From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Conservatives favor limited government?
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:52:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.161252.10440@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) writes:
>> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>
>>Conservatives believe in limited government
>
>then how come Bush and Reagan, so called 'conservatives', have run up the
>largest government debts IN HISTORY?

Ah yes, the Tyrant-President theory...

There are several causes which almost entirely refute your weak premise:

1.  Congress submits ONE Omnibus spending bill to the Executive thus
    blackmailing the Exec into signing it or shutting down the big G.
    This changes the veto to be an onerous tool which the Executive
    is then less likely to want to use against bad legislation.
    
    Madison, the architect of the Constitution, warned that the legislature
    would try to circumvent the intended use of the veto and he was right. 

2.  Congress had mandated spending written into law which today has
    amounted to approximately 72% of the budget (numbers from a GAO
    report which my Brother, an analyst there got for me).  This 72%
    is off limits for reduction.  Therefore, the budget must be balanced
    on the remainder (termed "discretionary") which includes items such
    as Defense.

3.  Congress has the power of the purse.


One argument in your favor.  The Executive has 1/6th the legislative power
(that being the difference between 1/2 and the 2/3rds required to 
override a veto).  However, item #1 above shows that when the budget 
process is involved, the veto has been vitiated.

>>and the empowerment of the 
>>individual (the sanctity of individual rights a la Locke)
>
>THIS IS A LAFF! How come conservatives favor the criminalization of
>hemp, even if it is to be used for rope and not drugs? How come the
>conservatives favor a constitutional amendment BANNING a medical 
>procedure? How can any governemnt with enough wepaons of mass 
>destruction to nuke the whole world be called 'limited'?

Your personal freedom is tied to your economic freedom.  The more you
are taxed or the more you depend on the government the farther you have
capitulated your independence to the government.  Your points are myopic
in the extremus when compared to the general freedom that those with
the means to do as they wish enjoy.

As for abortion, some people observe that the DNA of a fetus has the
proper number of chromosomes to be classified as human and thus conclude
that it ill behooves us to ignore the rights of one class of humans 
simply to make life convenient for someone who, generally, has not the
guts to take responsibility for their actions.

Drugs - score one for you - I agree.

Weapons?  I submit that without the means to protect your country that your
rights would not be worth the parchment they are written on.  Without 
defense there is no government to protect your rights.  This is painfully
obvious.

>George Bush likes to say he supports small government, but he does not.
>Bush's idea of limited government sure as hell is expensive?

I thought we were talking about conservatism (classic liberalism) not about
George Bush.  The two are most often mutually exclusive.

Mike Best

"In every revolution there's one man with a vision."  JT Kirk
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc