COMMONWEALTH PARTY
OF AMERICA


Flag of the American Commonwealth Republics





Republicans Should Relinquish








Republicans talk of American values and smaller government and how they want to lower taxes. Now the Senate Republicans have put forth 4K earmarks of the 8.5K earmarks in Obama's omnibus spending plan. The Republican Guard is nothing but a facade as they have been well infiltrated by the mercantile socialists. Republicans complete the Marxist-mercantilist socialism of the two-party regime whose combined effort will result in feudalism for the masses.

It's laughable how some commentators still propose the Republican party as the only solution for our nation. It gave us Bush II for eight whole years while he borrowed and spent more than any president prior and nearly doubled our debt. Both he and McCain were open-border apologists who cooperated with Democrats on several fronts to increase government power, size and spending at the cost of our sovereignty and liberties. Looking back on previous Republican administrations illustrates their party as a party of government interference, lax fiscal & public growth oversight, short expectations and mismanagement despite their claims to differ. Remember that Nixon took us off the gold exchange and imposed price controls helping to usher in the '70s energy crisis. Ford advocated the wear of 'WIN' pins against inflation. What the hell was that all about? Even Reagan embraced protectionist policies, the Earned Income Tax Credit and an '86 amnesty. He allowed significant tax increases on income, gas and social security post the '81 tax cuts. Then H.W. Bush advocated a new world order and broke his no new tax promise. Republican presidents pushed the draconian war on drugs which actually subsidizes international drug cartels, increases domestic gang violence while leading to more and more harsh and absurd zero tolerance policies in our court system. This has crowded our jails and subjected the people as pawns to gang violence or the abuses of a resultant police state. And now our border with Mexico is wrought with drug cabal violence and incursions. As the war on poverty is doomed to failure, so is the Republican-championed war on drugs.

Republicans have shown themselves as failures to reform when they had power and now they are starting to fail same as the minority opposition. Ask their supporters: Isn't insanity defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? The commentators go on and on how Republicans can get it to work next time. Just put together a movement within the party to give Republicans another chance and we'll all be saved, right? Wrong. We have had enough, thank-you. We want something else! Meanwhile, the commentators bitterly complain about how bad Republicans have disappointed again and again.

Well, where is it written that the solution must come from the Republican party or from the two-party system for that matter? There are plenty of alternative and third-party candidates to choose from. Why put up with another dysfunctional Republican primary process that gave us the likes of Bush or McCain? Worried that indie candidates may currently be too small or unknown and can't win election? Well, whose fault is that? Republicans should take a lot of the blame. Thus Republicans owe it to all of us to sit out the next presidential election and instead let their party endorse an independent candidate who will not be hampered by the biparty establishment and who will more likely deliver.

By insulating themselves with two-party protectionist policies, Republicans have been able to always guarantee themselves at least second place. They are now less of an opposition party and more of a compromise party. Hey, if you can't get Republicans to open up the ballot to true competition, to stop government funding of campaigns or to stop attaching earmarks to an already bloated pro-government spending bill then how does one expect to get this party to choose better candidates and carry out the reconfiguration needed to save and restore this Republic? Let's face it -- a big tent containing the Rockefeller socialites and the stuffed-shirt religionists is too dysfunctional a combination to lead and convince the populace towards national restoration.

Now this is what should be done -- what the Republicans owe us. Republicans must be forced to stand for a truly republican form of government as put forth in the constitution and for the right of free speech, for the principles of open competition and free choice. They must follow through and introduce new electoral reforms in order to open up the ballot to independents and smaller parties. Otherwise they themselves are just proponents of taxation without true representation. Their more reasoned base should demand this of the GOP especially because of their recent failings and inabilities. The party doing so would actually engender respect from the masses who would see Republicans acting as those who want to truly open the country to its citizenry while accommodating a fresh, innovative electoral process allowing for truer representation of the people. Remember how Reagan was willing to debate Anderson? Let the other major party be seen as the last lumbering, bumbling establishment of the old system. Anyone choosing to be a stalwart against this new system will do so at their own peril.

The Republicans will lose ground to the new parties, but so what? What have they done for the country? For them, if the '08 funding trend holds then they may not be able to get needed ground because of the loss of contributions to their party due to disillusioned voters. Is this not what has contributed to their downfall the last two elections? Pick out the weak Republican markets and let the other more traditionalist or more truly minimalist-government indie candidates run in various markets that Republicans may not be able to afford campaigning in next time around.

Relying on Republicans to run across-the-board in hopes of riding on an Obama backlash will only invite more complacency from the GOP down the road. Such a feat may be too easy to accomplish if the state of the nation is awry by then, which gives untrustworthy Republicans the excuses they always have of providing mediocre opposition and focusing more on their share of the perks in the two-party establishment instead of principled reform. No, it is time for a new wave of leadership. More ballot competition will keep check allowing for better candidates to be elected. This is the purging of the whole system that we need!!!

We cannot suffer the two-party system any longer. The common denominator strategies of that system will only provide more dysfunctional politicians. End it or end the country! If the Republican party resists open ballots, they will have shown all of us they are truly unredeemable hypocrites who cannot be trusted. It will demonstrate that they are more concerned of saving their ballrooms than the country. The moment they take that route, they will advocate the forces of their annihilation as a party.

