Why A Strong Mass GOP is Important
If one were to ask the question; "Why is the Republican Party virtually extinct in Massachusetts?," one could probably come up with a million and one reasons. They would include political incompetence, lack of energy and enthusiasm, inability to change, strategy flaws, etc. Sure, those are pretty general and don't scratch even a 1,000th of the greater overall problem. However, it is my belief that the party has failed to answer one of the most fundamental questions any Party should have to answer at the drop of a hat: "Why is it important to elect Republicans to office in the Commonwealth?"
Please, save me the diatribe on One Party Rule. That's so 1990. To give you a sense of how old that argument is, when we first started making it, The Ultimate Warrior was the WWF World Champion. Mike Tyson hadn't been knocked out by Buster Douglas. The Yankees really DID suck. No one knew who Saddam Hussein was, never mind giving a crap about him. Today, we know the Ultimate Warrior, though influential in his industry on a character level,
was really overrated. Buster Douglas DID knock out Mike Tyson. The Yankees still do suck, but not literally and everyone knows who Saddam was. Freakin' New Kids on the Block were actually 'cool'. The point is the political landscape in Massachusetts, like the world around it, has changed dramatically and now voters are requiring us to tell them something new.
One party rule should be cited for sure, but today, more so than ever before, we need to shift our focus from sitting at the campfire, to getting back to our fundamental reason for existence over the years, which is to minimize the size of a state government that is overflowing with useless and silly government programs that hurt the tax payer more than helping him.
Most would appropriately ask why someone would be against the idea of government programs that are designed to help people. Well, sure Government exists to help people for sure, but WHO are they helping? With WHOSE money? With WHOSE Consent? With what RESULT?
I'm all for government helping the needy and the poor. However, when we Begin dealing in the business of of taking from one middle class family and transferring it to another middle class family, we're running a slippery slope. Do you need examples? Well, take transit for example. People who drive cars must pay for the transportation preferences of other people who like to take the "T". On a national level, we have the National Endowment for the Arts. We all must subsidize recreational activities of others. Whether they want to listen to Rock music or take pictures of their wee-wees, we have to pay for it.
There IS a loud call for cutting back our spending and programs at the state level. However, it's no surprise that most love this concept only when it's not a program that benefits them. It's no surprise that Democrats dominate the political scene given their 'generosity' to everyone with everyone else's stuff. George Bernard Shaw says it best: "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's support."Many such programs corrupt our politics by making it a contest for who gets to feed at the public trough. Moreover, they do not promote the common welfare or the public good. Rather, they promote the good of some people at the expense of other people.
Now I'm not saying the government isn't important nor should it have little responsibility. We need the government to protect us, put police on the streets, build highways and check the environment. After all, If they didn't, companies would pollute like crazy. Government should also support basic research, patent protections as well as basic education and health care services. There's NO shame in supporting government so long as it's actions rest within it's legitimate sphere. Government can and should be a good thing.
But again, we need to realize that whatever it is the government DOES, it usually does a pretty poor job of DOING. Now I'm not saying people who work in the public sector are idiots. They're most definitely not. But there are simply no real standards. There aren't. Don't let silly legislative 'accountability' bills fool you. Imagine if you worked in an organization that you didn't own, and you were only accountable to yourself for all of your actions. You see, in government, there isn't a 'bottom line' so to speak. There's no real criteria to determine whether or not the bike helmet program is working or not. With change over in administrations at least every four years, there isn't much in the way of consistency. Bills change, political leanings change, staff turnover is huge, etc. In fact, there probably aren't many who really know what the real roles of their departments or agencies are. A few years ago a guy who worked in the Education Department in Springfield asked "How can you say our public schools are failing? A lot of people work here." By his standard, government was doing its job by employing people. He's not an idiot, but certainly misguided in his assumption that Education should just be a incubator for employment.
We Republicans and conservatives know that government, especially here in Massachusetts, continues to do stuff that is A.) Not needed or B.) can be done a lot better by someone else. Look at the big dig. To be fair, liberals are starting to get it, but even at that, they're not learning fast enough. Decades of urban legends (or political legends in this case) have institutionalized themselves in the state. It was believed that Government must run lighthouses, because you know, if they didn't, who would? At a federal level, people think the government should deliver the mail, because if they didn't, no one else would. Prisons are an absolute government responsibility, but they don't operate most efficiently unless they're under government control. In the worst myth of them all, It's widely believed that without public schools, thousands of kids in this state would receive no education at all. These are random issues I know, but all have been proven to be demonstrably false in recent times.
