Posted by: Rick | Saturday, August 15, 2009

Wingnut Obsession: Size Matters!

I just watched a conservative blogger conference on C-SPAN.  I forget the name of the host organization — let’s just call it  “A Bunch Of Pasty-Faced White Guys”.

The panel tried to sound like professional Republican spinmeisters — a task which proved a bit difficult when the wingnuts in the audience began demanding their red meat — but at one point, one of the white guys showed some real emotion.

It was when he said that the mission of conservatives was to shrink the size of government. They’ve been saying this for years, and I always want to ask them:  Why?

Worrying about the size of government is kind of like worrying about the size of the universe.  You’ve got to be a little more specific.

Of course, specificity is their enemy.  They’ll gladly follow Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush off a spending cliff if it suits them.  But when Democrats are in charge, they turn into paranoid penny-pinchers.

Whatever the message, they know they can count on Rush Limbaugh and Company to spread it.

I’m jealous.  It’s so damn easy to be a conservative.  The “free market” does all your thinking!



  1. I’m jealous too! Very well put.

  2. Your question is very logical (why shrink the size of government). However, remember, if you don’t have skin in the game (i.e. not paying many tax dollars) you’re not going to care about government size. After all, someone else can pay for it…. THAT’S THE PROBLEM WITH BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS.

    Lets face it, everyone likes a hand out and no one cares about someones elses expenses. This, however, is a problem and we need to solve it. As hard as it may be, we should move away from our sense of entitlement and move towards a nation of accountability. With that said, it would require everyone to have significant skin in the tax game. Not just the few. I’m not saying we raise the tax rate (%) to pay for this . As you know, that wouldn’t be fair. I’m saying, let’s give every American an opportunity to participate. To pay for this incremental spend, every American should receive the same bill. You and I can equally contribute. I would never claim to more American then you. For those that don’t want to pay, they can make up for it through service to the country. Maybe that would get people thinking about the size of the governement we’re paying for.

  3. I can’t agree. The graduated income tax is the only fair way to fund government.

    Each incremental dollar of one’s income is less important than the preceding dollar. Food, clothing, and shelter are more valuable than an upgrade on a Lexus.

    Rich people must pay more than the middle class. (They have most of the money, anyway. The middle class is shrinking.)

  4. That’s a tired argument that people with food and shelter use to protect their low tax position. I believe its OK for higher income individuals to pay more tax. Let me give you a few examples of why I believe this: first, there are in fact some individuals that bring significant passion and effort to non profit organizations that do not pay high incomes; second, there are individuals working out of difficult positions and options are limited. Obviously, there are numerous examples beyond what I describe. I would however suggest that there are more people that have significant opportunities in life and choose to prioritize things other then their career. That’s great. Not a problem. Every American should have the option to establish their own priorities. Where I differ is asking higher income Americans to pay for those decisions. Often higher incomes don’t come by accident. A priority is established and sacrifice is made. There needs to be a trade off. Thats called reality. Maybe its not a Lexus upgrade, but its securing their childrens education that drives an individual. I would just suggest that if people want the luxury of big government and world class health care they should prioritize generating the type of income that will pay the taxes to deliver that back to themselves and their families. There’s no free lunch.


%d bloggers like this: