NH INSIDER- Your Source for NH Politics

Thursday

26Feb

This is Madness

Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 05:21PM

Let’s be clear: the Bush Administration, together with the Democratic majority in Congress, steered the ship of state close to the reef. They created a record $488 billion deficit in 2008, and started the bailout madness by spending $350 billion to bail out the banks and loaning $25 billion to keep Detroit in business.

But it is the Obama Administration, together with the fools in that same Democratic Congress, that is about to dash the ship upon the rocks. We are, it seems likely, about to witness the end of our nation as we know it. We will never be the same.

After requesting the second $350 billion in TARP funds, Obama signed a stimulus bill packed with pork that will cost $1.1 trillion with interest. Democrats are about to send him another $410 billion spending bill with over 9000 distinct earmarks. He’s proposing $75 billion to bail out people who bought houses they couldn’t really afford. His budget includes another $750 billion for yet another stimulus package, $250 billion for additional bank bailouts, and $634 billion for the government takeover of the medical field. Meanwhile, it is currently projected that Detroit may require another $100 billion investment – and Obama has indicated that the companies will get it. General Motors today announced a fourth-quarter loss of $9.6 billion, amounting to $50,000 per hour. Can anyone doubt that additional bailouts would be throwing good money after bad?

The bottom line is that Obama's budget of $3.552 trillion will create a deficit of $1.75 trillion for the upcoming year. That’s an amount so large mere words cannot convey how much it represents. It’s 3.6 times last year’s record deficit. It’s a number so large that most calculators cannot process it. One might as well ask how many grains of sand exist on all the world’s beaches. That’s $5833 for every man, woman, and child in the country. And even Obama is projecting a deficit over $1 trillion for next year, as well. The overall budget spends $25,573.48 per taxpayer. Let that fact soak in for a minute.

And here is why this is so disastrous for our country.

The federal government gets revenue from three basic sources: taxes, loans, and the printing press.

Obama has already announced that there will be no tax increases for two years, conveniently putting off any electoral consequences until the year after the 2010 midterm elections. He promises that only families who make more than $250,000 per year will face tax increases at that point. During the election, Joe Biden was a bit more honest, saying that families with more than $75,000 would likely face increases. Starting in 2011, there will be nearly $1 trillion in tax increases.

Until that new revenue begins to arrive, the federal government will have to hope that foreign governments continue to loan the United States money by buying Treasury bonds. In anticipation of this, the Treasury has been ramping up the auction of treasury bonds. Secretary of State Clinton spent part of last week in China, practically begging them to continue buying our debt.

There are two primary difficulties with this approach. First, the Chinese and other foreign governments are facing their own financial difficulties, and may not have the money to spare to buy that debt even assuming they want it. Second, and more ominously, these people are not stupid. When you live beyond your means, to the point that you are spending twice as much as you bring home in your paycheck, what does your credit card company do? They raise your rates and eventually stop giving you credit.

Interest on our debt currently amounts to 9% of the federal budget. Nearly ten cents of every dollar spent by the federal government goes to pay those foreign governments holding our debt. If those governments demand higher rates to compensate the higher credit risk - this is already happening - that 9% will rise, to 10%, to 11%, to 12%, and so on. That obviously will have a dire impact on the government’s ability to pay for all of these old and new entitlement programs, to which we’ve all become accustomed. The government will likely just roll that higher interest payment into an ever-larger deficit, which will leave the foreign governments with just one option: to stop buying the debt altogether.

If and when that happens, that will leave the federal government with just one way to pay its bills: to turn up the printing presses and simply make the money. The consequence of just printing the money is that the flood of new money dilutes the value of the money already floating through the economy. The money in your wallet is worth less when you wake up than it was worth when you went to sleep. This is the very definition of inflation, and it discourages investment and savings. Why save for your retirement when the money is worth less every day? Wages and prices will skyrocket to compensate – putting nearly everyone above the Obama Administration’s definition of wealthy and making nearly everyone subject to the increased tax rates. Banks that made loans at 5% interest rates, facing inflation in the 15-20% range, will go under unless the federal government compounds the problem by bailing them out with freshly-printed notes. Crushed by debt, more and more industries will beg the government to help to avoid collapse. The money the government gives them will have to be simply printed, making the root problem worse. This situation, when it happens, tends to feed upon itself.