If you truck around the north and south shores, you'll find a ton of lighthouses that are privately owned. There's tons of them in Connecticut and Rhode Island, too. Prisons regularly contract out services to private contractors, and some are even entirely run by private companies. There's zero logic behind the claim that private markets couldn't provide education services through high school. The government's role could be limited to providing assistance to those who would otherwise not be able to afford those services and extending opportunities to our best and brightest. Oh yeah, remember that postal service. Two words: Federal Express.
Here in Springfield especially, but all over the state as well, many folks think big government is a check on the scary big business. Frankly, we're petrified of anything that isn't somewhat subsidized by the federal government. To an extent, the kids scared, hiding under their blankets are a little right. Thank god for the government when Enron hit. However though, there really isn't a check at all between Government and Big Business, or at least one that is proportional in any way shape, or form. How can I say this? Well, because big business' power over the average citizen of the commonwealth, or any American citizen for that matter, is very limited. To sell stock shares and products, these entities must PERSUADE investors and customers to buy them. It's the power of coercion. They must win consent before taking someones money. The government doesn't.
This is, in the end, the fundamental difference between business and government. For example, you cannot simply opt out of Social Security. You are required to pay it, no matter what. If I was to tell the tax collectors; "Hey guys, thanks for the help and all, but I don't think I really need this and to be honest, I don't really want to. In fact I'll take myself off the roles to help you guys save a few bucks to help someone else who needs it. I really appreciate your gesture, but thanks but no thanks." The government would arrest my red haired, freckled rear end and throw me in jail. I can't say no. There is no choice. If Big Business offered me a retirement fund and I said; "Wow, this looks great, but I think there are some other options out there for me to look at," they would say 'OK' or they would try to convince or persuade me to stick with their service. If they got on my nerves enough or threatened my or my family's safety or state of being because we didn't buy into their program, I could call the cops (the government) and get rid of them. But who calls the cops on the government? Even more so, when you really think about it, even those who work at the lowest levels of government (IRS agents, the boring guy at the DMV, the immigration official, the donut mowing Police Officer) have more influence than Big Business does. And this power of coercion, which is inherent in the nature of government, fundamentally undermines the liberal claim that the government is doing a moral thing by helping people.
Finally, I wish to challenge the liberal notion that the private sector is motivated by greed, while the public sector is motivated by noble idealism. It in itself, should make the case for more Republicans and fewer Democrats in the state legislature. I've enough experience in government to drum up this scenario for you. You're at a meeting with a mayor, governor, or if it's me, likely the President, because I'm the man. It involves, because I live at a college, a drug policy (This'll show these kids). The good old folks at the Department of Defense say the problem is because drugs are being produced in Columbia. They have a $20 billion program to destroy the crops. Yay, things that go boom rule. Health and Human Services are out there too though, and they say the problem of drugs was a problem of treatment, and they have a $40 billion program to help treat more addicts. Maybe all I need is a hug. The Education Department doesn't want to be left out though, so they come up with their definition of the problem as well as their solution. They are convinced that the real solution to drugs is education and they think we should take on a multi-year initiative to raise the consciousness of American tax payers that costs $30 billion. If the teacher's hot, I'm there! I know, I'm funny, however, here's where I make my point:
Regardless of the merit of their arguments, they aren't any less motivated by their own interests (see Self.) than anyone in the private sector. The only real difference was that their interests aren't translated in coins and cash (see Money). Their currency is a little different. Fundamentally, they were after power and influence instead of money.
Although it's pretty much true that a lot of the welfare state mentality in Massachusetts is losing it's grip... I think..., the state government in Massachusetts (and the federal government, too) is too damn big. Our duty is to limit it's size and like a good coach or teacher, keep it focused on what it's supposed to be doing. When the state exceeds its proper functions, when it moves outside its sphere, it invades the domain of the citizens, depriving us of both freedom and the responsibility that comes along with it.
Though we've made small baby steps here and there in these regards, it's simply not enough. In order to insure this kind of existence and oversight, we need more Republicans in the state legislature and more importantly, more Republicans/Conservatives in the state, period. We need to get back to basics and make the case as to why we're important. The point we need to make to the massive amounts of independents and conservative Democrats in the state isn't just why or how we will remain viable. The case we need to make is why the people of this commonwealth need us to be viable. Until we do this, we will continue to wallow in the state of entitlement, high taxes, little growth and government intervention. With all that said, Go out and make the case, kids.
