Beware of RINO Rip Current

'Ronald Wilson Reagan was the 40th U.S. president, serving from Jan. 20, 1981, to Jan. 20, 1989. His first task was to combat the worst recession since the Great Depression. Reagan promised the "Reagan Revolution," focusing on reducing government spending, taxes, and regulation. His philosophy was, "Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem."

'Despite campaigning on reduced government spending, Reagan wasn't as successful with this as he was with tax cuts. He cut domestic programs, but he increased defense spending to achieve "peace through strength" in his opposition to Communism and the Soviet Union.'

'Reagan was applauded for continuing to eliminate Nixon-era price controls. They constrained the free-market equilibrium that would have prevented inflation. Reagan removed controls on oil and gas, cable television, and long-distance phone service. He further deregulated interstate bus service and ocean shipping.'

'Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker had steadily raised the federal funds rate to 20% in 1980. While very unpopular, these high interest rates worked to end double-digit inflation. Reaganomics took the stance that the supply of money had been growing too fast in the years previous, so the monetary policy developed to support the program was to reduce the growth rate of the money supply to more "modest" levels. This growth reduction complemented the Federal Reserves' policy of raising interest rates to reduce borrowing and spending.'

'Whether Reagan's economic policies were effective depends upon your point of view. Critics denounce the policies and claim they further damaged the economy, while fans proclaim that they helped lift the country out of tumultuous circumstances and put it back on the road to growth.'

'Regardless of the argument for or against Reaganomics, the spending increases, and tax cuts, it's difficult to challenge the economic results of the administration's efforts:' ~ KIMBERLY AMADEO | Updated May 29, 2022

'Although he did not formally declare his candidacy until November 1979, Reagan made it clear to his inner circle from the moment of the 1976 convention that he intended to again seek the presidency. He was the choice of rank-and-file Republican voters in public opinion polls although many establishment GOP politicians thought he was too conservative and perhaps too old to win the White House.'

'Carter and Reagan were not alone in the 1980 presidential campaign. Representative John Anderson, a moderate Republican from Illinois who had run in his party's primaries, saw Reagan as too conservative and launched an independent campaign for the presidency. Anderson's platform was liberal compared to Reagan's—and in some respects even to Carter's. He posed a potential problem to both the Carter and Reagan campaigns.'

'Republicans enthusiastically renominated Reagan and Bush in 1984. The President's popularity had risen dramatically since its nadir in late 1982, largely because the economic boom that had begun in 1983 picked up steam the following year.'

'Reagan's reelection campaign was in some respects the inverse of his 1980 campaign, when he asked voters if they were better off than they had been four years earlier. The polls in 1984 showed that a large majority of Americans were now answering this question affirmatively.'

'Reagan's victory was a testament to the President's personal popularity but also arguably a ratification of public support for his economic program, especially tax cuts. Reagan won a majority of independents and more than a fifth of the Democratic vote. He ran more strongly among the youngest cohort of voters than any Republican in the twentieth century.' ~ By Lou Cannon

'Over the ensuing years, as Reagan loomed as a presidential possibility, leaders of the national GOP establishment scornfully dismissed him. Nelson Rockefeller, Ford’s vice president, labeled Reagan “a minority of a minority” who “has been taking some extreme positions.”

'Establishment GOP Rep. John Anderson of Illinois, a member of the House GOP leadership, was so incensed by Reagan’s nomination he ran in the fall as a third party presidential candidate.'

'These views of Reagan were typical of the GOP establishment of the day, a forerunner of what the Bush 43 alumni, The Lincoln Project and other Never Trumpers say about President Donald Trump today.'

“To those who worked for Reagan against Ford and the Republican establishment in 1976, George Bush personified everything they’d battled all their lives. Picking him would be seen as a particular betrayal by the true believers.”

“What I didn’t realize at the time was that we’d just cut the fuse on our own revolution. The conservatives had won, but then surrendered the future back to the eastern establishment moderates. … A phrase popped into my mind for the first time to describe my feelings about George Bush: Trojan Horse. The enemy was in our camp.”

'In their endorsement of Joe Biden, these establishment “Republicans” have dropped their mask and revealed their opposition to every bedrock principle of the Republican Party they once pretended to support.' ~ JEFFREY LORD | July 15, 2020

'President Reagan himself joined the chorus of protectionist statements when a 100 percent tariff was placed on selected Japanese electronics products. "The health and vitality of the U.S. semiconductor industry are essential to America's future competitiveness," he said. "We cannot allow it to be jeopardized by unfair trading practices." Again playing into the hands of the most staunch protectionists in Congress, industry, and organized labor, he claimed he imposed the tariff "to enforce the principles of free and fair trade."(20) White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater reinforced this presidential use of a bogus distinction when he said the tariff was a signal "that we want to be fair traders as well as free traders."(21)'

