Quo Vadis, America?

In his first fifteen months in office, President B. H. Obama has virtually nationalized two-thirds of the American auto industry, launched a government takeover of the world's best health-care system (and one-sixth of the nation's economy), and for good measure included a stealth absorption of the student-loan industry as part of the infamous "reconcilation" bill by which "Obamacare" passed the Senate.  Next on his agenda: new regulation (and taxes) on the financial services sector, so-called "cap-and-trade" legislation - dubbed "cap-and-TAX" with good reason by it's critics, and "comprehensive immigration reform" a.k.a. "amnesty".

We are repeatedly told that Mr. Obama isn't a socialist, but what - exactly - would be different about his program if he were to identify himself as such?  Certainly this isn't what he campaigned on, insofar as he committed to any specifics beyond "hope" and "change" his promises were blandly, moderately, centrist.  An article I recently read commented that Mr. Obama would have gotten about 30% of the vote had he been up-front with the voting public.  I'd have thought less, if correct it is itself a sad commentary on the electorate. For the first time in recent memory the party in opposition is almost completely unified on a platform of almost complete repeal of the present government's policies.  At least thirty states have proposed amendments to their constitutions intended to curtail the impact of "Obamacare", and a further sixteen are in the process of changing state law toward that end. 

At this point can anyone really believe his soft-pedaled demurrals regarding the looming specter of a European-style "Value-added Tax" (VAT) which would increase the costs of goods and services by 10, 15, or even 20% in order to sustain the federal behemoth and its trillions in new debt?  One cannot, after all, have Euro-style socialism without Euro-style taxation; and it seems logical to me that we wouldn't be moving toward either unless the President, the Speaker of the House, and the leaders of the Senate wanted it to happen.

There is a better way - to see it in action we need only look at Texas, which would be the world's fifteenth-largest economy if it were an independent nation.  Its prosperity and growth are no accident, they are a direct result of limited government and low taxes.

In a National Review article well worth reading it its entirety, Texas Governor Rick Perry summarizes the policies that have enabled his state's economy to thrive: "There are certain truths that have to be agreed to.  One is that economies grow when they are free from over-taxation, over-regulation, over-litigation, and they have a skilled work force. Government isn't difficult in theory — don't spend all the money, keep taxes low, have a fair and predictable regulatory climate, keep frivolous lawsuits to a minimum, and fund an accountable education system so that you have a skilled work force available. Then get the hell out of the way and let the private sector do what the private sector does best. It's simple in theory, but it's difficult to accomplish. In Texas, we've implemented that theory, and it's produced an economy that has no match in America."

We can't all move to Texas.  America needs to have a real choice in November 2010 and again in November 2012.  If the soft socialist revolution in America is to be stopped before it gains a further toehold, the Republican party must once again embrace the conservative principles which brought great prosperity to America in the 1980's and 1990's.