I don’t mean to throw everybody in the same bucket and make wide-sweeping generalizations and, certainly, if somebody asks me if someone like Mitt Romney (R) would be better than Barack Obama (D) as President I’m highly inclined to say, “Sure. Probably better if nothing more than as a better executive.” That doesn’t mean I don’t think someone like former NM Governor Gary Johnson (L) or someone like Congressman Ron Paul (R – TX) wouldn’t be much, much better – especially for people who really want to see major changes.
[As an aside, let’s look at energy and the Federal department that was created in the 1970s under Democratic President Jimmy Carter who said it’s mission was to get us independent of foreign oil. The government (the President) said that with its creation we would not use one more drop of foreign oil annually than we did at that time. Well, 16,000 or more employees and tens of billions of dollars a year in the budget each year … OOOoooops. And, yet still, there would be howls from all corners if someone tried to close down DoE. Sad. Right now we don’t hear either of the two major party sides talking about shuttering the Department of Energy, even after Solyndra. Nope, they agree on keeping it despite it’s obvious ongoing failure. Fascinating.]
They mostly agree on keeping the Federal Reserve intact as is. They agree on not returning to a commodity based currency or in introducing currency competition. They agree on strong arming the states with threats to withhold Federal funds if not using a seat belt in your vehicle isn’t made into a crime (hey – doesn’t everyone believe that people with loaded firearms should stop and detain citizens at roadside and demand they produce their papers for not wearing their seat belt?).
Even in speech you hear Romney say, “repeal and REPLACE Obamacare.” … REPLACE? No, no, no. We need to repeal more than Obamacare and replace most of it with nothing [that’s a whole other topic].
Do you hear any of these guys talking about getting Wickard v. Filburn overturned? That one court case is where the Federal Government claims its authority to regulate everything from wheat (as in the case) to how much water your toilet bowl can legally hold with each flush. Do you hear either side calling for repeal of S.1858 (2007) which Congress passed and George W. Bush signed into law, thereby allowing for the Federal Government to collect, database and test DNA from all newborns without parental notification or consent? Nope, they must agree that is all a-okay.
Indeed, both sides seem to agree that the Federal Government actually has a role in defining the word “marriage”. Essentially amounting to a Federal take over of a religious ritual and deciding to give (or not give) benefits based on someone having completed such a (religious) ritual. Both sides agree with and subscribe to Keynesian (vs. Austrian) economic principles.
They agree that the U.S. Government should be meddling in the affairs of other nations, propping up some dictators and taking others out. Ignoring human rights violations in some countries while lambasting those in others. They agree for the most part on our military presence overseas and keeping 700 bases open in 100 or more countries.