'If President Reagan has been trying to teach the American people that free trade is good, it is hard to imagine what an ideologically protectionist president would have said. One of the many ways Reagan embraced trade restrictions was through imposition of a special 45 percent tariff over a five-year period (on top of the regular 5 percent duty) on Japanese heavy motorcycles as a favor to Harley Davidson. With less than a year to go in the five-year program, Harley Davidson asked that the tariff be removed. (23)'

'Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III boasted last September that the administration "has granted more import relief to United States industry than any of [its] predecessors in more than half a century."(27)'

"We find it deeply ironic that Congress would respond to this unprecedented use of Presidential discretion by restricting the discretion of future Presidents. We cannot accept the premise that the test of a 'tough' trade bill is the extent to which it removes Presidential discretion. The opposite is true." (Emphasis in original.) This statement clarifies much of what the administration has said on the trade issue. For Reagan, the issue is not government power over trade but which branch of the government should wield the power. The administration seems to have no objection in principle to presidential control over trade or the power to dispense trade restrictions to special-interest groups. Its objection to Congress's arrogation of power is one of turf. As Reagan put it, "It's better policy to allow for Presidents--me or my successors--to have options for dealing with trade problems."(28)'

'Forced Japan to accept restraints on auto exports. The agreement set total Japanese auto exports at 1.68 million vehicles in 1981-82, 8 percent below 1980 exports. Two years later the level was permitted to rise to 1.85 million.(33) Clifford Winston of the Brookings Institution found that the import limits have actually cost jobs in the U.S. auto industry by making it possible for the sheltered American automakers to raise prices and limit production.'

'This record also prompted Milton Friedman to write that the Reagan administration has been "making Smoot-Hawley look positively benign."(51) Of course, the administration sometimes claims that it adopted mild restrictions to head off a rabidly protectionist Congress.'

'Jones Act outlaws competition from foreign carriers in shipping goods between American ports.' {This act still contributes to our 'jones-ing' over various imported products today.}

'Extended quotas on imported clothespins.' ~ Sheldon L. Richman | May 30, 1988

'Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.'

'For all the administration's talk about deregulation (for example, from the know-nothing commission which George Bush headed), it has done little. Much of what has been done began under Carter, such as abolition of the Civil Aeronautics Board and deregulation of oil prices. Carter created the momentum and Reagan halted it. In fact, the economic costs of regulation have grown under Reagan.'

'By now it should not be surprising that the size of the bureaucracy has also grown. Today, there are 230,000 more civilian government workers than in 1980, bringing the total to almost three million. Reagan even promoted the creation of a new federal Department of Veterans' Affairs to join the Departments of Education and Energy, which his administration was supposed to eliminate.' ~ Sheldon L. Richman | October 1988

'But when all the political and economic elites of this country gang up on a president to raise taxes, history shows that they always get what they want. Indeed, they were even able to get Bush's father to raise taxes in 1990, even though his political advisers knew that it would likely lead to his defeat in 1992, which it did.'

'How do the elites break down presidential resistance to tax increases? They do so by promising the moon. Tax increases, they say, will lead to huge reductions in interest rates, which will power economic growth and reduce unemployment. The rich only pay them anyway, which makes the president look like a populist. And tax increases are the price that must be paid to get spending cuts.'

'This last point is especially laughable. In 1982, Ronald Reagan proudly announced that he was getting $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increase. He later lamented that all he ever got were the taxes. "Congress never cut spending by even one penny, " Reagan complained in 1993.' ~ Bruce Bartlett | Oct 28, 2003 12:00 AM

'Reagan’s proponents point to his accomplishments, including stimulating economic growth in the US, strengthening its national defense, revitalizing the Republican Party, and ending the global Cold War as evidence of his good presidency.'

'His opponents contend that Reagan’s poor policies, such as bloating the national defense, drastically cutting social services, and making missiles-for-hostages deals, led the country into record deficits and global embarrassment'

'Teske adds that Republicans had some easy "targets to attack," from the unpopular, early years of President Bill Clinton, to the Hillary Clinton-led health care proposal to individual corruption cases in Congress.'

'As for the contract's lasting impact? Most of its ideas and proposals did not pass Congress, or were vetoed by Clinton, and, according to Teske, the ones that did pass were not radical departures and instead relatively minor in scope. But it did put Republicans back in power in Congress, which they've largely held onto in the years since.' ~ BY LESLEY KENNEDY | OCT 9, 2018

'Championed by Republican House members Dick Armey and Newt Gingrich, the Contract with America was a significant move to reshape the federal government. The House Republican plan focused on entitlement program reform, a balanced federal budget deficit, and reduced federal regulations. Essentially, the Contract with America was a nod to federalism, returning more power to the states and weakening federal authority.'

'Newt Gingrich (R) Georgia and Dick Armey (R) Texas co-wrote the Contract with America. Gingrich, a Ph.D. holder in History, and Armey, a Ph.D. holder in Economics laid out a ten-point plan, borrowing from earlier Ronald Reagan initiatives and policy goals from conservative think tanks.'