The whole economy is in severe danger of spiraling downward in an orgy of inflation-fueled government spending. The only answer is to take our medicine, to stop spending the money, to let these companies go under, and to shrink the federal government back to its constitutional boundaries. If we did this, if we followed that path, we would have a difficult year or two and would begin to recover. Life would go on, and when it was all said and done America would be a better country for the restoration of fiscal common sense.

Unfortunately, out of what can be nothing but willful ignorance, President Obama and the Democratic Congress seems determined to plummet our nation into painful bankruptcy. To see what that future looks like, to see where this path leads, google “hyperinflation.”

See the images of Germans burning worthless money to heat their homes, and carrying wheelbarrows of cash to buy a loaf of bread. Look at what’s happening in Zimbabwe right now, facing an inflation rate of 69.7 sextillion percent per year. Prices there are increasing at a factor of 200 per week. Consider that this has happened in Argentina, in Bolivia, in Israel, in Brazil, in Greece – where prices at one point were doubling every 24 hours. This has happened dozens of times in dozens of places, and in every case the primary cause was turning on the printing presses to make up for government overspending.

Anyone who pretends that this cannot happen here is either in denial or is an arrogant fool. It’s a long way from here to there, but that’s where the winding Obama road eventually leads: an impoverished America, bereft of opportunity and drowning in worthless currency. And when your president has an unhappy habit of saying, “We won, so get out of the way,” well, there’s not a lot anyone can do to change the road. We’re just along for the ride, for at least the next four years, whether we like the view or not.

Speaking as a small business owner, this is a terrifying time in the private sector, trying to create jobs and build businesses. Judging from the 47% drop in the Dow since election day, others would seem to agree. Hold on, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=abOXicKiKopU&refer=worldwide

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/industrials/bailout-detroit-auto-makers-cost-b-plus/ http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/feb2009/db20090226_430413.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_top+story

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19365.html

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D96JCFLG1&show_article=1

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obamas-budget-a.html

Keith Murphy |

16 Comments |

Wednesday

05Nov

The Future Under the Democrats

Wednesday, November 5, 2008 at 02:49PM

Yesterday the national democratic wave that started two years ago reached a crescendo. Generous majorities were elected in both the house and senate, and of course the most big-government candidate in history was elected president. The silver lining for Republicans is that the anchor around our legs, an anchor named George Bush, is now finally, mercifully gone. Keeping power over a long period is even tougher than obtaining it in the first place, and 2010 should be much better for a rebuilding GOP as the country returns to the center-right path it has occupied for fifty years.

Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are sure to view yesterday's victories as a mandate for hugely expanded government intervention into every aspect of our lives, and are almost certain to cause immense damage to our country. Here are my predictions for the next two years:

Congress will pass and Obama will sign at least one additional $300 billion-plus stimulus package, in an attempt to bribe the American people with money that does not actually exist. All this legislation will actually stimulate is both the national debt and inflation.

Obama will attempt to gradually nationalize the health care industry. Unless Republicans in the senate are able to unify to block this effort, it will be signed into law with great fanfare. Obama will claim that he is creating an "alternative to traditional insurance companies." The reality is that he will be subsidizing his government program with higher taxes and more costly regulations on existing insurance companies. The companies will be forced to pass these costs onto their customers in the form of higher rates. Because of this unequal playing field, the insurance companies will be unable to compete with the government alternative, and they will begin to go bankrupt as their customers migrate to the cheaper, taxpayer-subsidized government option. Since the price of health care will be kept artificially low through taxpayer subsidies, demand will surge while hospitals and doctors react to the lower profits by restricting supply. The end result will be incredibly long, European-style waits for medical care. Democrats will claim this situation will require more government intervention to fix.

