It Takes Two to Tango

The big story is the fraud among Somalis in Minnesota.  There are countless daycare and health centers that have received millions to billions in government funding, yet they are shown to provide no services.  Clearly, this is bad.  Obviously, the Somalis receiving the money are aware that they are skirting the rules of the program.  Absolutely, they should be prosecuted and/or deported.  However, there is another facet to this.  Who approved all of these daycares and health centers?  Though the saying goes not to blame malice when incompetence could be to blame, that doesn't hold water here.  It's too big.  This level of incompetence is too obvious to continue long term.  Indeed, if some random YouTuber was able to uncover massive fraud in a couple of days, how did the agencies overseeing these programs not notice?  Some of those overseers need to be prosecuted too, if only to encourage other overseers to do the job.

On a related issue, many of these bogus daycares and health centers made political donations to... Democrats.  Huh.  Probably not a quid pro quo, right?  Blame aside, this is why government should be as limited as possible.  Larger government inevitably leads to greater corruption and waste.

Defund NPR & PBS

There is no shortage of media in the United States today.  When I was a kid, there were 7 TV channels and PBS.  That was a lot.  I remember visiting my grandparents and they only had 4 channels.  In those days, you could argue that the government should subsidize some programming that would not be aired on the limited stations.  That is not true now.  We have a glut of programming on a vast array of topics.  Niche programming abounds.  If you can't find your thing on TV, the internet - YouTube, Hulu, Rumble, and so on will have it.  Government-funded media was always questionable and is now just wasteful.  Any programming that has a sufficient audience will find private media to air it.  There is no reason for the American taxpayer to subsidize programming for anyone.

Department of Cost Cutting?

Trump has talked about utilizing Elon Musk as a government efficiency expert.  Musk himself has posted about a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which neatly aligns with a cryptocurrency that is associated with him.  Clever.  The new idea from Trump was a Secretary of Cost Cutting.  Much as I want government spending trimmed, a new department is not the way to do it.  The department might work worders for an administration or two, but it would soon suffer the fate of all government agencies: a desire to grow.  Soon, the trick of cost cutting would match the current definition.

Today, government cuts are made to the rate of growth.  So, if the Department of Superfluous Spending had a budget of $20 million this year and was projected to get a 10% increase, the Department of Cost Cutting could announce a $1 million cut so that the budget for next year is only $21 million.  Yes, all those budget cuts through the years have been of this sort.  The DOGE would adopt this strategy within a decade and become a useless waste of taxpayer money, like most government agencies.

Even if Elon does a miraculous job, it will only be a brief pause in the ever-expanding government.  Congressional action is required to shrink government.  Departments must be eliminated, not merely partially defunded.  Funds will just pour back in down the line.  Follow Argentina's Milei and slash government agencies.

I Agree with Jimmy Dore?

Though I rarely find myself agreeing with Jimmy Dore, he makes a great point here:

We should not be surprised that the government that infected black men with syphilis and then didn't treat them to see what happened (Tuskegee Syphilis Study) would also experiment on its citizens with an untried 'vaccine' to protect them from an illness that was mostly harmless to anyone under the age of 60.

Distrust of the government is why we were supposed to have a limited government.  The government long ago broke free of those limits and has become, in many ways, tyrannical.  Where is the American version of Javier Milei?  Our government is desperately in need of pruning with a chainsaw.

The Argentine Surplus

Javier Milei assumed office in December and immediately sliced and diced the government.  As promised in his campaign, he took a chainsaw to the government budget and reduced costs.  Only three months later, Argentina is running a surplus!  Hey, let's try that here!  Government spends too much and does too much.  Just as Lewis and Clark blazed a trail westward that others soon followed, Milei has carved out a path to smaller government.  Let's follow that trail!

The government that governs least governs best.

Thomas Jefferson

Nothing from Government is "Free"

Found on X (formerly Twitter):

Javier Milei just passed the most sensible law in world history - known as Articulo 209.

From now on, governmental institutions can no longer use the word "free" to promote any state service or function in municipal provinces or on a national level.

Milei considers the use of the word “free” a lie and feels citizens shouldn’t be lied to since the services always paid by someone, typically tax dollars.

This is spectacular!  Such a simple change.  Really, it's truth in advertising.  Let's bring that rule to the US!

The Incredible Shrinking Government

Javier Milei has been sworn in as the new president of Argentina.  His first act?  Reduce the 20 government ministries to 8!  No, he hasn't done away with Education, but rather transferred its functions to the new Ministry of Human Capital.  Human Capital also took on the portfolios of Labor, Culture, Social Development, and Women, Gender, & Diversity.  Look at that!  5 ministries consolidated into 1.  Imagine the streamlining!  Can he come to the United States next?  If we got rid of many of these pointless departments, we could balance the budget in a snap.

Though I like Milei's ideas, it remains to be seen if they will work.  I cannot recall a government that rapidly reduced its size and cost.  How will that work?  A president who attacks the government might find himself targeted by the government in return.  Sounds like Donald Trump.  Unlike Trump, Milei has the benefit of attacking an entirely discredited government that had a 100% inflation rate.  That is why he was elected and he has a mandate for dramatic change.  I'm eager to see the results.

Government-Approved Censorship

In the modern view of the word, censorship can only be practiced by government.  If Time Magazine refused to publish a particular article, that isn't censorship, it's an editorial decision.  The owners of the magazine are not obligated to publish all submissions, nor could they as there are only so many pages available.  However, if the magazine did choose to publish an article and the FBI showed up to get it removed from the magazine, that would be a clear case of censorship.

In this digital age, magazines are being supplanted by websites, articles replaced by podcasts, TV news is being challenged by online news channels.  The interesting thing about these new platforms compared to the old ones is space limitations.  Where there were only so many pages in the newspaper or a magazine, the size online is virtually limitless.  Only so many frequencies for radio or channels on TV?  Again, essentially limitless with the internet.  With capacity no longer a factor, the editorial decisions are more likely to be questioned.  Nonetheless, if Facebook decides that certain people can't use its site, it is a private platform.  Right?  How does that work for brick & mortar businesses that want to exclude people?  A lot less 'editorial' decision there.

With regard to Joe Rogan, would it be censorship if Spotify acquiesced to demands by Neil Young to take down his podcast?  It is a private platform.  Spotify can choose who is on the site and who isn't.  Nothing censorious about that.  However, what if the government announced a preference?  Even if it doesn't send the FBI, government preferences are often enough to nudge business to adopt the preference.  Does the government have a preference regarding Joe Rogan?  Let's see what Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, said recently when replying to a question on the topic:

“Sure. Well, last July, as you probably know, but the surgeon general also took the unprecedented step to issue an adviser on the risk of misinformation and public health, which is a very significant step and admitted that he talked about the role social media platforms have. So our hope is that all major tech platforms and all major news sources for that matter be responsible and be vigilant to ensure the American people have access to accurate information on something as significant as Covid-19. That certainly includes Spotify. So this disclaimer, it’s a positive step, but we want every platform to continue doing more to call out misinformation while also uplifting accurate information. I mean look at the facts right?”

Spotify has taken the step of putting disclaimers on some of Rogan's videos, but the White House is encouraging "every platform to continue doing more..."  Sure, those disclaimers are nice and all, but we think you should be doing more.  If platforms take down content after being encouraged by government, would that qualify as censorship?  I think it would.

Clueless FBI

Bureaucrats from the FBI were questioned by the Senate today.  The topic of discussion was the January 6th 'Insurrection' at the Capitol.  When asked about Ray Epps, who has been trending in the news of late, neither had any idea about him.  Really?  Senator Cotton asked if they had prepared for the hearing.  Clearly, Ray Epps should be a person of interest that would have been covered in background for anyone sent to testify about the event.  Nope.  When asked if Ray Epps was a Fed, they didn't know.  Not a yes, not a no.  Don't know.  Did the FBI have people in the crowd on January 6th?  Did any of them commit crimes or incite violence.  Can't say.  Not a denial, but a plead of ignorance.

The FBI has ceased to be a law enforcement agency and become a political one.  It gladly jumped on the Steele Dossier, using it to get wiretaps on Trump associates.  However, Hilary's offsite server was brushed aside and everyone connected to it was granted immunity.  Hunter Biden's laptop was 'Russian disinformation' until after the election, when it turned out it was really his laptop.  When Obama was president, the FBI had it out for Trump and covered for Hilary.  When Trump was president, the FBI had it out for Trump and covered for Biden.  Huh.

By its nature, government officials are overwhelmingly pro-government.  The Democrats are far more pro-government than Republicans.  It is thus no surprise that government agencies tend to side with the party that is pro-government and eager to allocate more money and power to government agencies.  In a country almost evenly split between the parties, the seat of government - Washington DC - votes 90% for Democrats.  They are all feeding at the government trough and vote for their interests.