'By banding together, Congressional Republicans and candidates formed a campaign and voting bloc over 300 strong. In sticking with the same 10-point plan, the Republican Party turned the election into a referendum on the Clinton Administration and the Democratic Congress.'

'All ten proposals were expedited to a vote in the new House of Representatives. 90% passed but met resistance in the Republican Senate and the threat of a presidential veto by Bill Clinton. Forty percent of the proposals that were planned for floor discussion ultimately became law with the signature of Bill Clinton or with a veto override.'

'Both parties were forced to examine welfare benefits, crime, and budget issues as the voters mandated action. Republicans maintained control through the next election, but Democrats picked up new seats and re-elected the incumbent president (Clinton).'

'Both the Creation of the Contract with America in 1994 and its subsequent abandonment can be explained in terms of the conflict in government between what I call legislative entrepreneurs and legislative bureaucrats.'

'Barry Goldwater tried courageously to remind the nation why our Founders thought it vital to limit government. Needless to say, Goldwater suffered a landslide electoral defeat. But he galvanized the modern conservative movement, which rose from the ashes of his failed campaign.'

'Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign in 1980—this one wildly successful—which was run, like Goldwater’s, on a consistently principled platform of limited government.'

'Hillary Clinton had been touting her government-run, command-and-control health care plan and scaring the devil out of the American people. The Republican leadership decided to capitalize on this terrible plan, seeking to seize power for the sake of implementing pro-Constitution policies. And the idea worked: Republicans took control of Congress that year in dramatic fashion, largely due to the Contract with America.'

'Those of us who signed on to the Contract were devoted to rolling back government as much as we could. The biggest success of those years—and a superb example of legislative entrepreneurship—was welfare reform. President Clinton vetoed it twice, but we saw it through, and it has worked marvelously well. It became such a great success, in fact, that Clinton eventually claimed it as the best idea he ever had!' ~ Dick Armey | MAY 2008

'It was Tax Day 2009 when citizens gathered in 850 cities across the nation for tea party rallies protesting the recent $700 billion federal bailouts of banks and automakers, an $800 billion economic stimulus package, and, more broadly, government deficits and debt.'

'The modern tea party movement largely is credited to an on-air rant by CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, who on Feb. 9, 2009, called for Americans to have a “tea party” protest.'

'Jaroch, now a regional coordinator in Florida for Heritage Action for America, told The Daily Signal. “Citizens didn’t see politicians in either party representing them, but just rubber-stamping bailouts and stimulus.”

“The IRS attacked people in the process of trying to become a nonprofit,” Jaroch said. “The vast intimidation campaign, I think, is why Obama was able to win a second term. It stifled a movement. Also, the Republicans never fully embraced the tea party.”

“Trump deserves a lot of credit for rolling back regulations and cutting taxes, but, for spending and tariffs, the administration deserves a lot of criticism,” he told The Daily Signal.'

“On the other hand, Trump is an outsider, a business guy there to disrupt the establishment. We give him credit when he aligns with us and will be critical when he doesn’t.” ~ Fred Lucas | April 14, 2019

'Unlike previous populist movements, which were characterized by a distrust of business in general and bankers in particular, the Tea Party movement focused its ire at the federal government and extolled the virtues of free market principles.'

'The generally libertarian character of the movement drew disaffected Republicans to the Tea Party banner, and its antigovernment tone resonated with members of the paramilitary militia movement.'

'Dick Armey, provided logistical support for large Tea Party gatherings, and Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina supported Tea Party candidates from within the Republican establishment.'

'In some states Tea Party candidates won endorsement from local Republican groups, while in others they provoked a backlash from the Republican establishment.'

'In Massachusetts, Sen. Scott Brown, who had alienated some of his Tea Party supporters by crossing party lines to vote with Democrats on a variety of issues, was defeated by Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren.'

'As the divide between the Republican establishment and the Tea Party threatened to become an irreparable breach, a scandal involving the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) quickly brought the two groups back together.'

'The Republican mainstream was increasingly in line with Tea Party beliefs, but establishment Republicans who thought that the movement had been co-opted were stunned in September 2015 by the ouster of House Speaker John Boehner.'

'The failure of elected officials to enact legislation that reflected Tea Party ideals stoked resentment within the conservative base. Polling organization Gallup found that popular support for the Tea Party had dipped to its lowest point in October 2015, and widespread dissatisfaction with the GOP establishment became apparent as a series of political outsiders emerged as the favourites in the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.' ~ Michael Ray

'To mark the of emergence of the Tea Party Movement, the New York Times published an article attempting to blame the acrimony which is all too common in civic life today as having started with the Tea Party Movement. As if that was not enough of a stab in the back of the true patriots in America, the New York Times goes on to denigrate and condemn our movement and finally pronounce it dead and buried.'

'Our intent with the story was to look at the spending and deficit policy failures of the Tea Party 10 years after its rise, especially those failures under a Republican president and Republican Senate. The federal budget deficit is growing faster than expected because of President Trump’s spending and tax cut policies; this month the CBO projected that the deficit will widen to $1 trillion for the 2020 fiscal year.'