Obama will raise the capital gains tax, essentially disincentivizing investment in businesses and concepts. This tax increase, along with the imposition of very costly regulations on industries, will make it much more difficult for entrepreneurs to find capital to start or expand their businesses. At the same time, democrats in Congress will repay their debt to their union masters by passing card check legislation, banning the secret ballot in union elections and allowing those union bosses to intimidate employees into checking the "yes" box. Union membership will steadily rise as a result. At least one major airline and one major automaker will disappear, as those union-imposed costs are passed onto consumers and therefore lower demand. The NYSE will bottom out around 7500.00, and unemployment will approach 10%. Democrats will insist that additional unemployment and welfare benefits are necessary to deal with this situation.

American allies around the world, notably Israel and the former Soviet republics,will be threatened, as terrorists and the Russian leadership will not respect the silver-tongued yet naive President Obama. If Iran continues with its development of nuclear weapons, expect Israel to attack rather than continuing to use diplomacy. That attack will probably use conventional weapons, but if it is unsuccessful there is a chance that Israel will rattle its own sabers, its own nuclear arsenal. The world will become a much more unstable place.

Far-left democrats will attempt to seize private pensions and 401(k)s, and use this money to shore up the struggling social security system. The backlash from this effort will probably be enough to convince moderate Democrats, fearing for their own elected offices, to join with Republicans to defeat it.

A large number of American troops in Iraq will be brought home, but a "peace-keeping" force will remain to assist the already-successful new Iraqi government. Existing American bases will remain, and tens of thousands of troops will still be in Iraq in 2010. In addition, more troops will be sent to Afghanistan.

In an earnest attempt to combat the perceived threat of global warming, Obama and the democrats will pass legislation to cap carbon emissions. The cost of energy, in all of its forms, will skyrocket. Businesses and industries, hit with sharply higher utility costs, will be forced to pass on those costs to consumers. Less people will be able to afford those goods and services, resulting in lower sales. Some businesses will go bankrupt, adding to the unemployment problem. Democrats will claim that additional bailouts are needed for the hardest-hit industries. The fact that these hundreds of billions of dollars do not exist will not stop Obama, Reid, and Pelosi from spending the money, raising inflation.

Congress will take revenge upon conservative talk radio, the only media segment not dominated by Democrats, by re-instituting the Orwellian "Fairness Doctrine," resulting in federal censorship of the airwaves, scrubbing them of dissenting opinions.

The death tax will be re-instituted, and the 2003 tax cuts will be allowed to expire. Obama has promised to lower taxes for the vast majority of Americans, anyone making under $240,000, but he has to at least make an effort to pay for the incredible cost of his proposed programs. He will raise the highest tax bracket to nearly 50%, claiming that the rich are "selfish" if they object to this onerous taxation. In response to this higher tax, and the return of the death tax, wealthy Americans will move their assets out of the country. Investment in new businesses will plummet.

It is at this point that Obama will face a devastating choice between three options: he will either have to break his promise, and raise taxes on the middle class to pay for his social programs, or he will have to cut spending, or he will have to abandon his promise of balancing the budget. Option two is off the table, because no president has cut spending since Woodrow Wilson. Obama will likely combine options one and three. He will redefine "wealthy" from $240,000 to about $60,000, raising taxes on a significant portion of the middle class while lowering taxes on those below that bar less than he previously promised. He will also deficit spend at the behest of congressional Democrats, who will be unwilling to give up their addiction to pork, an addiction that already since 2006 has far exceeded the reprehensible affection for pork previously displayed by congressional Republicans. This deficit spending, including the stimulus packages and bailouts covered already, will cause inflation to rise faster than at any point since 1978.

With high unemployment and less market innovation, wages will be stagnant, and those paychecks will buy less than ever before. The majority of Americans will actually see their quality of life decline for the first time since the Carter Administration. In short, in 2010 and 2012 our nation will be facing unemployment of 10%, inflation that reduces the worth of every dollar 20% per year, an exploding national debt, sharply higher taxation that punishes success and makes the achievement of the American dream nearly impossible, a business environment that discourages growth, and a much more dangerous planet. And at the end, the Democrats will still be claiming that this is George Bush's mess they're cleaning up, and more spending and regulation is needed. The American people will at that point elect the next generation of Republican candidates, already waiting in the wings for their opportunity to serve.

