opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Linda Chavez
Linda Chavez
5 Feb 2016
Doing the Honorable Thing in New Hampshire

New Hampshire may well be the end of the campaign trail for more GOP hopefuls, as Iowa was for Rand Paul, … Read More.

29 Jan 2016
President or Divider in Chief?

I'm trying to wrap my mind around what it will mean if Donald Trump wins the Iowa caucuses in a few days and … Read More.

22 Jan 2016
Political Pawns for the Democrats

The Supreme Court decided this week to take up the Obama administration's unilateral executive actions on immigration,… Read More.

Bipartisanship Not the Right Thing


One man's bipartisanship is another's capitulation, which is why Republicans should resist compromising their principles by supporting President Obama's so-called stimulus package. House Republicans wisely chose to reject an $819 billion spending spree, with not a single member breaking ranks (and 11 Democrats joining them). Senate Republicans should do the same.

The point isn't to be obstructionist for its own sake. But there are important differences between the two parties on how best to stimulate the economy, and simply adopting one or two Republican amendments won't turn this sow's ear of a bill into a silk purse.

Democrats remain the party of Big Government — and with the most liberal president since FDR now in the Oval Office, Democrats see their chance to expand the reach of government into new areas. The economic crisis is merely an excuse to do what they've always wanted — spend more on everything from education to mass transportation. The kinds of jobs Democrats like best are those that create evermore public employees.

And why not? Government workers, especially those at the state and local level, help put Democrats in office — or more accurately, their unions do. Just a tiny fraction of private sector workers are unionized — less than 8 percent in 2008. But nearly 40 percent of public employees are union members and they contribute, big-time, to Democratic candidates. In 2008, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the Service Employees International Union, which represents 850,000 public service workers, spent nearly $34 million on independent expenditures in helping elect President Obama. And one of its affiliates, New York-based Local 1999, spent another $4.3 million. No wonder the Democrats want to bolster public employee union ranks.

But those government jobs are actually a drain on the economy — not the engine of growth that Democrats like to portray. When a private company gets into economic trouble it can't simply raise prices to suit its need for profits — it cuts expenses to keep afloat.

Not so for the government. When cities and counties across the country experienced budget shortfalls from lower property taxes based on declining home values, many simply adjusted their tax rates to make up the difference.

Sure, such tactics might save a few public sector jobs — but they do almost nothing to keep the economy healthy. Worse, raising tax rates penalizes those private sector workers who may be losing their jobs, by making them pay higher taxes so the lucky public workers can keep theirs. Now that the Democrats control both houses of Congress and the White House, they'll dip into the federal treasury to save state and local jobs.

President Obama claims that Republicans are playing politics with the stimulus bill. Writing in the Washington Post on Thursday, he said: "In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis — the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems. Ö I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change."

Not even the Post editors bought that argument. In an editorial opposite the president's piece, the editors noted, "As credible experts, including some Democrats, have pointed out, much of this 'long-term' spending either won't stimulate the economy now, is of questionable merit, or both."

The Democrats can, of course, pass the president's bill without help from their Republican colleagues. And President Obama will sign whatever bill emerges after the House and Senate get together to work out their disagreements. Republicans will have one last chance to suggest trims during the House-Senate conference, but the enthusiasm of Democrats to pad the public payrolls will mean any cuts are a long shot.

President Obama was wrong in his inaugural address when he said, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works." Big Government never works — and if we try to make it work at the expense of the private sector, we'll all be worse off.

Linda Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal." To find out more about Linda Chavez, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at



1 Comments | Post Comment
Ma'am;...What exactly is your argument for small government???When the government cannot regulate the financial sector, and cannot really keep a good eye on people like Madoff; how could they get one bit smaller and be worth any taxes???. I don't care how big they have to be if they realize their goals as outlined in the preamble of the constitution; but if those goals have been lost to the government, it should not exist at all...Do we need one more meat inspector, or peanut plant inspector, or airline inspector??? Your answer might depend upon whether you have ever been hurt† by a lack of inspectors...My kid is rich, and he can afford to test his children's toys for lead... So does that mean the poor are on their own???† Of all of the stupid nonsense that runs out of the mouths of reactionaries, the small government is the greatest; because they clearly mean they do not want to be governed...They want to prey upon the poor and working people... They do not want to worry about pollution or poison in the environments...They want to throw people in prison, or build up the police and military to protect their loot; but they do not want to be concerned for the human or civil rights of the prisoners, or of the accused because that might add to the cost of government... It is self serving, and I hope this depression teaches all the people about how self serving the right is in regard to the size of government... You have robbed us blind, and done it because government allowed it to happen...It submitted to your ideology of less government, and less pretection for the public from government...You maximized profit, and maximized the theft....Now that you all belong in prison; why should you want a government large enough and effective enough to throw a net over you??? I'd feel the same in your shoes.... As long as you are left free you will run your mouth, and when you can no longer lie for a living, you will run away... Why not run away, and enjoy your freedom while you still have it??? Consider how the peaceful poor might turn on you if the whole stupid system goes down the pot??? Does that thought make you feel brave, or crazy???? . .Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Fri Feb 6, 2009 8:10 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Linda Chavez
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 1 2 3 4 5
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Star ParkerUpdated 10 Feb 2016
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 10 Feb 2016
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 9 Feb 2016

28 Mar 2008 A Government Engineered Food Crisis

31 Oct 2008 Race and the Election

29 Feb 2008 William F. Buckley, RIP