|
Here is your final political round-up before the Zombie Apocalypse next Tuesday.
My friend Kevin Swanson makes some important points here, and I will wait for you until you get back. In the midst of that post, he notes the following facts concerning the cancerous growth of the state, under both Republicans and Democrats.
Annualized Growth in Spending:
Reagan -- first term -- 8.7%
Reagan -- second term -- 4.9%
Bush I -- 5.4%
Clinton -- first term -- 3.2%
Clinton -- second term -- 3.9%
Bush 2 -- first term -- 7.3%
Bush 2 -- second term -- 8.1%
Obama -- 1.4%[1]
While I think Kevin makes an important point here, I would like to throw in a significant "yeah, but." When we annualize the growth rates of the federal government, it is important for us to remember who had control of the two chambers of Congress at the time. This doesn't take away from Kevin's main point -- I actually think it strengthens it by giving credit where credit is due, and by allowing us to make a more precise point about a particular kind of Republican. This is relevant because a lot rides on what kind of Republican president Romney turns out to be.
In Reagan's two terms, he had a Democratic Senate the entire eight years. He had a Republican House for the first six, and a Democratic House the last two. Despite the limitations, Reagan managed to cut the growth rates (from his first term to his second) almost in half.
In Bush I's term, he had a Democratic House and Senate the entire four years.
In Clinton's time, he had a Democratic House and Senate the first two years, scared the heck out of everybody, and so we had our first Tea Party movement in 1994, which gave the House and Senate to the Republicans, which they held for the last six years of Clinton's presidency. Because Clinton was a pragmatist (unlike Obama), he allowed the Republicans to hold a fiscal gun to his head, and so they are the ones to be credited with the relatively slow growth of Levithan during those years.
When Bush II came in, he had a Democratic House for the first two years, and a Republican Senate. Republican culpability kicks in with the elections of 2002, and this is where Kevin's point kicks in with a vengeance as well. This gave Republicans full control of Congress for the next four years. Bush lost control of both houses for the last two years of his presidency. But the massive increase in spending during those years can be laid at the Republicans' doorstep, and should be. So what is Romney going to do?
As I have indicated before, I don't believe this is going to be a nailbiter election. I think that political junkies will be able to go to bed at their usual time. But because lots of people are saying it will be another squeaker, it currently seems crazy to many people that I (who would greatly prefer a Romney presidency to another round of trillion dollar drinks from Obama) am not voting for him. In sum, I am not voting for him for three reasons -- he doesn't need my vote here in Idaho, he doesn't need my vote if this turns out to be the landslide I believe it will be, and he does need my opposition (and that of all my fellow teabots) from day one of his presidency. And in order to provide that opposition, I need to be gearing up for it. I am gearing up for it by not voting for the man I believe will win handily.
Not voting for him places me in a better position to say, on day one, that not only did I not want Obamacare, I don't want what Romney is going to replace it with. I don't want my great-grandchildren to have to deal with socialized medicine, and I believe that Romney stands a much better chance of saddling them with that socialized medicine than Obama does.
But what if I am wrong? Well, it wouldn't be the first time, and so there's that to consider. Seriously, we are called to make our best judgment of what we think is going down, act faithfully on that basis, and trust the Lord with the results. I am making no claims of infallibility, but this lack of infallibility is no barrier to casting a vote in good conscience.
And so last, if I am wrong and Obama is reelected, we may still be confident in the Lord. Obama will still be president, but Jesus will still be the King. The yeast of the kingdom is still in the dough, and it cannot be taken out. The earth will still be gradually filling up with the knowledge of God. All hubris and arrogance will still be thrown down. The kings of the earth will still have to kiss the Son lest He be angry with them. I will still preach the gospel the Sunday following Election Day, just as I did the Sunday prior, and the gospel I preach will still be just as true.
|