As a man who loves my country, it saddens me that my nation will suffer a great deal between now and 2010. I hope I am wrong. I hope that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi govern from the center. But if Obama and the Democratic Congress actually attempt to keep their promises to the American people, these consequences are practically unavoidable. The laws of economics dictate the path before us.

It is truly sad irony that when my party next has a chance to govern, America will be a very different country. I only hope the damage is not too great to repair.

Keith Murphy |

24 Comments |

National,

Parties

Friday

15Aug

Sarah Palin is McCain's Best Option

Friday, August 15, 2008 at 03:23PM

We're a week out from the Democrat convention and the VP buzz has reached a fever pitch. It seems all but certain that Obama will choose either Joe Biden or Evan Bayh to be his running mate. Either would be a solid pick for him, because either would shore up what he believes to be his weaknesses. Obama, by simple virtue of the melanin content of his skin cells, already lays claim to being the candidate of change. In a nation generally eager for change this election year, that's generally a positive, but there are still a great number of Americans who don't like change, at least not to the extent that the most liberal member of the US Senate would deliver. And in the political world, nothing spells stability and experience like white male vice-presidents. Every single president and vice-president has been both white and male, and it would be too much of a change to go from two white men to none, or so the thinking will go in Obamaland.

The decision for McCain is a lot more muddled, three weeks out from the GOP confab in Minneapolis. Two days ago McCain made some noises about possibly choosing a running mate who wasn't pro-life, and the Republican base has been in a tizzy ever since. Given that he was campaigning in Pennsylvania at the time, and potential running mate Tom Ridge - standing right by McCain's side when the question was asked - is pro-choice, that sentence should be taken with a grain of salt. McCain just didn't want to insult his host. Nevertheless, it must be said that the Republican base is already angry at the national party leadership for violating deeply held principles over the past eight years, including lowering spending, shrinking government, and protecting the constitutional rights of the citizenry. Nominating for VP a big-government Democrat like Lieberman, or pro-choice Tom Ridge, would be the last straw for many conservatives. We were beginning to gel behind McCain, but if he went down that road we would just stay home. And his campaign must know it.

There is one potential vice-presidential nominee that stands high above the rest, with so many positives and so few negatives that this decision should be a no-brainer: Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska. The reasons why she is the best choice are compelling. Many vice-presidential nominees have been chosen for one or two of the following five advantages that Palin offers the ticket.

1) She is a dedicated conservative in the libertarian wing of the GOP. No pick would do so much to solidify the base behind McCain as Sarah Palin. She is pro-life, believes in low spending and balanced budgets, and she supports all constitutional rights, including the second amendment. There are still conservatives unhappy with the choice of McCain as the nominee, with his support for campaign finance reform and his refusal to support drilling in the Alaska tundra, and many of those conservatives might just stay home on election day rather than vote for a man who disagrees with them on so many issues. Palin gives them a compelling reason to head to the polls.

2) She represents the next generation of Republican leadership. The GOP is facing a wave of retirements from its leadership positions. Some are being forced out due to the ethical lapses that all too often accompany a rise to power. Some are just tired and can't stand to rebuild the party after its fall into minority status. But there is a group of young Republicans waiting to take the reins and do what must be done to restore the GOP to its small government principles. There's the Young Guns in Congress, led by firebrand Jeff Flake of Arizona. There's Bobby Jindal, thirty-seven-year-old governor of Louisiana. And there's Sarah Palin. Picking Palin would help ensure a smooth transition from the old guard to the new blood.

3) She is untouchable on ethics. She knocked off an incumbent GOP governor in the primary by making an issue of his ethical lapses. Since then, she has urged the state party to back clean candidates, and has publicly sided with those challenging the disgraced Rep. Young and indicted Sen. Stevens. Her approval rating in Alaska is over 80%.

4) She has a compelling life story. Palin is an incredibly well-rounded person, having led a fascinating life. An avid fisher and hunter, she is a former beauty queen. Elected first as a small-town mayor, she now balances her family obligations - including being mother of five children - with the demands of serving as governor. Regardless of their political affiliation, American women in every state can look to Sarah Palin as proof of what their gender can accomplish. She is a role model without peer.