Abusive Relationships

I saw this posted on Instapundit today: 15 Signs of an abusive relationship.  Let's check them out!

1. Stop you from seeing friends and family.  Yes, state and local government have been putting a lot of effort into this one.

2. Won't let you go out without permission.  This one has been worse in some places.  California sent police to arrest a man who was surfing at a deserted beach.

3. Tell you what to wear.  Yes, masks are the new government-mandated fashion accessory.

4. Monitor you phone or emails.  Well, this one is an old one as we learned thanks to Edward Snowden.  That abuse is old hat.

5. Control the finances or won't let you work.  Ha!  That unemployment rate sure did skyrocket.  In some states, the refusal to allow businesses to open persists.  Some states are more abusive than others.

6. Control what you read, watch and say.  As with the infamous rendition regarding terrorists, the government has outsourced this one to the 'private' sector.  First it was Alex Jones, then Milo Yiannopoulos, and now the sitting president.  Even competitors to the government sanctioned monopolies have been banned (i.e. Parler).  Say the wrong thing and you get canceled.  YouTube channels with the wrong views have been removed.  

7. Monitor everything you do.  If you have a cell phone, the government or their 'private' lieutenants know where you are and probably what you are doing.

8. Punish you for breaking the rules, but the rules keep changing.  All last year, it was fine to riot and government crackdowns were stomping on 'mostly peaceful protests.'  Now riots are sedition and government crackdowns mandatory.

9. Tell you it is for your own good, and that they know better.  The government is locking us up for our own safety.  Really, we're too irresponsible to make an informed decision.

10. Don't allow you to question it.  You know, the recent election seemed a little fishy.  When Hillary complained about Russian interference, we had a 2 year investigation.  How about...  Hello?  Huh, the line went dead.  Huh, I just got banned from Twitter.  That's odd.

11. Tell you you're crazy and no one agrees with you.  Yeah, if you don't agree with the mainstream narrative, you're some sort of loon.  See, there is only one way of seeing things and alternate viewpoints are just a sign of insanity.

12. Call you names or shame you for being stupid or selfish.  Yes, the fun arguments where one person says a country needs borders and the other person says 'racist!'  Hey, the US government should consider the interests of American citizens before foreign citizens.  'Fascist!'  Good times.

13. Gaslight you, challenge your memory of events, make you doubt yourself.  Just look at how many people believe things that didn't happen.  Drink bleach?  Never happened.  Nazis are fine people?  Never happened.  Russian collusion?  Never happened.  Nonetheless, half the population believes them.

14. Dismiss your opinions.  If only it was merely dismissing.  Banning is the current tactic.  There are calls to blacklist people with the wrong opinions.

15. Play the victim.  If things go wrong, it's all your fault.  I've talked about this one before.  If the government shuts down when a Republican is president and Democrats control Congress, it is the president's fault.  However, if a Democrat is president and the Republicans control Congress, then it would be the Congress's fault.  And the Democrats are always victim of Republican partisanship.  At least, that's how the press reliably reports it.

Stop the abuse!

Ignorant by Design

According to this survey, Americans are clueless about the 1st Amendment and the three branches of the government.  Virtually the first things you learn about the federal government in even the most basic civics class and near 40% are unaware.  This is intentional.  The education system is run by government, for government.  Government, especially one that craves money and power, will benefit if the citizens don't know when government is overstepping.  Government is spending more money on education than ever and yet the level of ignorance is jaw-dropping.  That is not an accident.

 

Abolish public education and watch ignorance evaporate.  When parents are given back their tax dollars and get to pick from among competing schools, schools will rapidly improve.  Imagine a Yelp for schools in which hundreds of parents or older students offer reviews.  Mobile phones haven't seen astonishing improvement because of an overarching government agency and schools won't either.  Let's use the iPhone/Android competition model to improve our schools rather than the one-size-fits-all government model that has achieved decades of mediocrity.

Republican Suicide

After years of promises to repeal Obamacare, cut taxes, and get the fiscal house in order, the Republicans are reneging on all of it.  With Democrats having no levers to prevent Republicans from doing just about anything they want, there are no excuses for not enacting at least some of their long-stated agenda.  Whether they like Trump or not (they don't), they can still make common cause with him on those items where they agree.  Nope.  Years of false promises - lies - have been exposed for all the voters to see.  The Republicans no more want to reduce government than do the Democrats.  It is just too much fun spending other people's money and tell them how to live their lives.  Power has corrupted.

