They Want the Issue But They Have no Intention to Solve the Problem

The day after the general election on November 2nd I was speaking to one of my friends about the results of the election.  We basically were making reference to the U.S. Senate race in Kentucky where Republican candidate Rand Paul defeated Democratic candidate Jack Conway to replace the retiring Jim Bunning.  He was not satisfied with the result of the Senate race.  He was stating the reasons why he wasn't happy that Rand Paul had won that race.  As we were talking, he mentioned to me that both he and his wife cancelled each other's vote.  She voted for Rand Paul.  They both had a very heated discussion over the reason why she voted for Paul.  The reason why she voted for Paul was because of his pro-life position.  He stated that the pro-life position is an important issue, but the problem is those politicians that campaign on the abortion issue don't have any intentions on overturning Roe vs. Wade or trying to make abortion illegal.  He made a statement that rings so true and so compelling.   It's something that I've been aware of for a long time.  Here's the statement he made: They want the issue, but they don't want to solve the problem.  He hit the nail on the head. 

One of the reasons why many Americans are so disgusted with the elected elite in Washington is for the very simple reason that both political parties (Democrats and Republicans) will campaign on certain issues but they never solve the problem.  I've noticed this from paying attention to the news to some degree since the mid-80's.  I can recall as a teenager hearing on the news how the national debt had risen to the largest level ever in the history of our country.  This was during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.  The deficit had reached over $1 trillion dollars in 1985, which was unprecedented at the time.  Never had we had deficits totalling a trillion dollars from the inception of our nation's history to the mid-80's.  Many politicians on both sides of the aisle were arguing that federal spending had to be curbed and the national debt was to be reduced.  They said if we don't reduce the deficit, our nation's children and grandchildren will be paying for this debt in years to come.  As a result of the ballooning deficit, three Senators at the time by the name of Phil Gramm (R-TX), Warren Rudman (R-NH), and Ernest Hollings (D-SC) sponsored a bill entitled, "The Graham-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985."  It was to be the first binding restraint imposed on federal spending.  There were to be spending caps on the budget deficit.  Both the House and Senate passed the bill and president Ronald Reagan signed the bill on December 12, 1985.  Within the next two years there was some tweaking done on the bill before Congress enacted a re-worked version of the bill in 1987.  You would think with that bill being passed by Congress that the deficit would be reduced.  Congress ignored the law and the deficits kept growing.  Both parties made a huge deal about the dangers of the national deficit growing out of control.  But they ignored the law and kept up their spending ways.  They were just concerned about the issue.  Ever since that time with the exception of the late 1990's, the budget deficit keeps on growing.  Both former president George W. Bush and current President Barack Obama have raised the spending to unprecedented levels.  Our elected elite now operate with a yearly budget over a trillion dollars.  The national deficit is over 14 trillion dollars now and I've heard on the news it will go to 20 trillion within the next few years.   During this past election cycle, the Republicans and the newly formed Tea Party movement have been campaigning on the national debt and the size and growth of big government.  The newly emerged Tea Party formed because many Americans were growing frustrated over the fact the federal government was out of control and it was happening with both Democrats and Republicans in office.  We'll find out this next year how serious the Tea Party backed Congressmen will be. 

As I was mentioning just now the Republican Party this past year was complaining about the size and growth of government under the Obama administration.  However, many of those same Republicans who served when Bush was president didn't seem to have an issue with the federal deficit growing and the size of government growing.  Under President Bush, we added a new department called the Department of Homeland Security.  I know on the surface that sounded like the right thing to do.  However, there were laws on the books that if enforced could've prevented the 9/11 attacks.  The Department of Homeland Security is just another layer of bureaucracy which is showing its incompetence.  How am I supposed to trust these Republicans that served during the Bush administration?  If they weren't serious about reducing the size of government and reduce federal spending, how can I trust them now.  The truth is this:  They knew Obamacare, the growth in federal spending and the growth in the size of governmnent were issues that they could successfully campaign on this year.  They could smell victory in the air.  The Republicans won in the House.  If this past lame duck session is any indicator, the Republican elites will be back to business as usual wasting taxpayer dollars.  I'm fearful they'll co-opt, if they haven't already, the newly elected Republicans coming to Congress next week. 

Both parties are guilty of this.  For the last few decades, the Republicans have ran on a pro-life platform.  The platform of the Republican National Party states that they're pro-life and oppose abortion except in case of rape, incest, or the mother's life is in danger.  Overall, the Republicans and conservatives haven't done very much to turn the tide and pass laws to dramatically reduce the number of abortions being performed.  At least not on the national level.  There are states that have passed laws restricting abortion and I'm thankful for that.  On the federal level, the most that's been done concerning abortion is the Bush administration voting against partial birth abortion and Bush limiting the number of embryonic stem cells that can be used concerning research on curing diseases.  Otherwise, not much has been done.  Most of the candidates that claim they pro-life don't have any intentions of reversing many of the abortion laws in our country.