5) She brings balance to the ticket, just as Biden or Bayh will bring balance to the Obama campaign. As a woman, she offers the stable, experienced, staid McCain campaign the ability to satisfy those clamoring for change. Millions of women across the country have been waiting for the opportunity to vote for one of their own, and choosing Palin will give them that chance. There is already a wedge driven in the female demographic, with women over forty favoring McCain over Obama. Choosing Palin will drive that wedge even deeper.

In a crowded field of potential vice-presidential nominees, Palin stands head-and-shoulders over the rest. The decision is easy for Obama, but it's more important for McCain. Given his age, his smaller campaign chest, the weakness of the Republican brand this year, and his unconventional campaign, McCain needs a better than average pick. He needs an amazing one. And that's Sarah Palin.

Keith Murphy |

3 Comments |

Monday

07Apr

SOP 14: Children: "Mine" or "Ours"

Monday, April 7, 2008 at 02:28AM

In my last blog, entitled "Why I'm a Republican," I listed twenty-seven reasons why I chose to join the GOP. They boil down to the simple fact that the Republican Party, especially at the state level, is better at restricting the growth and scope of government, and thus at protecting individual rights.

I immediately drew responses from Democrats, both in writing and verbal, claiming that I was somehow mistaken, that these were Democratic principles I was endorsing. Jim Splaine, a man I admire for his stances on certain topics, went so far as to say that I should return to the Democratic Party, since that’s obviously where I belong.

These claims, that my Republican principles were somehow also Democratic ones, had me feeling as if I had entered the Twilight Zone. And so, I immediately went off to do some research to alleviate this out-of-sorts feeling. I didn’t have to look long.

Statement of Principle (SOP) 14 states: “I am a Republican because I believe that parents have every right to raise their children as they see fit. Democrats do not believe they are “your” children, they believe they are “our” children.”

Both Democrats and Republicans believe that providing for the education of their children is of monumental importance. Regardless of party, everyone wishes for their children to get the undeniable advantages that come from a quality, well-rounded education. Also, most parents believe – and most teachers would agree – that education does not begin and end at the schoolhouse door. Good parents take an active interest in their children’s education, by ensuring that their homework is done, by exposing them to all manner of museums, books, nature, and by staying in touch with their children’s teachers.

In fact, some parents are so good at this, and they take such an interest in their children’s education, that they choose to educate their children themselves. They have the time, they have the energy, and they have the ability to take full responsibility for their children’s learning. Study after study has shown that homeschooled children obtain educations on a par with or superior to that available at public or private schools. Also, despite the myth to the contrary, study after study has indicated that homeschooled children grow up to be well-socialized, well-rounded adults. Anecdotally, I can state unequivocally that the dozen or so homeschooled children I have met were extremely polite, well-behaved, and most stunningly of all, fascinated with learning.

I believe, as a Republican, that the decision of whether or not to homeschool one’s children should rest entirely with the parents. To listen to several readers of my blog, so do Democrats.

Senate Bill 337, sponsored by Senator Iris Estabrook (D), would require that parents submit a curriculum plan before beginning to homeschool. Also, the bill requires the curriculum covers a multitude of topics, from spelling to the state Constitution.

This bill is an assault on the natural right of parents to decide on the best way to raise their children. It is a clear case of the rights of the individual against the demands of the state. This bill represents the dangerous view that your children aren’t "yours," they are “ours.” And by “ours,” they mean “theirs.” If I’m wrong about party philosophy, and all of those people who insisted that I was really speaking of Democratic principles were right, then the Democratic majority in the senate would have shot this down cold, right?

The bill passed the senate on a vote of 22-14. Voting yea were Senators Burling, Cilley, D’Allesandro, DeVries, Estabrook, Foster, Fuller Clark, Gottesman, Hassan, Janeway, Kelly, Larsen, Reynolds, and Sgambati. Voting nay were Senators Barnes, Bragdon, Clegg, Downing, Gallus, Gatsas, Kenney, Letourneau, Odell, and Roberge.

What’s the trend?

Every single Democrat voted for the bill. Every single Republican voted against it.

I care about parental rights. That’s why I’m a Republican.