Minimum Wage on Steroids

Maybe we should just go to a $150/hour minimum wage with no phase-in period and let the Fed figure out how to make it work.

 

You'd have a big burst of inflation, nobody would lose their jobs, a lot of old debts would be wiped out, and we'd be better off for it.

Matthew Yglesias, Twitter

This may just be a thought experiment or a way of demonstrating the general folly of the minimum wage.  Many respondents took this seriously and Yglesias may mean it seriously.  I hope not.  But, for the sake of discussion, let's suppose the government set the minimum wage to $150/hour, effective immediately.  How would that work?

Bob owns a McDonald's franchise where his labor cost is $8,000 a week.  That covers part-time and full-time employees who average out to $10/hour.  Tomorrow, his labor cost will rocket to $17,142.86 for that day.  He will need $120,000 for the week.  Bob's entire cost structure has been thrown into chaos.  No problem.  Bob has kept $120,000 in reserve in case of emergencies and he uses it to pay labor costs for the week.  He raises his prices to reflect the 15 fold increase in his labor costs.  The Dollar Menu is now called the $15 Menu.  During that week, Bob has virtually no business.  In fact, by the second day, he has sent all the employees home since business is so slow.  That afternoon, the delivery truck with the bags of fries, meat patties, paper cups, straws, and all the rest shows up.  Rather than thus usual $5,000 invoice he gets, this one has a $75,000 invoice; costs have skyrocketed for his supplier as well.  Bob refuses the shipment, just like the last 5 McDonald's franchise owners refused theirs.  This same scenario is playing out across the country as the economy grinds to a halt.  After all, every full-time worker is now earning $300,000 per year.

 

A couple of weeks later, the Fed has flooded trillions of dollars into the economy.  The value of the dollar crashes, now worth about what a dime was worth before the minimum wage increase.  People who were holding cash take a big financial hit.  Banks suffer a huge hit as borrowers pay off loans with deflated dollars, thus wiping out the 'old debts' as predicted.  Gold goes through the roof.  Debtors and those holding assets that appreciate would benefit.  Lenders and those holding dollars would suffer greatly.

 

Yglesias has offered an extreme example of raising the minimum wage that demonstrates the destructive power of government setting arbitrary price floors without consideration of the ripple effects of those decisions.  The $150/hour minimum wage would obviously be catastrophically bad but what about the $15/hour minimum wage?  It generates the same negatives just to a much lesser degree.

 

It should be noted that the minimum wage was created with the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931.  It was passed because blacks from the South were migrating north and working for lower wages than white workers.  Even racists want to save money.  With the minimum wage set, the racists couldn't save money by hiring blacks and thus just hired whites.

Generational Attitudes toward Government

On a recent EconTalk, Russ Roberts interviewed Tyler Cowan.  Cowan's latest book is The Complacent Class: The Self-Defeating Quest for the American Dream.  He posits that a slow down in social change, a diminishing mobility, and a growing aversion to risk is causing the US to become less innovative and productive.  It is a really fascinating discussion and recommended.

 

What really got me thinking was a comment he made about how Millennials have a very different cultural view of government:

 

So, whereas I grew up with the space program, which put a man on the moon, maybe they grew up with the second Iraq War or the Financial Crisis.

 

This is a significant observation that deserves deeper consideration.  The government won praise for its successes and was trusted with more tasks based on those successes.  However, a string of failures is what has followed and yet the government wants to be trusted to do even more.  It cannot accomplish the basic tasks of government (e.g. maintain the borders, balance the budget, win wars, etc.) but still wants more money and authority to do even more.  Where are the great successes to justify more responsibility?  Republicans blame Democrats, Democrats blame Republicans but the end result is continued failures and poor governance which is always explained away by intransigence by the other party.  BS!  Based on performance, the scope of the federal government should be severely curtailed.

 

The greatest success of the Obama years was his neglect of NASA.  At first, I was aghast even though the dynamism of NASA from the 1960s has ossified into a bureaucracy that hasn't been able to put an astronaut in space since 2011.  But I didn't see other options.  Then SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and Blue Origin started launching rockets and developing new technologies.  Spacecraft haven't been this exciting since the Apollo Program.  More of government would benefit from the NASA treatment.

Ignorant by Design

George Korda has an article where he discusses the basic historical knowledge of American students, offering some data on middle school students to college seniors.  The results are terrible.  Here is an excerpt:

In 2000, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that seniors from America’s colleges and universities were graduating with, "alarming ignorance of their heritage and a profound historical illiteracy…four out of five—81%—of seniors recently surveyed from the top 55 colleges and universities in the United States received a grade of D or F on history questions drawn from a basic high school curriculum…Seniors could not identify Valley Forge, words from the Gettysburg Address, or even the basic principles of the U.S. Constitution.