'For ten years the Tea Party has been struggling to clean up the mess made by the socialist and racist policies that the keyboard commissars of the New York Times have advocated. For all that time editors throughout the main stream media, including the New York Times, contrived stories to smear the Tea Party, because we were doing the right thing by standing up against the policies that brought poverty and death across the world and throughout history.' ~ Matt O'Brien | September 12, 2019

'Brooks is, of course, horrified at Trump and his supporters, whom he finds childish, thuggish and contemptuous of the things that David Brooks likes about today’s America. It’s clear that he’d like a social/political revolution that was more refined, better-mannered, more focused on the Constitution and, well, more bourgeois as opposed to in-your-face and working class.'

'The thing is, we had that movement. It was the Tea Party movement.'

'One of the most famous things about the Tea Partiers was that — as befits a relentlessly bourgeois protest movement — they left things cleaner than they found them. Rich Lowry reported from Washington, DC: “Just as stunning as the tableaux of the massive throngs lining the reflecting pool were the images of the spotless grounds afterward.'

'Yet the tea party movement was smeared as racist, denounced as fascist, harassed with impunity by the IRS and generally treated with contempt by the political establishment — and by pundits like Brooks, who declared "I'm not a fan of this movement." After handing the GOP big legislative victories in 2010 and 2014, it was largely betrayed by the Republicans in Congress, who broke their promises to shrink government and block Obama’s initiatives.' ~ Glenn Harlan Reynolds | March 20, 2016

'It’s an interesting effort at spin for tea party types to claim kinship with Dr. King. They in no way began the movement with that archetype in mind, nor had they expressed much interest in what engaged Dr. King and his civil rights movement.'

'Nevertheless, there are echoes of King’s social movement in the advocacy of the tea party.'

'Redistribution of wealth, ending historic advantages enjoyed by straight white males in employment and education, and grouping Americans into racial classifications to delineate “protected classes” of citizens all require a gigantic government to compel the rest of America to comply.'

'Is this what Dr. King had in mind? You will get an argument from racialists like Reverend Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other special pleaders in the civil rights movement. But clearly, King saw a different America than the one those gentlemen and their white, liberal, guilt-ridden elitist allies are trying to create.'

'This well meaning but impractical idea eventually gave way to compulsory “goals and timetables” in the Nixon, Ford, and Carter administration, and ended up as the mandatory quotas and mandates we have today. In discrimination cases, the burden of proof is now on the defendant to show that no discrimination was intended. Sometimes, even that isn’t good enough to avoid penalties.'

'There is no design to change the hearts and minds of Americans – quite reasonably because such a task is beyond the ken of any government. All government can do is mitigate against the effects of racism, the effects of discrimination. They cannot advance the notion of a color blind society, or a society where women are on equal footing with men, or where gays have the same opportunities as the rest of us. To believe otherwise, as apparently some who are passionate advocates for social justice do – is on par with believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. Any government big enough and strong enough to demand that a citizen think and act a certain way defines tyranny.' ~ RICK MORAN | August 28, 2010

'It was the most incompetent period of presidential government in American history, exceeding the decade prior to the Civil War and even the Prohibition, isolationism, and the crash of 1929 which led to the Great Depression of the 1930s.'

'Distinctions became blurred between Republicans and Democrats, and the mediocre performance of the United States in the world and the failure of scores of millions of hard-working Americans to better their lot created the discontent in which Donald Trump was able to win control of the Republican Party by sweeping the primaries in 2016.'

'Since Trump led a revolution against all the established factions of both parties, they joined hands to deny him any honeymoon. The first three years of his presidency were consumed by the almost certainly criminal Trump-Russian collusion hoax and the spurious impeachment attempt.'

'By late January, Trump’s success in almost eliminating unemployment, oil imports, and illegal immigration, and his revival of economic growth, revision of trade agreements, and elevation of nearly 200 constitutionalist judges, had made his election appear almost inevitable.'

'Emboldened by what they took to be the long-anticipated dissolution of the Trump political phenomenon, the NeverTrumpers (Republicans who had never rallied to this president) have come snorting out of the undergrowth in full fraternization with the Biden Democrats. This adherence to Biden, whom they had reviled or at least disdained for decades, occurred as the Democrats themselves waffled ambiguously in the face of urban guerrillas smashing up many of America’s greatest cities, and as the flaccid and corrupt Democratic governments of those cities abased themselves before Black Lives Matter and Antifa.' ~ Conrad Black | July 6, 2020

'The Republican Party, since the 1930’s, mostly has been, with the exception of the Reagan years, the “other party” attempting to mitigate and soften the policies of it rival, the Democrat party. In doing so they acquiesced to policies that benefitted the party hierarchy and their smaller, but significant, portion of the ruling class.'

'Donald Trump brought a dramatically different mindset to the party: enacting policies benefitting the American people not the party establishment and the ruling class. Fittingly, Donald Trump’s dramatically successful first term has accelerated the party’s metamorphosis into the national populist party in America. A process which was initiated by the Tea Party Movement in 2010.'

