Party of ‘no’ ideas to party of ‘bad’ ideas

In recent months, Democrats too often refer to the Republican Party as the party of “No,“ especially no ideas.

This sobriquet became the mantra of Democrats after the Republican members of Congress said “no” to the $750 Billion unfunded stimulus package. Democrats claimed that Republicans presented no alternative ideas to alleviate the current economic crisis. This is incorrect. The Republicans presented a number of fiscally prudent ideas, but they were rejected by Congressional Democrats who continue to propose and pass fiscally improvident legislation. Given the fiscal irresponsibility of this legislation which adds to a record peace time deficit, Republicans in Congress have a duty to say “no” to these bad ideas. 

However, if Democrats care to jettison partisanship, there are a number of good Republican ideas to help the economy.

First, a tax decrease or a direct distribution of federal money to taxpayers is a more efficient way to stimulate the economy than a hastily compiled $750 billion stimulus spending package. Less than 20 percent of the present stimulus package will be spent in 2009 when the stimulus is most needed. On the other hand, $750 billion distributed directly to 300 million Americans as $2,500 cash would result in a much greater percentage of the money being spent in 2009.

Republicans proposed tax cuts and direct payments but the Democrats said no. Republican should be proud to have been the party of “no” to the Democrat’s anemic stimulus spending idea.
Second, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, 76 percent of Americans opposed and 21 percent favored the U.S. government bailout of General Motors and Chrysler. 

The cost of the federal bailout of GM and Chrysler is in excess of $50 billion. If the bailout of Amtrak 30 years ago is any guide, there will be inevitable future subsidies in store for the auto industry.  Politicians cannot help themselves when it comes to justifying bad decisions.

They are not punished by the market, and they are not spending their own money. They will inevitably throw good taxpayer money after bad to justify their improvident decisions. If the principal purpose of the automobile bailout was to save jobs, it was an expensive way to achieve that objective. It cost approximately $300,000 to save each job paying $50,000 ...

Like most Americans, Republicans were the party of “No” to this terrible idea.

Third, medical malpractice laws exploited by ambulance chasing tort lawyers directly and indirectly increase the cost of medical care in the U.S. by as much as 18 percent. The cost is not just medical malpractice insurance but also the cost of practicing defensive medicine.

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 75 percent of Americans say that medical malpractice lawsuits are an important factor in the increasing cost of medical care. To alleviate this medical cost driver, the medical profession and 44 percent of Americans want to cap medical malpractice awards.

The Republican Party favors limiting medical malpractice awards. President Obama was booed at the recent AMA conference in Chicago when he told doctors that he would not help them pursue limits on pecuniary damages in medical malpractice cases. 

Who is the party of “no” to this well documented and popular idea to save medical costs by limiting medical malpractice awards? Instead, the President and the Democrats are pushing a national health care plan financed by non specified and speculative savings that will be less costly than the present system. The plan includes a government health insurance plan that will compete with private insurance companies. 

When does the government provide a service cheaper than the private sector? Only when the taxpayer provides subsides. With taxpayer subsidies inevitably going to the government insurance provider, it will certainly provide cheaper medical coverage than unsubsidized and regulated private companies; but ultimately at a higher overall cost if you include taxpayer subsidies.

A fundamental principal of economics states that when the cost of a service is reduced, people demand more of it. It logically follows that Americans will demand more medical services at the lower subsidized cost. In order to keep medical costs in line when people demand more, the government must ration health care…

Republicans are properly saying “no” to this proposed unfunded health plan with speculative costs savings because it will ultimately lead to higher overall medical costs or medical rationing. Yet the Democrats do not like the Republican’s idea of limiting medical malpractice awards which provide immediate reductions in overall medical costs at no cost to the taxpayer! Republicans are regaining their fiscally conservative bearings by saying “no” to increased spending that increases the Federal deficit. 

The media have uncritically let the Democrats take the mantle of fiscal responsibility away from the Republican Party because the last balanced Federal budget was in the Clinton Administration. The undisclosed secret that is rarely disclosed by mainstream media is that the budget was not balanced in the Clinton Administration until the Republicans took control of Congress in the middle of Clinton’s first term. 

The Republicans came to power in Congress because Americans rallied around the Republican’s “Contract with American” which included fiscally conservative promises to lower taxes and balance the budget. The Republicans must stay the course and continue saying “no” to ersatz fiscally responsible Democrats who want to increase government spending by adding to the deficit with unfunded spending programs and increased taxes.

Contact Armstrong Williams at http://www.armstrongwilliams.com. “The Armstrong Williams Show” is broadcast daily on XM Satellite Power 169 from 9-10 p.m. Williams is a Marion County native and nationally syndicated columnist.