I’ve never been prouder to call myself a conservative as I was after Rush Limbaugh penned a January 29 column for the Wall Street Journal. In that column, Rush proved he was the authentic voice of Republican conservatism in the post-Bush era:
"Fifty-three percent of American voters voted for Barack Obama; 46% voted for John McCain, and 1% voted for wackos. Give that 1% to President Obama. Let’s say the vote was 54% to 46%. As a way to bring the country together and at the same time determine the most effective way to deal with recessions, under the Obama-Limbaugh Stimulus Plan of 2009: 54% of the $900 billion — $486 billion — will be spent on infrastructure and pork as defined by Mr. Obama and the Democrats; 46% — $414 billion — will be directed toward tax cuts, as determined by me."
If deciding to spend more money and cut taxes solely upon polling numbers isn’t a clear statement of conservative principles, I don’t know what is. Mega-dittos Rush! That man really knows how to outline principles that define his core. Now I know why the mainstream media is crowning him as the de facto head of the Republican Party.
But wait, there’s more.
Limbaugh’s proposal was not only based upon polling numbers, it also perfectly melded the dual platform of the Republican Party over the past eight years. Limbaugh’s program combines both Keynesian and supply-side (or do I repeat myself?) solutions to the recession. Spend more and cut taxes, respectively, which is precisely what George Bush and Congress did for eight years. We now have a $1.2 trillion annual deficit, which Limbaugh — the godfather of conservatism — rightly agrees we need to increase.
Increasing the deficit is the only way to prosperity, as the last eight years have clearly demonstrated. I’m just glad we have someone like Rush Limbaugh to lead us bravely away from Obama’s bad policies of spending more and cutting taxes, and to instead outline a detailed policy of good spending increases and lower taxes.
Now, perhaps there are some of you libertarian types out there ("wackos" in my leader’s language) who think that piling up more debt by more spending is not a good idea. You’re probably the same kind of person who thinks that the credibility of supply-siders is in short supply and Arthur Laffer’s "Laffer Curve" is only good for laughs. You’re wrong, although I do wonder when Professor Laffer is going to pay that penny to Peter Schiff.
I know that Rush is for the "free market," although I confess I’m probably not quite smart enough to know what he means by it. Maybe it means government can spend and borrow freely from the market. But as long as Rush or any other conservative leader throws in a phrase like "free market" while he’s pitching a plan, I can safely buy his plan every time. Because I’m for freedom and the free market. Once he says it’s about the "free market," I don’t even need to read the bill to know I’m for it.
You wackos out there wouldn’t understand freedom.
Some wackos even think that a tax cut without a spending cut isn’t a tax cut at all, because it just transforms the nature of the tax to inflation or debt. Don’t you know that inflating the currency and increasing the national debt has no impact whatsoever on our prosperity?
Inflation doesn’t take our wealth. To the contrary, it makes us even richer. Back in the 1950s, a $300 suit was considered top quality. But now we consider a $300 suit lower-end, off-the-rack clothing. Anyone can afford a $300 suit these days, unlike those filthy 1950s paupers.
And back in the 1930s people who made $25,000 per year were considered very rich. Now, people who make only $25,000 per year are considered extremely poor. But now we make lots more money, so we’re, uh … richer … I think.
Oh, no!
I’m having a crisis of confidence.
Fortunately, it’s time to tune in to Rush again for my two-hour dose of conservative reality to reaffirm my faith. If that doesn’t work, there’s always three hours of Hannity after that. (He’s such a great American!)