'Not satisfied to meddle with the financial well-being of the populace, the nation’s elites, rather than view education as the means for people to attain success in a competitive world, have recast it into a vehicle for indoctrination of the youth into their pet theories and political views. As a result, the American people are rapidly becoming among the least well-educated populations in the world. For example, in 2013 America’s 15-year-old ranked 32nd among industrialized nations in math, 20th in reading and 24th in science. In 1988 this same age group ranked among the top 5-10 in these same categories.'

'They also fail to understand that the success of Donald Trump in pursuing his policies that focus first and foremost on the well-being of the American people is what will stanch the influence of the socialist movement when it succeeds in controlling one of the two major political parties.' ~ Steve McCann | February 6, 2020

'The strong economy under Trump did lead to an increase in manufacturing jobs, and corresponding increases in wages at the bottom of the income scale. That was fantastic. But the renegotiation of NAFTA into the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement and Trump’s agreement to cease trade hostilities with China did not alter the status quo in a way that would meaningfully advance any nationalist-conservative ends. In fact, they were, by the lights of most free traders, modest and incremental improvements on the status quo Trump had so vociferously attacked.'

' Still, the Trump administration did end a developing crisis on the border by smartly and toughly negotiating a new policy with the Mexican government that has dissuaded caravan-style immigration and the use of America’s asylum system as an alternative route for those jumping the line on immigration.'

'Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for two years, but there was no attempt at durable ref­orm. Many of Trump’s executive orders on immigration policy will be swiftly undone by his successor.'

'Trump could have used his administration to build the résumés and experience of policy thinkers who challenged Washington’s consensus. But largely he stuck with telegenic or combative voices he thought he could control.' ~ MICHAEL BRENDAN DOUGHERTY | November 12, 2020 9:42 AM

'Instead, his budget estimates showed that he would actually add at least $8.3 trillion, increasing the U.S. debt to $28.5 trillion by 2025.'

'But the national debt reached that figure much sooner. The national debt stood at $19.9 trillion when President Trump took office in January 2017, and it reached a high of $27 trillion in October 2020.'

'Trump oversaw the fastest increase in the debt of any president, almost 36% from 2017 to 2020'

'Trump was right that there is waste in federal spending. The problem isn't finding it. The problem is in cutting it. Each program has a constituency that lobbies Congress. Eliminating these benefits may lose voters and contributors. Congressional representatives may agree to cut spending in someone else’s district, but they resist doing so on their own.' ~ KIMBERLY AMADEO | January 26, 2022

'But the vitriol with which Trump’s establishment critics treat both the man and his movement suggests the divide is deeper than outrage over imprudent outbursts and strange capitalization on Twitter. There really is a growing, fundamental divide on a set of core issues between global elites and the people in the places they’ve left behind—one that transcends Trump himself.'

'So is national populism a conservative program? And is it the future of the Right? One of the more interesting insights of They’re Not Listening is Girdusky and Hill’s claim that the national populist agenda is neither traditionally right-wing nor left-wing. In one sense, this is obviously true: it similarly chafes at the economic commitments of the libertarian Right and the social commitments of the progressive Left. That it is lazily derided as “far-right” by mainstream media is in itself a validation of the national populist thesis; the elites who dominate media are, well, not listening to the content of the national populist revolt.'

“One of the duties of a statesman is to employ the abilities of the natural aristocracy in the service of the commonwealth” (emphasis added). Our contemporary globalist aristocracy seems utterly uninterested in that latter part. Maybe that’s why Kirk would hold sympathy towards nearly all of the national populist positions laid out by Girdusky and Hill.' ~ Emile Doak | Sep 11, 2020

'The acronym RINO first appeared in 1992, though the full phrase on which it is based, Republican in name only, is much older, emerging as a popular political pejorative in the 1920s. The concept of being a 'dodgy' Republican by being insufficiently conservative is in fact a recurring theme in the history of the Republican party. During the 1930s and 40s, the expression Me-too Republican was used to describe members whose political stance was mainly aligned to Democrat perspectives with only minor differences.' ~ Kerry Maxwell | 29th October 2012

'Republican In Name Only (RINO) is a disparaging term that refers to a Republican candidate whose political views are seen as insufficiently conforming to the party line.'

'The use of the term RINO arose as polarization increased in the political parties. Prior to the 1992 election of Bill Clinton, the Democratic and Republican parties had been in a long process of realignment where conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans were quite common.'

'RINO is also related to the historical term “Rockefeller Republican” which referred to (traditionally) Northeast Republicans who championed business friendly practices while remaining relatively socially liberal. Named after Nelson Rockefeller who served as the Governor of New York before running unsuccessfully for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1960, 1964, and 1968. This term has largely died out as the Rockefeller family’s political successes have dwindled.'