Senate Bill 337 is scheduled for a hearing before the House Education Committee at 10 am on April 15th in Representatives Hall, in the State House. Regardless of your party affiliation, if you believe in the principle that parents should be able to raise their children without onerous state oversight, please consider either attending the hearing to speak against the bill or calling the members of the education committee to ask them to oppose it.

Keith Murphy |

6 Comments |

Parties

Friday

04Apr

Why I'm a Republican

Friday, April 4, 2008 at 05:44PM

Raised by a single mother who venerated the Democratic Party, it was of course only natural that I as a child would defend that party’s policies and candidates to my friends and extended family members. I still remember championing Michael Dukakis in 1988, and cheering for Bill Clinton on election night in 1992. Clinton still got my vote in 1996, the first year I could cast a ballot for president. On my hour-long bus rides to school, I’d read the paper and try to reconcile the Democratic platform with what my mind said was right: that taxes should be lower, that markets operate best when left alone, and that it’s not right to inconvenience a few for the benefit of the majority.

And then, between my undergraduate degree and my graduate studies, I went to work for a Democratic machine in South Baltimore and actually watched how people get elected, how laws are proposed and passed, and how bureaucracies work. It was, in a word, horrifying. That uneasy marriage with the Democratic Party in my mind, with those nagging inconsistencies between my opinions and the platform, quickly turned to divorce, and even while working to elect Democrats I changed my party registration to “Independent.” I still remember walking into the City Clerk’s Office, soon after moving to Manchester, and, though I had intended to register as a Republican, being almost lightheaded when answering the clerk’s question relative to my party registration. I felt, for a moment, as if I were intoxicated. The unfamiliar word left my lips in a slur and a stutter, as if I were trying to pronounce something in Russian.

The obvious question is: why? Why did I leave the party in which I was raised, the party that I had supported and worked for and helped to elect candidates? Why did I find myself swaying at the clerk’s counter, saying a foreign word?

I could no longer, in good conscience, ignore the facts that had become so evident to me over time. I had, over nearly three decades, learned to put aside the outdated party platforms and actually consider the very different philosophies behind them, and I found that without question my personal philosophy is much more in line with the Republican Party than that of the Democrats.

This, then, is why I am a Republican:

I am a Republican because I believe that each individual is born with inherent, inalienable natural rights, and that no government action may legitimately take them away. This is the same sentiment expressed in our state and federal constitutions, and in the writings of virtually every Founder of this nation. Democrats believe that rights come from governments, and as such those rights may be regulated and legislated away. In addition, Democrats believe that rights not found in nature may be legislated into existence, such as the right to housing and the right to health care. I believe that down this road lies pure socialism.

I am a Republican because I believe that these natural rights include the right to free speech, the right to engage in free trade, the right to contract, the right to control one’s property, the right to self-defense, and the right to make one’s own decisions. Motivated by their misguided good intentions, Democrats routinely work to subjugate these rights to their will. I cannot list the ways they do so. They are simply innumerable.

I am a Republican because I believe that the rights of the individual need to be protected from a tyrannous majority; indeed, that protecting individual rights is the real reason we have governments at all. Democrats believe that the individual must yield to the majority, regardless of the rights in question.

I am a Republican because I believe that the free market is dynamic, that it quickly responds to a multitude of factors, from a surprise snowstorm that hurts the orange crop to the return of bell bottoms to the latest obsession with Apple’s high-tech devices. The free market is a wonderful equation that balances supply and demand with the full range of values and preferences of every single consumer, simultaneously. I further believe that government regulation is stolid, unyielding, and oppressive, and that it harms the entry of new talent, new capital, and new ideas into the marketplace. Democrats believe that centralized economies yield more of this amorphous concept they call “social justice.” They believe this in spite of the undeniable fact that the most centralized, regulated economies in the history of the world – China, the Soviet Union, Cuba, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, etc – have resulted in the lowest amount of social justice, human happiness, and quality of life over the past century.

I am a Republican because I believe that the ends do not justify the means. It is never acceptable to trample the rights of even one person to improve the lot of the many. Democrats place more value on the “common good,” and are willing to step on some people in pursuit of their grand vision.

I am a Republican because I believe that my business is private space, not public, and that I should be entitled to set the policies to be observed therein. Public spaces are publicly owned, as in the streets and sidewalks and parks. Democrats believe that not only are all businesses public and thus subject to intense regulation, deep down they believe that all homes are public, too, and are thus equally subject to regulation. Observe the latest push to ban smoking in apartments, condominiums, and attached dwellings.

I am a Republican because I believe that people are entitled to make their own decisions. Democrats believe that anyone not an elected Democrat is generally stupid, and need to have their decisions made for them. Democrats believe that, because their intentions are pure and yet we oppose them, that our intentions are not. They often advocate class warfare by painting us as selfish and uneducated. Thus, they believe that they are morally superior, and perhaps just a little more intelligent. Democrats tend to be elitist and condescending.

I am a Republican because I believe that people can overcome any obstacle through hard work and determination. Democrats believe that people are either helpless victims or lucky victors of their circumstances, and that citizens have no control over their destiny. I believe this view of humanity is insulting.

I am a Republican because I recognize that making mistakes and overcoming hurdles is part of growing up and maturing, and that by insulating people from their mistakes and discouraging them from tackling those hurdles we are becoming a nation of adult children, destined to never have the experiences that result in true adulthood. Democrats believe they are everyone’s parents, so it’s perfectly all right that some people never grow up.

I am a Republican because I believe in Locke’s principle, that voluntary interaction is morally superior to using force to achieve social progress.

I am a Republican because I’m happy to live my life and let my fellow citizens alone to live theirs as they see fit. Democrats aren’t happy with living their own lives, they feel the need to live the lives of others, as well.

I am a Republican because I believe that people are generally good, and that being good, people that can afford to help other people in genuine need usually will. Democrats believe that people that do not happen to be elected Democrats are very selfish, and that they must utilize the power of the state to take money away from those who earn it for redistribution to the needy using a very inefficient, wasteful, bloated bureaucracy.

I am a Republican because I have no wish to be kept, or to keep others against their will. Democrats believe they are your keeper, whether you like it or not.

I am a Republican because I believe that parents have every right to raise their children as they see fit. Democrats do not believe they are “your” children, they believe they are “our” children.

I am a Republican because I believe that people know best how to spend their money. Democrats believe that they know how to spend your money better than you do.

I am a Republican because I believe that the meanings of words do not change, just as one plus one always equals two. This means that laws, including Constitutions, mean exactly what they meant when written. Democrats believe that words do change, and that the Constitution means very different things now than it did when written in 1787. Republicans believe this approach to be very dangerous, because if the meanings of words are dynamic and not static, then the words themselves are meaningless; like a modern art painting, the meaning is solely in the eye of the beholder. This is why so many lawyers are Democrats: they believe they are uniquely qualified to be shapers and artists of the law.

I am a Republican because I believe in liberty. Democrats believe that liberty must yield upon the demand of 50.1% of a given geopolitical unit.

I am a Republican because if someone shoots at me but misses, I'm either going to be shooting back or cursing myself for not wearing a firearm that day. Democrats would reach for a cell phone and call the police, hoping the police cars somehow reach them before the next bullet.

I am a Republican because I believe that local government is better government, because one is more likely to know the decision-makers by name, or more likely to run into them at the grocery store, and thus be able to influence the decisions, when those decisions are being made locally. Democrats believe that decisions made further away are somehow better. Thus, they support moving power from the cities to the state capital, from the state capital to Washington DC, and even from Washington DC to non-state entities such as the United Nations or The Hague.

I am a Republican because I believe in the right to be left alone. Democrats believe in the right to impose. My philosophy requires no sacrifice from anyone against his will. The philosophy of Democrats is built upon unwilling sacrifice.

I am a Republican because I believe taxes should be as low as possible and that government should focus on performing a limited number of essential tasks, most of which have to do with public safety. Democrats believe that the government should be funding all manner of programs designed to accomplish innumerable goals, from running a network of radio stations to funding artists to fighting marijuana use to encouraging healthier eating.

I am a Republican because I believe in the dignity of the individual. Democrats do not; rather, they believe in the supremacy of the collective.

