Liberal dogma corrupts many principles of GOP

Latchem is a third-year political science student.

By Scott Latchem

The Feb. 12 Viewpoint submission, “Upcoming election
chance to oust GOP,” by Nathan Gonzales, is crammed with more
party-line liberal dogma than the latest Gray Davis commercial. It
is filled with baseless accusations and no real facts.

Only one party was responsible for the longest peacetime
expansion in our history, ending slavery, and passing the first
civil rights legislation. Only one party works toward fulfilling
the original promise of this nation: establishing a
“government which governs least.”

These principles have not been abandoned by the Republican
party. They have simply been corrupted by the Democrats, who are
more interested in selling out their constituents for four more
years.

The Republicans who won control of Congress in the early
’90s have a great record to show for it. It was this Congress
that was responsible for continuing the longest economic expansion
in history, which started not under Clinton, but under the first
George Bush. And you can thank Reagan’s deregulation for
opening up the market to new ideas and technologies upon which the
’90s economic boom was based.

Reducing the number of federal employees isn’t the gauge
of a smaller government. Spending is. And that spending
increased under the Clinton regime. It took money out of the
pockets of innovators, and put it into the greedy hands of
bureaucrats. There isn’t a social program out there that
couldn’t be better handled by private industry. Smaller
government is the intelligent choice, because it gives the people
more choice.

Attempts to streamline or eliminate bloated and, in some cases,
ineffective federal agencies continue the trend. So it goes with
lowering taxes.

Lowering taxes is an attempt to save money and return it to the
people who actually earn it, so they can better live their own
lives. Maybe Gonzales doesn’t think he has the ability to
take care of his own life, but why does he think he has the right
to dictate how I live mine?

It’s called capitalism, people, and it works. Well, it
works when we let it work. It’s not greedy for a government
to want households to have more of their money back. These are
just the type of accusations that overlook what actually happens.
Time and time again, tax cuts have been shown to help the
economy.

And let’s just dismiss this asinine notion that tax cuts
are always slanted to help the rich. First off, the
“rich” are taxed more than anybody. Hardly seems fair
since most of them are the entrepreneurs upon which the strengths
of this nation are based. If they get more, it’s because they
pay more to begin with.

This is the dictionary definition of fairness. It’s a lot
more fair than, say, taking half the money from a hard worker, and
giving it to a lazy person or a bureaucrat who refuses to work at
all.

But perhaps Gonzales isn’t familiar with these common
sense facts about lowering taxes. Tax cuts will help this economy
if President Bush is given the chance to pass his stimulus package,
and cut funding in places that don’t need federal
funding.

By voting for Republicans, you aren’t voting for a party
that is against a woman’s right to choose, as much as it is
against the federal government deciding that right. It is not a
party against campaign finance reform, but for defending the rights
of free speech.

When Gonzales refers to “Clinton’s free trade
policies,” is he referring to the North Atlantic Fair Trade
Agreement, which was negotiated by the previous Bush?

Why doesn’t Gonzales talk about the “Clinton
terrorist-enabling policies?” Clinton demoralized our
military and put us in the state we are in today.

A few years back, when Osama bin Laden was living in Yemen, the
Yemen government offered to help the Clinton administration fight
terrorism and capture the head of Al-Qaeda.

The Democratic administration declined, and bin Laden escaped to
Afghanistan and the protection of the Taliban.

Ask yourself, what’s more important? Eating a lunch you
didn’t pay for because you don’t work for it yourself,
or living in a nation that allows you to think for yourself, work
hard and make your own way?

What’s more important? Figuring out how to bilk more money
from taxpayers, or simply living because our military is strong
enough to protect us from those who would rob us of our freedoms,
or our lives?

Gonzales seems to be hoping to cause an emotional uproar among
our student population, through the use of political buzz words and
standard propaganda.

Unfortunately, he may be preaching to the choir.

Whatever happened to teaching people to think for themselves?
Does nobody read the Declaration of Independence or the
Constitution for themselves anymore?

I was looking through my copy of the Constitution the other day.
Did you know that the founding fathers didn’t believe the
common masses had the sophistication or intelligence to be able to
choose a president or senator?

After reading Gonzales’ diatribe and considering the
points of view many other liberals share, I now wonder if perhaps
our founding fathers were wise beyond their years.