'The Blue-Dog Democrats supported the Reagan (and at other times it was popular/convenient to do so) Tax Cuts. During the 1980’s they also pledged, as part of the compromises, that for every $1 in Tax Cuts accompanying Spending reductions would be made. When it came down to keeping those promises, they voted the DEMOCRAT Party “Progressive” line for (not only against cuts, but for continued) Higher Spending. As for how/why Reagan didn’t shut down the Government more to hold them to their promises is for other diaries.'

'While we (Conservatives) may decry how the Republican Party may not always be as Conservative as we’d like (or forget at times) it is still the Center-Right Party, whereas the Democrats (in so far as those who EVER hold the power within that Party) are the Ultra-Left!'

'Joe Lieberman, as an aside, at least became an “Independent” as a matter of Principle over some major disagreements with the Democrat Party jumping further and further Far-Left. He still is a “Liberal,” but I have some respect for him. I have ZERO respect for Specter'

' RINO and a BLUE-DOG are pretty much the same. They stake out positions which help them get elected in their Districts, but will more often than not side with the Progressive-Democrat agenda. When it comes to making those tough choices, they default to the DEMOCRAT position.'

'It is always compromise that yields in giving Democrats something – I call it McCainism'

'Democrats don’t bite the hand of the Liberal/Progressive Democrat Party hierarchy! That phenom is only in the Republican Party with RINOs – willing to vote those close calls against the Base that gets them elected and funds their campaigns.' ~ JLenardDetroit | Apr 28, 2009 9:08 PM ET

'In the latest monstrosity, a $1.2 trillion “infrastructure” bill, a horrific piece of legislation, was advanced this weekend by eighteen Republican U.S. Senators.'

'The GOP Senators supporting the legislation included the entire RINO caucus, featuring Republican Party embarrassments such as Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Susan Collins of Maine, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Rob Portman of Ohio, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. For good measure, worthless U.S. Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, added his support to the “bi-partisan” legislation.'

'According to far-left Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, the bill also addresses “racism physically built into some of our highways.” It is not clear how highways are racist, but billions of dollars will be spent to fix it anyway.'

'The bill includes nothing for the biggest crisis in America, the invasion of illegal aliens at our southern border. While zero dollars are earmarked for the border wall, at least $2.5 billion is allocated for additional “border processing stations.”

'Republicans used to be concerned about the national debt and limiting the size of the federal government, but such values are practically non-existent in the U.S. Congress today. Along with the fiscal problems caused by more debt, there are inflationary pressures that will be created.' ~ Jeff Crouere | Aug 9, 2021

'A disturbing new way of campaigning has popped up on the Republican side: labeling other Republican candidates you oppose “RINOs” when they haven’t earned the credentials. Because much of politics comes down to money these days, billionaires are buying elected offices, shoving genuine conservatives out of the way with these false labels.'

'It’s pretty easy to figure out who real RINOs are. They have low ratings from conservative groups like the American Conservative Union'

'For the most part, Trump’s endorsements have correctly picked the solid conservative in primary races. But there have been a few races where things have gone on behind the scenes and most conservatives would agree he chose the wrong person.'

'The late conservative leader and writer William F. Buckley Jr. came up with the Buckley Rule, which states that in political races, conservatives should support the most electable conservative. Some of Trump’s endorsements have not followed this rule — although to his credit, occasionally he’s withdrawn endorsements after seeing his candidates perform poorly in their races.'

'There is supposed to be a red wave this year. But will the billionaires who have changed the meaning of RINO to include anyone but them ruin it for us?' ~ Rachel Alexander | July 20, 2022

A commentor puts out a list of RINOs in Congress and gives argument as to why each is included.

'The Jones Act is a federal law that regulates maritime commerce in the United States. The Jones Act requires goods shipped between U.S. ports to be transported on ships that are built, owned, and operated by United States citizens or permanent residents. The Jones Act is Section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, which provided for the maintenance of the American merchant marine.'

'The supply of American-built, -owned, and -operated vessels is relatively small compared to the global supply of ships, while the demand for basic goods tends to remain constant or grow. This creates a scenario in which shipping companies can charge higher rates because of a lack of competition, with the increased costs passed on to consumers.'

'The requirement about shipping cargo between American ports only on American ships benefited the constituents of Wesley Jones, the U.S. Senator from the state of Washington who introduced the act. Washington had a large shipping industry, and the act was designed to give the state a monopoly on shipping to Alaska. While the act benefited Jones’ constituents, it increased the shipping costs of other states and U.S. territories.' ~ WILL KENTON | Updated April 30, 2021

'Because of the Jones Act, almost all freight in the U.S. moves over land, even though shipping on water should be far cheaper, more environmentally friendly and less destructive of infrastructure. The corrupt American shipping regulations, ostensibly in place to protect American shippers, have strangled the economy by moving the transport of goods to roads and railroads. The Jones-capable ocean fleet has withered to only 95 ships. While at the CEA, we found that the U.S. trails other developed countries and imposes large costs on itself by profoundly underutilizing water transport.'