Korda goes on to say that people ignorant of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and such are much less likely to squawk if the principals therein are not observed.

This ignorance is no mistake.  It is intentional.  Most schools are run by governments.  Governments prefer docile and obedient peasants.  It makes exercising power so much easier when the people nod numbly rather than fighting a tyrannical government.  Governments are making moves against homeschoolers because it both threatens a state client - teachers unions - and a state interest - students inculcated with state-supported ideology.  Look at how many young people are in favor of Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist.  A government-funded school is unlikely to teach students about the immense distrust that the Founders felt toward government.

 

Is this a conspiracy?  No.  This is the invisible hand of the market, much like Adam Smith explained.  Politicians, bureaucrats, and government employees who run and populate the school systems innately know that they should not produce citizens who are inclined to oppose those very politicians, bureaucrats, and government employees.  Instead we have seen a gradual embrace of more and more government control.

 

1913 Income Tax

1935 Social Security

1935 Welfare

1938 Minimum Wage

1946 School Lunch Program

1964 Food Stamp Act

1965 Medicare

1967 State-run Media (Corporation for Public Broadcasting)

2003 Medicare Drug Benefit

2010 National Healthcare (Affordable Care Act)

 

These are only some highlights.  It would require a very long list to mention all the ways government has taken over aspects of life that were once the responsibility of the individual or the family.  The process will not end until the government controls everything.  The uninformed graduates of government schools are all in favor of this, unaware that it contradicts the founding principles of the nation.

National Default

I am stunned by how many noted economist are reporting that a failure to raise the debt ceiling equals default on the debt.  Somehow, not incurring additional debt equals defaulting on the existing debt.  How does that work?  With the money coming in, the government can easily pay the interest on the $16 trillion debt, send out Social Security checks, pay Medicare, and maintain pensions.  Those would be the debts.  Everything else is just spending that can be cut without risk of default.

 

Stranger still, I read one fellow who said he was opposed to using the debt ceiling as a route to cut spending but was okay with the idea of shutting down the government to put a brake on spending.  Doesn't a failure to raise the debt ceiling do exactly that?  It will cause the government to shutdown all 'non-essential' functions so that it runs on incoming cash rather than the Credit Card of China.  The reason everyone uses 'default' is to instill panic in the populace so that the spending can go on and on.  The spending will stop eventually, on terms we won't like.  Better to stop it now while we still have some hope of digging out of the hole.

 

On a related point, big government tends to slow growth.  Our best hope in recovering is a high growth rate which is becoming more and more out of our reach as government expands.  Look at Europe: massive governments and sluggish economies.  Why go down that path?

Government Involvement is Bad for Business

I said, I believe in American workers, I believe in this American industry, and now the American auto industry has come roaring back.  Now I want to do the same thing with manufacturing jobs, not just in the auto industry, but in every industry.

Barack Obama

Obama said this with the belief that he saved the auto industry.  But at what cost?  The federal government wrote a check for just shy of $80 billion.  Of that, only $35 billion has been repaid and $7 billion was written off as a loss.  GM stock has lost a third of its value since the special bankruptcy, putting it at just over $20 a share.  For taxpayers to breakeven, that needs to reach $51 a share.  The Volt, Obama's car of the future, has a sales record like the Edsel despite a $7,500 government subsidy for those who buy it.  Though GM posted a profit last year, it paid negative taxes thanks to a special tax break, courtesy of the US government.  The 'success' of the US auto industry is being financed by the taxpayer, not the car buyer.  However, since the bottom has not yet fallen out, it is being proclaimed as a success but the market knows better (i.e. the stock price is falling).  By comparison, Ford (which didn't get a bailout) had $8.8 billion in profits in 2011.

Rather than seek to aid private companies with federal bailouts at taxpayer expense, maybe the President could work on the US Postal Service which has so far lost $11.6 billion this year.  Or maybe he could look into Amtrak food service which is somehow losing $80 million a year despite selling soda for $2 and hamburgers for $9.50.  Or perhaps he could look at that trillion dollar a year deficit.  All of these are legitimately within his purview.

