More Contradictions from the Party of Less Government-finally someone spells this out

[EV_Ares]

All hell is breaking loose on Wall Street, and one of the more subtle things the crisis has exposed is a growing ideological rift in the Republican Party that's starting to border on intellectual incoherence.

Wanting It Both Ways

The traditional small government, "hands off" wing has always argued for minimal regulation and healthy dollops of personal responsibility. This line of thinking suggests that the appropriate response to the Lehman collapse is for investors and executives to exercise more caution in the future. That's how markets work.

Yet there's now a competing populist strand of the party that seeks to protect the "little guy" against greed and incompetence. John McCain was quoted in the New York Times earlier this week as saying that our economy has been put at risk "because of the greed by some based in Wall Street and we have got to fix it."

The problem is that you can't simultaneously embrace markets and personal responsibility and then, when those markets have a car wreck, argue that it's the government's job to protect us against rapacious Wall Street traders.

Fault Lines Exposed

This is just a tiny example of a phenomenon that's been developing through the Bush presidency and into this campaign. Do you remember Sarah Palin's rousing convention speech? Forget the "First Dude," the hockey mom thing, the eyeglasses, and even whether she did or did not support the "Bridge to Nowhere."

Instead, just pay attention to what she said and what it means for the growing contradictions within the GOP. For those who were paying attention, Palin raised two issues that should have exposed the fault lines that will eventually consume her party.

First, do Republicans favor small government, or do they think that government should provide more assistance for families with children who have special needs? Because you can't have it both ways.

A Dual-Sided Speech

In her critique of Barack Obama, Palin told the adoring crowd, "Government is too big ... wants to grow it." That's a legitimate point. And it's consistent with Ronald Reagan's famous assertion that the nine most dangerous words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

The Republicans are supposed to stand for less government -- lower taxes, less regulation, and, as a result, more personal responsibility and self-reliance. That's one of the most important and defensible tenets of the party.

But wait! Was that the same ostensible conservative telling the audience, "To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House."

Whose Special Needs?

rest of the article @ the link: http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/economist/108425

[Eric J in MN]

1. During the Reagan years, people asked how can he favor small government...

...while wanting to outlaw abortion.

The Republican claim of believing in small government has been dubious for a long time.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Absolutely!

The GOP has always been for smaller government when that having to pay out money to help the little guy. They were always FOR government that helped the fat cats. And, as you say, the repukes have always been interested in what is going on in the bedrooms of all Americans.

[Waiting For Everyman]

3. Yes it IS illogical.

small government=privatization
privatization=no oversight

Government gets BIGGER under Repubs, they are the tax and spenders. Case in point - Homeland Security, and whatever seems to shrink in fact goes into privatized subcontracting where it's not counted as government but exists just the same - it's government paid costs - going into private pockets (theirs). There's no such thing as 'small' government anymore.

It's smaller and more regulated by Dem philosophy. And more people have JOBS. Did you know that the states and the Feds both not only OUTSOURCE but OFFSHORE government jobs - not the privatized jobs, but jobs that are still part of the government structure? Many states' Food Stamp call-in centers are in India!!! At least tax-paid services could be done by Americans!!! If we aren't guaranted at least those jobs, what CAN we count on? That's just wrong!

It's all doubletalk which means money from little people (under-market wages and taxes) goes to ultra-rich people. There is already redistribution of wealth - to the top. It's only right that a large percentage of that should come back in taxes on it, to be used for the common good. Otherwise we fold, as we just did. The bottom is being bled to death to make the rich richer.

There are big taxes and big spending under both. It's only a question of will the bottom or the top be taxed? And will the government be openly visible or not?

Also - more jobs are created by money at the bottom half of the scale. When the middle class has a few extra dollars THEY create new small businesses, which amounts to more jobs than what big corporation create. The "capital" needs to be where it'll be used for that, and not at the top where it's used to start wars and economic blight.