Please, save me the diatribe on One Party Rule. That's so 1990. To give you a sense of how old that argument is, when we first started making it, The Ultimate Warrior was the WWF World Champion. Mike Tyson hadn't been knocked out by Buster Douglas. The Yankees really DID suck. No one knew who Saddam Hussein was, never mind giving a crap about him. Today, we know the Ultimate Warrior, though influential in his industry on a character level,
was really overrated. Buster Douglas DID knock out Mike Tyson. The Yankees still do suck, but not literally and everyone knows who Saddam was. Freakin' New Kids on the Block were actually 'cool'. The point is the political landscape in Massachusetts, like the world around it, has changed dramatically and now voters are requiring us to tell them something new.One party rule should be cited for sure, but today, more so than ever before, we need to shift our focus from sitting at the campfire, to getting back to our fundamental reason for existence over the years, which is to minimize the size of a state government that is overflowing with useless and silly government programs that hurt the tax payer more than helping him.
Most would appropriately ask why someone would be against the idea of government programs that are designed to help people. Well, sure Government exists to help people for sure, but WHO are they helping? With WHOSE money? With WHOSE Consent? With what RESULT?
I'm all for government helping the needy and the poor. However, when we Begin dealing in the business of of taking from one middle class family and transferring it to another middle class family, we're running a slippery slope. Do you need examples? Well, take transit for example. People who drive cars must pay for the transportation preferences of other people who like to take the "T". On a national level, we have the National Endowment for the Arts. We all must subsidize recreational activities of others. Whether they want to listen to Rock music or take pictures of their wee-wees, we have to pay for it.
There IS a loud call for cutting back our spending and programs at the state level. However, it's no surprise that most love this concept only when it's not a program that benefits them. It's no surprise that Democrats dominate the political scene given their 'generosity' to everyone with everyone else's stuff. George Bernard Shaw says it best: "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on Paul's support."Many such programs corrupt our politics by making it a contest for who gets to feed at the public trough. Moreover, they do not promote the common welfare or the public good. Rather, they promote the good of some people at the expense of other people.
Now I'm not saying the government isn't important nor should it have little responsibility. We need the government to protect us, put police on the streets, build highways and check the environment. After all, If they didn't, companies would pollute like crazy. Government should also support basic research, patent protections as well as basic education and health care services. There's NO shame in supporting government so long as it's actions rest within it's legitimate sphere. Government can and should be a good thing.
But again, we need to realize that whatever it is the government DOES, it usually does a pretty poor job of DOING. Now I'm not saying people who work in the public sector are idiots. They're most definitely not. But there are simply no real standards. There aren't. Don't let silly legislative 'accountability' bills fool you. Imagine if you worked in an organization that you didn't own, and you were only accountable to yourself for all of your actions. You see, in government, there isn't a 'bottom line' so to speak. There's no real criteria to determine whether or not the bike helmet program is working or not. With change over in administrations at least every four years, there isn't much in the way of consistency. Bills change, political leanings change, staff turnover is huge, etc. In fact, there probably aren't many who really know what the real roles of their departments or agencies are. A few years ago a guy who worked in the Education Department in Springfield asked "How can you say our public schools are failing? A lot of people work here." By his standard, government was doing its job by employing people. He's not an idiot, but certainly misguided in his assumption that Education should just be a incubator for employment.
We Republicans and conservatives know that government, especially here in Massachusetts, continues to do stuff that is A.) Not needed or B.) can be done a lot better by someone else. Look at the big dig. To be fair, liberals are starting to get it, but even at that, they're not learning fast enough. Decades of urban legends (or political legends in this case) have institutionalized themselves in the state. It was believed that Government must run lighthouses, because you know, if they didn't, who would? At a federal level, people think the government should deliver the mail, because if they didn't, no one else would. Prisons are an absolute government responsibility, but they don't operate most efficiently unless they're under government control. In the worst myth of them all, It's widely believed that without public schools, thousands of kids in this state would receive no education at all. These are random issues I know, but all have been proven to be demonstrably false in recent times.