Government is ill-suited to running a business because it has no interest in the bottom line.  Everywhere that government has sought to run business, shortages are common, poor quality is typical, and taxpayer bailouts inevitable.  Without profit motive, cost containment goes out the window.  Without competition, quality falls.  If government was capable of running an efficient business, Europe would not be in such financial trouble, the Soviet Union would still be a going concern, and Cuba would be overrun with immigrants seeking the good life.

Government does not Invest

President Obama just loves to invest your money. He has invested your money in green energy (Solyndra). He has invested in GM & Chrysler. He has invested in infrastructure. He wants to invest more in education. If half of these investments pay off, maybe the government will be able to support itself through the returns rather than by taxing us. No? We'll still get taxed? He even wants to raise taxes on the best investors (e.g. Warren Buffet). If he needs more money despite his investments, it doesn't sound like he's making good investments. Perhaps he has a different definition of investment.

It turns out that spending is a very unpopular term when used by politians. Much as the word liberal has become an epithet and thus been replaced by progressive, investment has taken the place of spending. This is just a word game. When I invest my money, I expect to see a return. I want to get the pricipal back and a tidy return as well. When government invests, it has no expectation of seeing that principal again. That's spent money, never to be seen again. Nor does the government expect any return except for a nebulous and undefinable improvement in the economy. Even that is just a cover story. The real expectation is that the voters who got the money will re-elect the politicians who gave it to them. That's more like bribery. It is certainly not an investment as most would use the term.

When President Obama uses the word investment, it sounds more responsible and prudent than if he used the word spend. President Obama really is just spending your money - at an alarming rate - but it is much more reassuring when he tells you it's an investment.

Let the Market Decide

Spirit Airline has recently stated that it intends to charge for carry-on luggage, namely items that would be placed in overhead bins. Those items that could be stuffed under a seat (such as a purse or briefcase) would incur no charge. The thinking is that it will expedite loading and unloading of the plane, since fewer people will use the overhead bins. Is this a good idea? I don't know. However, if the policy was put in practice for a few months, Spirit could soon discover whether passengers are driven from the airline on account of the fee or drawn to it for the quick boarding and unboarding process. Ticket receipts will tell the tale.

However, the government just can't allow this. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) was incensed that the airline would dare to charge such a fee and that perhaps some legislation was needed to prevent airlines from trying to run their business in a way upsetting to Senator Schumer. At what point does a company cease to be private and merely become a pawn of government regulation? Let the company do as it will. It isn't as if Spirit is the only airline. Another airline could have a great ad campaign: "We don't charge fees for carry on luggage like some airlines." The problem will resolve itself without government intervention. But if government threatens regulation, Spirit might abandon its experiment and we'll never know if that might have been popular with many passengers.

Republicans Suck Too

Many think that since I disapprove of Obama, I must have loved Bush. The answer is a very emphatic no. Bush was, in many ways, a disaster. Whereas Bill Clinton announced that the 'era of big government is over,' Bush reversed course by expanding it again. There was No Child Left Behind, the Medical Drug Benefit, and uncontrolled spending that he allowed by shelving his veto pen for years. He signed McCain-Feingold! Bush was never a conservative. He, like so many before him, believed that charity was an appropriate function of government. Bush reversed the Republican success of 1994 with his 'compassionate conservative' view. The same Congress that had managed to balance the budget during the Clinton administration suddenly became a bunch of drunken sailors when Bush took over. Was that coincidence? I think not.

Even where Bush was good, it was a mixed bag. His foreign policy was an improvement over Clinton but he got entangled in nation building and couldn't clarify who we were fighting. Both of these remain problems today. We never set out to win the 'hearts and minds' of Germany or Japan, where we achieved clear victories. Hearts and minds is a strategy of the Cold War; escalation must be avoided lest it lead to nukes. That has not been an issue for two decades and yet we are still working on the hearts and mind strategy. Bush cut taxes - which is almost always good - but increased spending. He approved TARP and bailed out the car companies, paving the way for Obama's auto industry takeover and the $800 billion stimulus. He engaged in protectionism, albeit briefly.

We have a big government party; it is called the Democratic Party. They do an excellent job of being the big government party. There is no need to compete with them on that. Nonetheless, Bush seemed to think we needed another big government party, only one that was led by religious, rather than secular, values. Government is ill-suited to charity. Charity must be voluntary while everything government does is coercive.

I want a limited government that restricts itself to those powers outlined in the Constitution. Bush utterly failed to achieve that. However, given the option between the Big Government Party that is weak on defense and the Not Quite as Big Government Party that is somewhat better on defense, there isn't a lot of choice for those who want Small Government with strong defense.