I've seem Democrats play the same game.  Only with different issues.  I can recall during the Bush administration when the United States committed troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq.  I can recall when things weren't going well in Iraq.  Many Democrats were calling for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.  I have a YouTube clip of former Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) where on November 17, 2005, he called for the removal of troops in Iraq.  He says they've done all they can do and that it was useless to keep them in Iraq.  John Murtha made himself a name when he said before the media that U.S. troops need to be pulled from Iraq and returned home.  He was a former Marine and was in Vietnam.  He was supportive at one point of the U.S. sending troops in Iraq both in 1991 and 2003 and Afghanistan in 2001.  However, he turned 180 degrees another direction and said it was time for the troops to come home.  I remember him making a passionate plea on "Meet the Press" shortly after November 17, 2005 that it's time for the troops to come home.  He said there was nothing more that could be done.  Following the Republican defeat in the midterm elections in 2006, you never heard Murtha saying much about the removal of the troops from Iraq when the Democrats regained the majority in both the House and the Senate.  Once the Democrats won control of Congress and Murtha was appointed Chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, the subject of the removal of the troops in Iraq become ancillary.  The truth was the Democrats weren't concerned about the troops in Iraq.  They knew they had an issue they could use against Bush in the mid-term elections of 2006.  That's what that was all about.  As of now, our troops are still both in Iraq and Afghanistan.  President Obama has continued the same military policies of the previous administration.  Even though combat troops are supposedly now pulled out of Iraq, we still have troops there.  President Obama and the Democrats in Congress don't seem too concerned with pulling the troops out of Afghanistan.  I know that Obama has repeatedly mentioned an artificial date of 2011, but much of that is just talk as far as I'm concerned.  Our troops will remain in the Middle East as long as the powers that be desire for them to be engaged in a police conflict in both Iraq and Afghanistan. 

With the last few months, gas prices have been steadily rising.  Within this past week where I reside, gas prices went from $2.86 a gallon overnight into $3.05 a gallon.  Do you hear the Democrats complaining about the high prices of gasoline and that the oil companies are profiting handsomely off the high prices?  Of course not.  When President Bush and the Republicans were in charge of Congress, we would hear Democrats mention repeatedly about the high price of gasoline, even when it started peeking at $2 a gallon.  They were repeatedly complaining about the high price of gasoline.  They were accusing both President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney of being too cozy with the oil companies.  When the mortgage meltdown first occurred, gasoline prices went back down to way below $2 a gallon.  When President Obama took office last year, gas prices were hovering at $1.80 per gallon. Now gasoline prices on the national average are over $3 a gallon and former Shell Oil President John Hofmeister predicted that gasoline prices could reach $5 a gallon in 2012.  Yet we don't hear no alarm from the Democrats.  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid don't appear to be alarmed about it.  They don't have to be.  They got what they wanted.  They won the majority both in the House and Senate in 2006, Democratic candidate Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008, and the Democrats passed much of their socialist agenda the last two years.  They've passed Obamacare, financial regulatory reform on Wall Street, repealed don't ask, don't tell, passed the START Treaty, and the list continues.  They're not the least bit concerned with the plight of the American people.  There only concern is to gain power and push their agenda through. 

What's equally as pathetic is the Republicans are just as bad.  They're only interested in the issue.  They want the issue so they can regain control of Congress and the presidency in 2012 or possibly in 2016.  They've campaigned tirelessly on the extremism of the Obama agenda.  However, they didn't utilize certain methods in trying to thwart or slow down the passage of certain bills such as Obamacare.  One of the methods that's granted to the U.S. Senate is the filibuster.  Under the filibuster, the Senate can talk a bill to death.  Under the filibuster method, progress on a bill can either be slowed down or thwarted all together.  It's true the Republicans didn't have the votes to stop the passage of the bills, but there are other ways they could've thwarted some of these bills such as Obamacare.  They could've filibustered it.  Why didn't they?  I believe their mind was on winning the election.  They saw it as a good election issue to defeat the Democrats in 2010.  We'll find out how serious the Republicans are in thwarting the Obama agenda in this upcoming Congress. 

The problem with our elected elite is they just want the issue because they know it can be advantageous as a winning issue.  They're all about winning elections and implementing the socialist agenda in America.  But the issues that they normally campaign about, they aren't interested in solving the problem.  They just want the issue.  They have their own socialist agenda they desire to push.  That's the agenda that most Americans are opposed to.  They're out for the agenda--not the American people.