If you truck around the north and south shores, you'll find a ton of lighthouses that are privately owned. There's tons of them in Connecticut and Rhode Island, too. Prisons regularly contract out services to private contractors, and some are even entirely run by private companies. There's zero logic behind the claim that private markets couldn't provide education services through high school. The government's role could be limited to providing assistance to those who would otherwise not be able to afford those services and extending opportunities to our best and brightest. Oh yeah, remember that postal service. Two words: Federal Express.
Here in Springfield especially, but all over the state as well, many folks think big government is a check on the scary big business. Frankly, we're petrified of anything that isn't somewhat subsidized by the federal government. To an extent, the kids scared, hiding under their blankets are a little right. Thank god for the government when Enron hit. However though, there really isn't a check at all between Government and Big Business, or at least one that is proportional in any way shape, or form. How can I say this? Well, because big business' power over the average citizen of the commonwealth, or any American citizen for that matter, is very limited. To sell stock shares and products, these entities must PERSUADE investors and customers to buy them. It's the power of coercion. They must win consent before taking someones money. The government doesn't.
This is, in the end, the fundamental difference between business and government. For example, you cannot simply opt out of Social Security. You are required to pay it, no matter what. If I was to tell the tax collectors; "Hey guys, thanks for the help and all, but I don't think I really need this and to be honest, I don't really want to. In fact I'll take myself off the roles to help you guys save a few bucks to help someone else who needs it. I really appreciate your gesture, but thanks but no thanks." The government would arrest my red haired, freckled rear end and throw me in jail. I can't say no. There is no choice. If Big Business offered me a retirement fund and I said; "Wow, this looks great, but I think there are some other options out there for me to look at," they would say 'OK' or they would try to convince or persuade me to stick with their service. If they got on my nerves enough or threatened my or my family's safety or state of being because we didn't buy into their program, I could call the cops (the government) and get rid of them. But who calls the cops on the government? Even more so, when you really think about it, even those who work at the lowest levels of government (IRS agents, the boring guy at the DMV, the immigration official, the donut mowing Police Officer) have more influence than Big Business does. And this power of coercion, which is inherent in the nature of government, fundamentally undermines the liberal claim that the government is doing a moral thing by helping people.
Finally, I wish to challenge the liberal notion that the private sector is motivated by greed, while the public sector is motivated by noble idealism. It in itself, should make the case for more Republicans and fewer Democrats in the state legislature. I've enough experience in government to drum up this scenario for you. You're at a meeting with a mayor, governor, or if it's me, likely the President, because I'm the man. It involves, because I live at a college, a drug policy (This'll show these kids). The good old folks at the Department of Defense say the problem is because drugs are being produced in Columbia. They have a $20 billion program to destroy the crops. Yay, things that go boom rule. Health and Human Services are out there too though, and they say the problem of drugs was a problem of treatment, and they have a $40 billion program to help treat more addicts. Maybe all I need is a hug. The Education Department doesn't want to be left out though, so they come up with their definition of the problem as well as their solution. They are convinced that the real solution to drugs is education and they think we should take on a multi-year initiative to raise the consciousness of American tax payers that costs $30 billion. If the teacher's hot, I'm there! I know, I'm funny, however, here's where I make my point:
Regardless of the merit of their arguments, they aren't any less motivated by their own interests (see Self.) than anyone in the private sector. The only real difference was that their interests aren't translated in coins and cash (see Money). Their currency is a little different. Fundamentally, they were after power and influence instead of money.
Although it's pretty much true that a lot of the welfare state mentality in Massachusetts is losing it's grip... I think..., the state government in Massachusetts (and the federal government, too) is too damn big. Our duty is to limit it's size and like a good coach or teacher, keep it focused on what it's supposed to be doing. When the state exceeds its proper functions, when it moves outside its sphere, it invades the domain of the citizens, depriving us of both freedom and the responsibility that comes along with it.
Though we've made small baby steps here and there in these regards, it's simply not enough. In order to insure this kind of existence and oversight, we need more Republicans in the state legislature and more importantly, more Republicans/Conservatives in the state, period. We need to get back to basics and make the case as to why we're important. The point we need to make to the massive amounts of independents and conservative Democrats in the state isn't just why or how we will remain viable. The case we need to make is why the people of this commonwealth need us to be viable. Until we do this, we will continue to wallow in the state of entitlement, high taxes, little growth and government intervention. With all that said, Go out and make the case, kids.
No comments:
Post a Comment