posted 01-09-2004 11:51 AM            

By David Brownlow
January 7, 2003
NewsWithViews.com

There is a fascinating "Conservative Index" in the December 29th issue of the New American Magazine. The index makes a compelling case that we should find a new word to describe those (few) in Congress who are defending the Constitution, because the word "conservative" has lost all meaning.

The most recent "Conservative Index," paints a fairly bleak picture of the willingness of those in Congress to adhere to the constitutional principles of limited government. In a true show of bipartisanism, Republicans and Democrats alike - with few exceptions - showed not even the slightest inclination to obey the law.

Check the index out for yourself [http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2003/12-29-2003/108-2.pdf]. But I need to warn you. It is not a pretty sight.

The votes used as the basis for this index were those that funded: Labor-HHS-Education ($470 billion), Agriculture ($78 billion), the U.N. (we're still giving those guys billions?), prescription drugs ($500 billion), foreign aid ($ billions and billions) and the $87 billion for Iraq - all of which are unconstitutional spending programs. We're way past the chump change, pork barrel spending stage here. This is some serious unconstitutional spending!

Also included in the index was the vote on an abortion ban that does not ban any abortions, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Yes, it was a meaningless vote, but the index assigned a conservative (+) to those who voted for the "ban."

The overriding message of this "Conservative Index" is that there is virtually no difference in voting patterns between the Democrats and the Republicans - both will choose bigger government every chance they get.

One bright spot in the index was Congressman Ron Paul (R) of Texas, the standard bearer for constitutional government. He was the only member of Congress to score a perfect 100%. Anyone who has tracked Congressman Paul's career, knows this is a man who really understands the proper role of the federal government - which is a very limited role - and adheres to those limited powers while voting on a bill. It is encouraging to see there is at least one person in Congress who is consistently able to obey the law.

However, just up the road few miles from Congressman Paul's district, is another Texas Republican who did not fare so well, House Majority Leader Tom Delay. I used to live in Congressman Delay's district and can vividly remember the jubilant victory celebration we had the night he was first elected to Congress in 1984. There was a collective "Whew, we finally elected a man who is going to get something done." He actually voted fairly well for the first few years (when the Democrats were in charge), but the lure of power seems to have been too much for him to handle.

Not to pick on Congressman DeLay too much, since the entire Republican caucus is a collective "conservative" train wreck, but his voting record provides a stark warning of what can happen to a man after twenty years of compromise. His 30% conservative score shows that he chooses big government, over obedience to the law, almost every time. The man has become a mere shadow of his former self. What a sad story.

Unfortunately, he is not alone. Many others have veered just as far off the path.

Here are a few 108th Congressional "Conservative Index" highlights from the House Republicans: Hayworth (AZ, of Fox News fame) 25%; Issa (CA) 0%; Harris (FL) 10%; Hyde (IL) 11%; Bohner (IL) 20%; Istook (OK) 33%; Walden (OR) 10%.

And from the Senate: Sessions (AL) 30%; McCain (AZ) 40%; Graham (FL) 38%; Lugar (IN) 20%; Snowe (ME) o%; Dole (NC) 40%; Inhofe (OK) 30%; Smith (OR) 33%; Hatch (UT) 30%.

We could argue over the choice of the votes that were used in this "Conservative Index," but it will be hard to deny the huge expansion of our government that has occurred under Republican control of Congress. Compromise after compromise, big government vote after big government vote, Republicans have saddled us with over a 60% increase in federal spending, and the accompanying loss of freedoms, just since they took control of Congress in 1994!

Every single spending bill must originate in the House, so it is not hard to point to the source of the problem … and the problem is not the Democrats!

The "Republican Revolution" of 1994 barely lasted the "first 100 days" Newt Gingrich promised us would be the beginning of a new era of obeying the law, and a return to sanity in our government. The "Revolution" has instead turned into a spending free-for-all, with virtually no rules or restraints. The only guiding principal is; "win elections at any cost."

Sure, the Republicans have convinced millions to ignore the evidence and allow the charade to continue. And they have certainly figured out how to win elections - simply become just like your opponent and promise everything to everybody. But we are never going to solve our problems by re-electing the same people who created this mess in the first place!

I have thrown away so many votes over the years voting the "lesser of two evils, " I get ill just thinking about it. I am at the place now, where if winning elections means voting for a big spending, big government socialist, I no longer care if a single candidate I support ever gets elected to office.

A zero tolerance policy toward law breaking politicians is the only way we are going to dig ourselves out of the hole in which we find ourselves.

Now that the word "conservative" has come to mean, "big government," I am using the label a friend came up with. I am an ABC … an Active Biblical Constitutionalist.

posted 01-09-2004 02:41 PM            

quote:

---

The votes used as the basis for this index were those that funded: Labor-HHS-Education ($470 billion), Agriculture ($78 billion), the U.N. (we're still giving those guys billions?), prescription drugs ($500 billion), foreign aid ($ billions and billions) and the $87 billion for Iraq - all of which are unconstitutional spending programs. We're way past the chump change, pork barrel spending stage here. This is some serious unconstitutional spending!

---

posted 01-09-2004 04:14 PM            

ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS OF BETTER ECONOMY DON'T FOLLOW THE NUMBERS

While the Bush/Cheney re-election website promotes the idea that the economy
is "stepping on the gas pedal," new figures released today by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics showed hiring to be flat in December 2003 with a net gain
of 1,000 jobs. A new report released today by the Economic Policy Institute
finds that the Bush administration's assertion that the president's 2003 tax
cut fell 1.615 million jobs short of its prediction for the year.

The president publicly unveiled his 2003 tax cut last year by tying it to
job creation. In the State of the Union, Bush said, "When America works,
America prospers, so my economic security plan can be summed up in one word:
jobs." But the president's policies have failed to benefit American
workers. A National Journal piece last week noted that "The economy is so
far behind the administration's forecast that an average of 400,000 jobs
would have to materialize every month until the end of 2004 to keep to the
White House schedule. How hard is that? During the 1990s boom, such
phenomenal job growth occurred in eight months out of 102."

The White House has thus far focused on putting a positive spin on the state
of the economy. The president said in early December, "This administration
has laid the foundation for greater prosperity and more jobs across America
so every single citizen has a chance to realize the American dream." But
so far, the widely reported increases in productivity and growth aren't
translating into jobs or higher wages. New jobs being created are paying
13% less than those lost during the recession--$14.65/hour versus
$16.92/hour. By contrast, new jobs created during the later years of the
expansion, 1998 to 2000, paid 12% more.

While the rapid growth of the recovery has so far failed to benefit workers,
corporate profits have increased at a rate far beyond those of previous
recoveries. According to the EPI study, previous recoveries provided an
average of 61% of total income growth - and never less than 55% -- to
workers. In this recovery, however, only 29% of the total income growth has
gone to workers' wages and benefits. Meanwhile, corporate profits have
claimed an average share of 46% of total income growth in this recovery,
compared to an historic average of 26%.

Read the Mis-Lead -->
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1922896&l=14089 >

===========================================================

Subscribe to the Daily Mislead! Go to http://www.misleader.org and enter
your e-mail address in the "Receive the Daily Mislead" box in the
top-left corner of the page.
=======================================