility.
Vouchers are a great way to take
us in that direction. Let schools compete for students, increasing the
quality of the teachers and paying
them what they deserve, and giving parents a choice as to where they
will send their children.

And sure, some schools and teachers will be better than others (as
they are now), but an individual’s
level of effort, dedication, curiosity, and willingness to grow will
determine what they learn.

I’m going on way longer than I initially planned. Let me just finish with a
couple more platform items (I’ll try
and be brief).

TAX CUTS – As JFK once said, after signing off on across-the-board
tax cuts in the 60’s, “It is a
paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are
too low — and the soundest way
to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.” We pay an
obscene amount of taxes in this country.
The mere thought of the government taking more of that money to
spend on more inane programs and
useless committees makes me ill. A government that’s too big to
function without resorting to extortion is a government that’s too big.
Period.

The argument that the Bush tax cuts unfairly benefit the rich is
ridiculous. First of all, it’s insulting and
presumptuous to think that anyone’s entitled to that money but the
individual who EARNED it! That aside,
the statistics show that the top 1 percent of taxpayers – those making
more than $364,000 annually – pay
39 percent of all federal income taxes! Any across-the-board tax cut
would, by definition, “unfairly” benefit
the rich.

In order to cut the deficit, shrink the government! In order to increase
revenue, decrease taxes!

SHRINKING THE GOVERNMENT - Less than 2 percent of Americans
are farmers, yet the Department
of Agriculture continues to add more and more bureaucrats. And what in
tarnation does the Department of
Commerce do?! Do we need the Small Business Administration?
Amtrak? The Tennessee Valley
Authority????

Before 1950, the government largely stayed out of the housing
business, thank goodness. Now we have
housing projects in all of our major cities, and don’t just speak for the
City of Los Angeles, when I say that
they have become sewers of crime and drugs. Why? When everybody
owns something, NOBODY owns
it (a principle I learned while living in the former Soviet Union). Without
ownership, who’s going to take the
responsibility of upkeep and repairs? The government is an absentee
landlord and really couldn’t care
less about what happens in these projects.

The private sector can build housing more cheaply, with an INCENTIVE
to maintain the property and
screen tenants.

On top of getting rid of ridiculous government programs, we can shrink
the government by ending
welfare, entitlements, and other special privileges.

Welfare for the poor works out to a national average of $12,000 to
$13,000 a year per recipient. That’s
almost as much as Frannie and I made COMBINED last year! So why
even get a job when the
government shields you from financial responsibility? As detrimental as
welfare is for the economy and
hard-working citizens’ pocket books, it’s probably more detrimental to
the recipient in the long run. Do we
not remember the saying, “give a man a fish, you feed him for a day;
teach a man to fish, you feed him for
a lifetime?”

And don’t get me started on Social Security! The average recipient has
put in fifteen cents for every dollar
he or she takes out! How much more inefficient and unfair can it get?

Conservatives would simply like people take control of their own destiny
and earn whatever life they want
to live. Let the government worry about policing the streets, enforcing
the law, and keeping its citizens
safe from foreign enemies.

WAR ON TERRORISM – Al Qaida has been significantly weakened,
Sadaam Hussein is gone, there’s a
democracy in Iraq! and the surge is working. A withdrawal in Iraq would
create a staging ground for al-
Qaida, increase the influence of Iran over Iraq, and result in “the biggest
civil war we’ve ever seen,”
according to former Secretary of State Jim Baker of the Baker-Hamilton
Report.

The criticism President Bush gets for going to war in Iraq is unfair, and
seems to be a product of the
culture’s hateful obsession with the man, as opposed to something
founded on reason. All 16 intelligence
agencies felt with "high confidence" that Saddam Hussein possessed
stockpiles of WMDs (there’s far
more dissent among credible scientists about global warning than there
was among American intelligence
analysts about Iraq). And just because we didn’t find them when we got
there, doesn’t mean they didn’t
exist and doesn’t mean they still don’t exist! It just means we didn’t find
them. Perhaps it’s because we let
the bureaucracy take its sweet time in debating whether or not Sadaam
had the things, giving him ample
time to hide them away in a cave somewhere. Even if they never did
exist (even though the intelligence
claims otherwise), who’s to say we’re not safer now thanks to the fact
that Bush wasn’t afraid to take the
war to the enemy, rather than wait for another September 11?

And while I don’t much care for John McCain, I’m happy to hear that he
will not risk everything our
soldiers have fought and died for by pulling out early.

If you want to hear more on global warming, abortion, illegal immigration,
etc., let me know.