I am a Republican because I believe that affirmative action is racism, and racism is wrong regardless of whether the victim is white or black. Also, I believe that people should be judged on their merits as individuals, based on their talents and intelligence and character, and should never receive special treatment because of their race, gender, or sexual orientation. Democrats believe that people of certain races, a certain gender, and a certain sexual orientation deserve preferential treatment to make up for past discrimination. This leads to…

I am a Republican because I believe that generations do not leave legacies of guilt behind. My great-grandfather was a racist, but that does not obligate me to anything, nor is a cause for me to feel guilt. I am not a racist, and that’s all that should matter. Democrats speak of inherited guilt, as if people bear some measure of guilt for their forefathers’ misdeeds.

I am a Republican because I recognize that a perfect world is impossible, that life sometimes isn’t fair, and that obstacles, fair or unfair, must be overcome through persistence and hard work. Democrats believe that a Utopia is possible, free of suffering and full of happiness and fairness, and that it can be legislated into existence by the use of their superior intellect and wise beneficence.

I am a Republican because I believe that opinions and decisions should be based upon thoughtful reasoning, weighing of the evidence, and the use of logic. Democrats believe that opinions and decisions should be based upon emotional appeals that tug on the heartstrings, regardless of how illogical those arguments may be.

I am a Republican because I believe in smaller, less intrusive government. Democrats believe in larger, more intrusive government.

I will anticipate some objections. As is always the case when dealing with loose organizations containing literally tens of millions of people, this list is full of dramatic generalizations. To be a bit more specific:

There are two kinds of Republicans with whom I find myself disagreeing often: the evangelicals and the RINOs. The evangelical Republicans do not share my “right-to-be-left-alone” beliefs. They, like the Democrats, are perfectly happy to use the power of government to shape society; they simply have different priorities and want society shaped towards a different kind of Utopian vision. Thus, like Democrats, they argue for restrictions on the right to contract (advocating state interference in marriage) and state funding of worthy causes (funding of religious charities). Make no mistake, the Bush Presidency has been an evangelical one, with its war on Islam and its big-government pseudo-conservatism. Happily, the stranglehold these evangelicals have held upon the GOP for the past decade seems to be slipping. There will be some growing pains, such as the disastrous election of 2006 and mixed results nationally this year, but the party will emerge the stronger and better for it, because we will have regained the Goldwater-Reagan small-government classical liberal conservatism that defined the winning GOP for forty years.

RINOs are Republicans-in-name-only, people who support Democrat policies and beliefs, but who register as Republican for electoral success or due to a lack of understanding of the party philosophy. I cringe whenever a registered Republican votes to expand state power or centralize it, weakening local decision-making. Republicans who do it often should truly consider a change in party, because by their incorrect, inconsistent votes they make it appear that we stand for nothing at all, or worse, that we are Democrat-lite. There are some DINOs – I know several – but they are much rarer than RINOs. I believe this disparity is due to the fact that Democrats tend to be followers, and so they fall in line and vote as they are told much easier than Republicans. The local Democrat chair calls the delegation and tells them to support or oppose a given bill, and they usually say, “Yes, sir!” The Republican chair rarely bothers to make that call, because he knows that if he did the answer would usually be “Go to hell!”

For a mathematical explanation of why I am a Republican, I direct you to the nonpartisan New Hampshire Liberty Alliance’s “Liberty Ratings.” In 2007, only one of the top 25 House members was a Democrat, one of the rare DINOs I referenced earlier. In comparison, all of the bottom 25 House members were Democrats. With few exceptions, the Republicans scored much higher than Democrats in terms of voting to protect us from an overreaching, intrusive, expensive state government. Clearly, the Republican Party is a more dependable caretaker of freedom and individual choice.

http://www.nhliberty.org/2007_liberty_rating

As to my mother, she recently opened a small business, a deli and country store. Last month, the woman who has for my entire life cursed Republicans as selfish and held up Democrats as fine examples of generosity and intelligence, after fifty-six years as a Democrat, after five years of giving me books by Daniel Moynihan and George Mitchell in attempt to bring me back to the fold, she recently walked into her city clerk’s office in Cumberland, Maryland, and said a word that I’m sure made her head spin.

“Independent.”

Keith Murphy |

26 Comments |

Parties,

Philosophy