'Hawaii, a state that knows a thing or two about reliance on marine shipping, has asked for a temporary waiver of the Jones Act. Hawaii was buying as much as a third of its oil from Russia, mostly to avoid the costs of the Jones Act. The recent executive order to block Russian oil imports means that now Hawaiians will disproportionately bear the cost of efforts to deprive Russia of export revenue. The U.S. Virgin Islands has a permanent Jones Act waiver, and Hawaiian leaders would like their residents to enjoy the same benefits. So would those in the Northeast and Puerto Rico.'

' President Biden should also be attracted to another benefit of relaxing Jones Act standards for one of his policy priorities. Offshore wind projects are currently delayed for want of the specialized ships needed to install and maintain turbines.' ~ By Timothy Fitzgerald and Kevin Hassett | March 16, 2022 6:42 pm ET

'This relic of a long-gone era is defended by powerful special interests that benefit from its protectionism at the cost of everyone else.'

“Five myths” report notes, the Jones Act actually endangers our national security. For example, the U.S. is a major exporter of liquefied natural gas, but no Jones Act-compliant ships can carry LNG. As a result, northeastern states and Puerto Rico import fuel from Russia. Nothing says protecting national security like relying on Russia for a basic commodity.'

'Jones Act defenders also say the law protects America’s heartland. U.S. Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, warned on the House floor in 2019 that without the Jones Act, Chinese ships could go up and down the Mississippi River at will. But foreign ships traverse America’s inland waterways all the time, bringing in goods from foreign suppliers or taking U.S. goods back with them.'

'Yet the Jones Act lobby persists. It is influential in Congress, with both Democrats and Republicans rising to its defense. But the situation isn’t bleak. There are now many lawmakers, activists and policy groups recommending reform.'

'One option would be to repeal the U.S.-build requirement so domestic ocean carriers could buy ships built in foreign countries — at one-fourth to one-fifth the cost of a ship built in the United States.' ~ By Josh Mason and Jonathan Helton | September 1, 2021

'By any measure, the Jones Act has been a failure. Under its watch the U.S. shipbuilding industry has atrophied, its shipping fleet has withered, and any contribution to the military’s sealift capability has been trivial at best. The failure of the Jones Act to meet its intended objectives, meanwhile, has inflicted considerable economic harm through a variety of direct and indirect channels. Rather than serving to bolster national security, the Jones Act has stultified domestic shipbuilding, diminished the size of America’s merchant marine reserve, and hamstrung our ability to respond expeditiously and effectively to natural and manmade disasters.'

'Moreover, there are no comparably stringent regulations of other means of transportation in the United States. The wave of deregulation that brought renewed efficiency and vitality to the rail, trucking, and airline industries in the 1970s and 1980s left the maritime sector untouched.'

'That such a burdensome law has evaded meaningful reform for nearly 100 years speaks to the determination of a small, well‐​organized, well‐​connected class of producers and unions that have succeeded over the years in portraying any effort to reform or repeal the Jones Act as an affront to national security. The time has come to finally turn the tables and for Congress to repeal this onerous law.' ~ By Colin Grabow, Inu Manak, and Daniel J. Ikenson | JUNE 28, 2018

'Central banks across the world manipulate money ostensibly to “grow,” or “stabilize,” or otherwise achieve their desired interventionist goals for the economy. However, large swings of the purchasing power of a money, such as that seen with the Federal Reserve Note, result from the same money manipulation that purports to solve the very problem it causes.'

'In the United States, today’s monetary system is antithetical to sound money. Money, including its supply, is controlled by unelected bureaucrats operating a government backed banking cartel with no real constraints on its power.'

'History is wrought with economic distortions resulting from currency debasement by central planners. Appreciation for gold and silver has been driven out of the public consciousness. Today, there is little understanding of what money actually is, its origins, and the folly of politicians and financial “experts.”

'George Washington wrote that paper money was “wicked.” James Madison wrote it was “unjust” and “unconstitutional.” Thomas Jefferson wrote “its [paper money’s] abuses also are inevitable and, by breaking up the measure of value, makes a lottery of all private property, cannot be denied.”

'The next 60 years were marred with the destruction of sound money (not to mention the Constitution): establishment of the Federal Reserve System (which has served to devalue the Federal Reserve Note 97% since its creation, despite its mandate to maintain price stability), an unconstitutional income tax, gold confiscation by executive order, and the abrogation of gold clause contracts'

'In the simplest terms, the gold standard is a monetary system that ties a currency’s value directly with gold. Therefore, the currency can be exchanged for a set amount of gold and is guaranteed by the government.'

'The gold standard was essentially abandoned, starting in 1862, in order to provide financing for the Civil War. The Legal Tender Act was passed in 1862, where paper currency made its debut but was only backed – on faith – by the government; paper currency couldn’t be redeemed for gold. The Union – to take advantage of this new currency – printed $450 billion worth of it, and inflation rose to 80%. By the end of the Civil War, U.S. debt sat at an unprecedented $2.7 billion.'

