You may not agree with the entire platform of Kevin Craig. You may
think he's unrealistic to want to cut government so much.
It would be a waste of time for a Congressman to submit legislation in
January 2015 which would cut the federal government back to the levels
prescribed by the Constitution. There is simply no way that Congress as a whole is
going to keep its oath to defend the Constitution and pass such a bill. Cutting the federal
government back to Constitutionally permissible levels would represent a
cut of about 95%. That should be our goal, but that's not
necessarily our strategy.
Politics is a tug-of-war.
In a tug-of-war, two teams hold opposite ends of the rope and attempt
to pull the other team into the mud in the middle. America is already in
the mud, and the forces of big government are still pulling the rope as
hard as they can. Electing a Congressman who stands in the mud and
promises to "hold our position" or "stop spending
increases" but who also promises to "avoid extremes" will
only be pulled closer to socialism and farther away from the goal on the
other side of the mud: Liberty Under God.
Among 435 elected Representatives, only a couple are consistently
voting in a way that upholds their oath of office and preserves Liberty
Under God. The vast majority are using their office to buy votes from
special interests by promising bigger government benefits. The vast
majority are unconstitutionally expanding the federal government and stealing
from your paycheck.
You'll never get a smaller government and a lower tax bill unless you
vote for one "extremist" in a
Congress full of socialists.
In order to counter the voting record of 400 Congressmen who vote for
bigger government and higher taxes, you need a strong, passionate defender
of limited government and lower taxes, not just someone who promises to
reduce a large increase in government spending down to a smaller increase
in government spending.
My goal is "extreme." But if I
were to be elected, my "extreme"
voice will be moderated by 400+ other congressmen who oppose the vision of
America's Founding Fathers, and support the opposite idea. Many of my web
pages have specific step-by-step goals that are not "extreme,"
but at least get us moving out of the mud.
You may think that some government funding of your pet
project is a good thing, but you're willing to have your favorite
program's budget cut by 20% if other unessential appropriations are cut by
50%, or even abolished entirely. But those agencies are thinking exactly
the same thing: they will accept a small cut in their program
if your program will be cut entirely.
Maybe half of all Americans wish government would just stop growing
every year, but the incentive to protest government programs is never as
big as the incentive to lobby for one. There's quite an incentive for an
organization to lobby for several million dollars in government benefits,
but each individual taxpayer will only save a penny or two by fighting
that particular program, so why bother?
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
If I were elected to ten terms of Congress, I would spend the first 6-8
terms rolling back the federal government to its Constitutional levels,
then in my final term or two I would go beyond the Constitution to secure Liberty
Under God in even greater measure.
It's a truly "utopian"
goal, but I recognize the practical political necessity of moving
step-by-step.