Remember that their last presidential hopeful ran on a 'country first' theme.....







Well, do ya Republicans, do ya?!










Sources:





'Congress also awarded itself a 10 percent increase in its own budget, bringing it to $4.4 billion.' Plus some other notable increases since last year's omnibus bill.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090311/NEWS14/903110369





4000 of the 8,500 earmarks in $410 billion Omnibus Spending Bill are from Senate Republicans. 'ONLY Republican Senators Coburn, DeMint & McCain are free of earmarks with Feingold & McCaskill on Democrat side joining them.'

http://roaringrepublican.com/2009/03/04/republican-earmarks-in-the-2009-senate-omnibus-spending-bill/





Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) requested either $75 / $51 million in earmarks. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) only put in $26 million.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/03/05/republicans-and-earmarks/





'On the House side, Boehner led the charge against the omnibus, calling for a freeze in federal spending and for Obama to veto the bill. Along with other members of the minority leadership, including Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Boehner ripped the Democrats for pushing a bill that increased spending and included more than 8,000 earmarks at a time of economic crisis.'

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/republican_earmarks_pork.html





Earmark hypocrisy?

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/03/11/1832273.aspx





'The fact is that George W. Bush has presided over the largest expansion of government since Lyndon Johnson, who was no piker. Spending under Bush doubled the national debt to $10 trillion (which doesn’t count such things as the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare).'

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0811i.asp





Overall Bush budgets.

http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/725/bush-budget-legacy-isnt-pretty





Greatest increase in gv't since WWII & New Deal under Bush.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/16/spending-soars-25-before-bailout/





Biggest increase in debt was under Bush as compared to any president prior.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/29/couricandco/entry4486228.shtml





'The National Debt has gone up more on his [Bush] watch than under any other president. '

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/16/politics/main2939036.shtml





Bush/McCain supported amnesty for illegal border crossers.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107692,00.html





Polls indicate from 2007 amnesty debate that Americans favor border security and that Bush and McCain lost support from both of them supporting the amnesty bill.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/
support_for_senate_immigration_bill_falls_49_prefer_no_bill_at_all





Obama and McCain had mutual pool constructed of Republican and Democrat appointees.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/11/scoop_mccain_an/





Nixon's disastrous repudiation of dollar gold exchange and the negative effects of his wage-price controls.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_nixongold.html





Whip Inflation Now button from Ford.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whip_inflation_now





A news article back in the day accounting how Reagan administration invoked sanctions against Japan's semiconductor industry and various Europe and world trading partners which was an invitation for trade retaliation.

http://kmapper.sourceforge.net/kmapper/html/reuters21578/reut2-016/16926_html/default.htm





Various examples of Reagan's anti-competitive bent from his import/export protectionist policies.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406h.asp





Reagan summarized as most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover. 'This record also prompted Milton Friedman to write that the Reagan administration has been "making Smoot-Hawley look positively benign." ' Vast list of protectionist policies. ' William A. Niskanen, former acting chairman of President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, writes that in the Reagan administration "for the first time since World War II, the United States added more trade restraints than it removed." ' Reagan administration in league with Congress on providing protections to congressional interests.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107.html





A Reagan indictment on Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Contains argument of EITC as justified towards those who pay no income tax but do pay payroll taxes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/reagan-the-redistributor_b_138428.html





Argument given that EITC lowers reservation to work barrier for low wagers. Tax-subsidized lower unemployment? EITC not factored into poverty rate. ' Ronald Reagan famously called the EITC the "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress." '

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=08&year=2006&base_name=why_the_eitc_works





President Ronald Reagan was the first president in history to grant amnesty to illegal aliens.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1039330/posts





The initial tax cut of 1981 was followed by significant tax increases in the following years. Reagan gave in to highering taxes but got no spending reductions in return. The tax increases are measured in equivalent 2003 dollars and percent of GDP. The 1982 TEFRA was the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.

http://townhall.com/columnists/BruceBartlett/2003/10/28/raising_taxes?page=1





Clinton's '93 tax increase was actually a bit smaller than the '82 Reagan increase by percentage of GDP. One may want to consider the tax level before either increase to assess final strain.

http://www.factcheck.org/treasury_tax_expert_to_bush_clintons_increase.html





After Reagan terms, government revenue and spending as percentage of national income was about the same as it was under Carter. "Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office". On 1982 TEFRA: "It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection." "In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry."

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488





Article on how Reagan did not like Social Security tax rise, but commission felt no alternative and Congress would not accept any reduction in benefits. Advisors felt future Republicans would be blamed for any benefit reductions.

http://www.nber.org/feldstein/amecpol90.html





Reagan participated in debate with third-party candidate John Anderson while Carter refused. Anderson was later excluded from debate by LWV as his poll numbers went down after first debate.

http://www.geocities.com/dave_enrich/ctd/3p.anderson.html





In mid '08 Republican campaign funding was appreciably down compared to prior election cycles.

http://www.fec.gov/press/press2008/20080609party/20080609party.shtml







Commonwealth Party
Republicans Should Relinquish