Resolved: The American Federal government is too big.
The federal government has more employees than is legal or necessary.
The federal government is inefficient.
The federal government unjustly over-taxes the people of America.
The federal government uses tax money (and debt) to fund illegal social, education, and scientific programs and departments.
The federal government has infringed the rights of states in several areas.
Resolved: A US president has power to rein-in the federal government.
A US president can veto excessive spending bills referred to him by rogue congresses.
A US president can speak out against the abuses performed by the federal government.
A US president can restrict, resize, or dissolve any of the executive-appointed offices and departments.
A US president can appoint secretaries, attorneys, and judges who will uphold the US Constitution.
Resolved: The vote cast by a citizen of the United States for president should be affected by the above resolutions.
Resolved: The above resolutions are not the only rod by which to measure a candidate.
Inquired: Which candidates understand and affirm the above resolutions?
Inquired: Which of those who understand and affirm the resolutions have an applicable plan for reforming the federal government back into legal limits?
Inquired: Which of those with a plan would be able to implement their plan without destroying the nation? In other words, would the government and country still be able to function, or govern and defend itself?
Ron Paul is almost completely a libertarian. He offers very conservative principles to the disillusioned, betrayed conservative grass roots. His speeches are full of the resolutions above. But I have not heard him describe how electing him as president would make a difference. What changes would he make, and how would he make them? How would he deal with the fall-out? I notice in my own life that God, who certainly knows all of my shortcomings and sins, will prune them a little at a time, so that I can still function. I believe this is because He loves me, not just the mold of perfection. I doubt that Ron Paul would have the patience to reform the government in a way that would leave a working system in place. On the other hand, he has been in the legislature for some time without accomplishing anything aside from building a record for himself (not even a name for himself until he publicized it by running for president).
Rudy Giuliani does not seem interested in restricting the government at all. He is a social moderate, who therefore thinks government involvement in social matters are justified. (On a side note I do not think that murder is a social issue; neither is abortion.)
Mitt Romney is a businessman. He has shown his capabilities as an executive. Making an organization run efficiently and productively is his record. In business, you do not want to cut the influence of your company, or reduce profits. Yet in government, that is just what needs to be done.
Though Huckabee was a pastor more than a businessman, he was also an executive of a state. As governor of Arkansas did he exhibit any tendencies toward reforming the government? Granted, he was working with a congress of democrats. Is there anything he is saying now that indicates he will reform Washington?
Are these men just going to treat symptoms? Throw more money at problems? Cut out the cancer so deeply that you’ve amputated vital organs? Must we the voters be content with a man of the hour, who can get us through the next four years, but will leave the federal government unchecked in its decent toward tyranny?
What do any of you readers know about these candidates or the others running? Are my assessments wrong? Do any of the other candidates meet the resolutions with strength, vision, and confidence? Can you reassure me that a vote for Huckabee, which I am intending to cast, will be for the good of America?
Can we the people do anything now to prepare the field of candidates in the future?
Please comment.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
Lisa of Longbourn 
No love for Fred Thompson?!
I think he’s got some significant upside in this arena.
Can you give specifics? As far as I knew, Fred Thompson was just a legislator. Does he have a good plan?
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
The January issue of NEWSMAX reports Romney’s recent meeting with the WSJ editorial board- He said he would bring in consultants, including perhaps Jack Welch, to make the government more efficient. The article went on to optimistically observe that Welch, in his early years at General Electric, eliminated over 100,000 jobs! That is what we need–a “Neutron Jack”– a nickname derived from the bomb that wipes out people while leaving the buildings still standing.
I was drawn to your postings because they say it like it is: the national governmental agencies are bloated. I believe the bloat is so extensive that across the board cuts of 20% over a 1-2 year period would do little harm–and a lot of good. There is an excellent CD of a speech by the former prime minister in New Zealand, Maurice McTeague, that tells how his administration in the 1980-1990’s reduced the size of the government from over 40% of the national GDP to about 26%. That’s over a one-third cut! And New Zealand has boomed ever since.
And McTeague was a neutron bomb–he eliminated all farm subsidies over a 7 month period–and the farmers adapted and were more prosperous than ever within two years time. The Mercatus Center at George Mason put out the CD- (maybe with help from Cato?) New Zealand’s success gives strong evidence that the job can be done. The problem is seeking too timid approach–drastic surgery is called for. That is why the demand for downsizing has to come from the bottom–including the bloggers–because all the vested interests want to increase the size of the government. After all, one-half of American households work for or draw benefits from government programs. Mike Gallagher’s book “Surrounded by Idiots,” documents the pressures that torpedo the most reformist zeal of all new arrivals in DC.
The problem isn’t just the current waste of money on huge overstaffed agencies–the problem is the agencies do not function effectively. Joel Mowbray’s “Dangerous Diplomacy” spells out the problems at the State Department and reveals it to be an institution crippled by not only its cumbersome size, but by union rules, a 60% tenured employee base, racial diversity quotas, and a culture attuned to perverse ideologies contrary to America’s best interests. That is why they and the FBI did not connect the dots about 9/11.
However, the waste, and the incompetency of the government are not the most significant burdens imposed on the nation. Those two costs are minor compared to the victim mentality that Big Government implants in the American people–a people that originally grew strong from self-reliance and personal independence. I recently studied the rise and fall of America and a number of prior successful civilizations and found that the common denominator in the Rise of prosperous nations was the presence of a secure citizenry that was empowered by an open economy. When given freedom to act and basic security, the ordinary people created progress. Only after success had been gained did the central planners, intellectuals, and special elites come in and undermine the society. And they always undermined it by balooning central governments to give themselves jobs at the top telling evreyone else what to do. Almost all government programs are no more than bribes directed at the voters to keep the big spenders in power. The full explanation for America’s Rise and incipient Fall are summarized at http://www.thecommongenius.com
When America’s founders first rebelled at their mother country’s web of regulations and taxes, they were encouraged and directed by a host of preachers from the pulpit and a number of stirring pamphleteers. This leadership organized the popular outcry needed to break free from tyranny. Today the pulpits are emasculated, but talk radio and the bloggers could be the pamphleteers of the twenty-first century. But we must not simply ask for bandaids–a miserly tax cut, or modest welfare reform, or charter schools. Much more is needed. Even businessman Romney could not take the steps called for without a widespread mandate to chop away and minimize the federal Leviathan.
Bill Greene — “Common Genius” published by Laissez Faire Books, 2007
Is Leviathan a common term for bloated government? I’ve seen it used in Every Thought Captive, R.C. Sproul, Jr’s magazine. But I’m too new to politics (since Kerry’s bid for the presidency, or about four years ago) to recognize such things. Your description of the elite making jobs for themselves to tell others what to do reminded me of “Whatever Happened to Justice,” my civics book in high school. Sounds like you’ve done a lot of research.
I’m not sure I was quite clear, though. I don’t only want to know if someone will make the government more efficient with a willingness to cut spending. My preferred motivation would be to cut spending and programs because they are illegal/unconstitutional.
Good points. Thanks for the comments.
To God be all glory,
Lisa of Longbourn
I was impressed by that word when reading Robert Higgs’ “Crisis and Leviathan.” He laments how big government has grown and attributes its rise to actions made in response to crises–depressions and wars that have occasioned massive government spending and an increased regimentation of American life and thought. Thus the activists who favor centralized solutions to all problems have used alleged emergency situations as a means of justifying massive and unconstituional centralized controls and spending programs.
The dictionary defines “leviathan” as anything of immense size and power, like a sea monster, and Thomas Hobbes used it in referring to governmental organizations. There is a negative connotation since such an octopus quality makes big government the enemy of freedom.
You make an excellent point about what should be the appropriate motivation for reducing centralized authority–it’s not just about the money, the fruit of one’s toil, that is seized by the governing elites. Given sufficiently prosperous businesses and sufficient individual effort by the working segments of the population, we somehow manage to support a massive government. But as you make clear, most of the programs represent blatant unconstitutional interference with individual rights, and are therefore illegal.
The Leviathan is illegal because the Founders designed a system of government for an independent and self-reliant population and established safeguards to preserve their liberty by restricting government. They would be saddened that we have traded liberty for security, by-passed the safeguards they provided, and weaned an ever-increasing portion of the public onto a dependency on hand-outs. If it’s any consolation, it did take 150 years to emasculate the Founders’ work. And it is nothing new:
This gradual conversion of a Republic into a populist democracy
has been a recurring theme in history. The self-reliant common people always built the winning nations and then new elites came in, urged activist judiciaries, expanded government, weakened the underlying traditions, and brought on the Decline of their nation. That is the message in my book “Common Genius,” the lesson of history, that America is repeating the demonstrated errors of past successful nations, and allowing the elites to destroy our country.