'After the economic collapse at the end of the 1920s, then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) moved away from the gold standard, employing executive authority to ban U.S. citizens from privately owning gold currency. Gold bullion and coins had to be turned in to the government, with compensation of just over $20 per ounce. A new gold price of $35 per ounce was set in 1934 with an indefinite governmental guarantee.'

'In August 1971, President Nixon terminated the US dollar’s peg to gold, effectively ending the Bretton Woods Agreement and establishing a purely fiat monetary system, with paper currency being backed only by the word of the government.' ~ CFI Team | February 17, 2021

'The Federal Reserve is the centrally controlled monetary banking system of the United States, created in 1913 through means not enumerated in the Constitution. Since then, it has been a disaster for the American economy, and can be connected to three of the most devastating economic crises in recent history.'

'The value of the U.S. Dollar has plummeted drastically since the introduction of the Federal Reserve. Since the creation of the Fed in 1913, the dollar has lost more than 95% of its value as a result of poor money management. It was especially bad between 1965 and 1983, when the value of the U.S. Dollar declined to one-third its value in a matter of only 18 years. Inflation has the most drastic impact on those in the lower and middle classes – the very people for whom credit unions exist to provide financial stability. Because the wages of these people are not tied to inflation, they were massively hurt by the dollar losing its purchasing power, having to pay significantly more for necessities like food and clothes.'

'The Fed creates destructive boom-bust cycles that lead to major recessions.'

'Prior to 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified, the Constitution allowed state legislatures to choose two U.S. senators to represent them in Congress. Members in each state House and each state Senate, in most cases, would meet separately to pick a candidate as its representative in the U.S. Senate.'

“The framers understood that, in order for the states to be protected from federal government overreach it was necessary to give the states a formal check,” Zywicki said. “That check was by allowing the states in their corporate political capacity, the state legislatures, to choose senators.'

'However, they also concluded that modern direct Senate elections aren’t that different in terms of money and ballots. “Despite the blatant use of money to win indirect Senate elections, 100 years after the 17th Amendment was enacted, the modern Senate elections process is swamped with campaign money in ways that far outpace elections under the indirect elections system,” they said.' ~ Scott Bomboy | May 31, 2018

'Todd Zywicki in his outstanding review of the 17th Amendment for the Cleveland State Law Review .....He summarized the majority of evidence concluding: “…there is no indication that the shift to direct elections did anything to eliminate or even reduce corruption in Senate elections.” “…Deadlocks were exceptional…the great majority of Senate elections were conducted without incident.” and “…the truth was that most legislatures took one vote at the beginning of each day and continued with their normal affairs.”

“One important consequence of the shift to direct elections was to increase the need for money and organization to run expensive state-wide races … this has required Senators to supplicate themselves to special interests in the quest for money and power …Changing the method by which the Senate was elected undermined the check that bicameralism provided against special interest legislation.”

'Senators would no longer be bound by allegiances to these special interests. Candidates would not be obliged to receive funding from political parties for their nonexistent campaign limiting a Senator’s obligation to the national political party. Senators would be more obligated to serve the interests of their State, not without its own political intrigue, rather than a national political party or special interests.' ~ JOHN M. DEMAGGIO, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR | 08/30/18 12:30 PM ET

Petition site to repeal the 17th Amendment.....

'Whereas, the Founding Fathers created a Congress with a House of Representatives to represent the people and a Senate to represent the States, the States now have no representation in the Federal Government and the they are being forced to bear burdens for which they have no representation, it is therefore necessary to restore the Senators as representatives of the States.' ~ Anton Grambihler

'When state legislatures selected U.S. senators, that legislative body benefited from the wisdom, prudence, and eloquence of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, among others. Today’s Senate is exhibit #1 in support of repealing the 17th Amendment: Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Richard Blumenthal, Cory Booker, Richard Durbin, Bernie Sanders, Patrick Leahy, Susan Collins, Mitt Romney -- the list could go on and on. And they were preceded by the likes of Edward Kennedy (the so-called “Lion of the Senate”), Hillary Clinton, Arlen Specter, Robert Byrd, Al Gore (Sr and Jr), Robert Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Sam Ervin, and many others. To be sure, some of these politicians may have reached the Senate even if the 17th Amendment had never been passed and ratified, and there are examples of statesmanlike senators since 1913 -- Robert Taft, Henry M. Jackson, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan come immediately to mind. But the more fundamental point is that repeal of the 17th Amendment would return us to the structure of federalism devised by the Founders to limit federal power and preserve our liberty.'

'The United States is a republic, not a pure democracy. We elect our presidents indirectly via the Electoral College, and from 1789 to 1913 we selected our U.S. senators indirectly by virtue of who we voted into office in state legislative races. Repeal of the 17th Amendment would re-institutionalize federalism and place needed limits on the ever-expanding power of the federal government.' ~ Francis P. Sempa | September 22, 2021

Advocacy site for why the 17th Amendment should be repealed.