The Loyal Opposition

"...the term loyal opposition is applied to the opposition parties in the legislature to indicate that the non-governing parties may oppose the actions of the sitting cabinet – typically comprising parliamentarians from the party with the most seats in the elected legislative chamber -- while maintaining loyalty to the source of the government's power." Wikipedia

On January 19, 2010, Senator-elect Scott Brown (R) joined the loyal opposition in Washington, D.C. in a Massachusetts special election, Brown rode a groundswell of opposition to increased federal involvement in health care. He thought differently four years earlier as a Massachusetts state senator with Mitt Romney (R) as governor, when Brown voted for government-controlled health care. The federal law Massachusetts voters elected Brown to oppose in 2010 is modeled after the Massachusetts law Brown voted for in 2006 as a state senator--both require individuals to purchase health insurance.[1] Today the Massachusetts pols Brown left behind are fighting to keep out-of-control health care costs from bankrupting their experiment started four years ago.[2]

“Today, our nation faces a growing budget deficit due to out of control federal spending. I absolutely believe that a balanced federal budget is crucial to a healthy economy, and I remain an active and dedicated member of the fiscally conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC). In a few short years, baby boomers, the most productive generation in the history of the world, will begin to retire. Mandatory spending in the federal budget is on a trajectory to be over 100% of projected revenues. Dramatically slowing the rate of federal spending growth, easing the regulatory and tax burden on productivity in this country, and eliminating government waste are all critical if we are to balance this federal budget monster and return this nation to consistent economic prosperity. I am deeply committed to that endeavor.” Trent Franks Congressional site

Today congressman Trent Franks (R) is a member of the loyal opposition. A stalwart opponent of socialism, and a champion of limited government and fiscal responsibility in 2010, Franks thought differently in 2003 when George W. Bush (R) was President and Rs controlled Congress. On November 22, 2003, congressman Franks supplied one of the last minute votes in the early morning hours to pass then-President Bush's (R) Medicare Modernization Act (Medicare part D (pdf)).[3] As of 2009, Medicare suffers from $89 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Socialism is Evil When the Other Guys are In Power

“It seems the fall of socialism across the world has taught many of our politicians nothing. It is hard to envision a plan that would hinder health care excellence and damage the doctor/patient relationship more than government run socialized medicine.” Trent Franks campaign site

Franks and fellow Rs vigorously oppose socialized healthcare proposed by Obama (D) and pushed through Congress by Ds, yet ignore the obvious: Medicare is socialist, too. Tea partiers may convince themselves they've paid for Medicare with their taxes, just like Social Security, but they’re both Ponzi schemes and both broke. Rs helped nationalize the mortgage markets when Bush was President, yet now, as the loyal opposition, decry the Obama administration takeover of banks and the auto industry.

Ds aren’t immune to budget hypocrisy. While part of the loyal opposition, in a 2006 floor speech that preceded a Senate vote to extend the debt limit, then-Senator Obama said:

“Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.”

Obama later joined his D colleagues to vote against raising the debt limit.[4]

After Obama became President, the roles reversed, and Rs assumed the role of the loyal opposition:

• On February 17, 2009, the American Investment and Recovery Act of 2009 (aka the Stimulus bill) passed despite all House Rs and all but three Senate Rs voting against it. In addition to authorizing $787 billion in spending, the bill also raised the debt limit to $12.104 trillion (see page 252 of pdf).
• On December 28, 2009, when the Ds snuck a politically unpopular increase of the debt limit to $12.394 trillion through Congress, no Rs in the House voted for it and only one soon-to-be-retired R in the Senate voted for it.
• On February 12, 2010, Obama signed a bill to increase the federal debt limit to $14.3 trillion. Of the loyal opposition, no R in the House or the Senate voted for the measure.

Yet during the Bush administration, “fiscally conservative” Rs voted to increase the national debt limit seven times from $5.95 to $11.315 trillion. Rs complain that Ds were in control of Congress for five of those increases totaling $3.68 trillion.

Brought to You by Rs and Ds

Today’s limited government loyal opposition Rs were yesterday’s big government supporters. And yesterday’s loyal opposition Ds are today’s big government supporters. They both pretend to fight the growth of government or the loss of freedom, but in the end, the growth of the federal government is both parties’ long term solution to everything. The following are brought to you courtesy of both the party in power and the loyal opposition:

• Undeclared wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Yemen. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to declare war, and says nothing about delegating that power to the Executive branch. Both the Bush and Obama administrations support these wars.
• The Patriot Act and its extensions limit the freedoms of law-abiding citizens everywhere by allowing searches of telephone, email, medical, financial, and other records; ignoring Fourth Amendment protections by allowing warrantless searches and roving wiretaps, paying telephone providers for access to trillions of phone records; granting broad powers for the Treasury Department to demand private banking information, and collecting vast amounts of electronic data on virtually every American swept up by insider arrangements and purchases from phone companies, airlines, and other businesses afraid to say no to a government “request.” These bills pass through Congress with little scrutiny.
• A $1.25 trillion program to buy mortgage-backed securities,TARP, and other bailouts so investment bankers get multi-million dollar bonuses. Aren’t you glad to know that hedge fund investors have made billions of dollars because of government bailout of the banks “too big to fail”?[5]
• The Transportation Safety Administration that treats people like cattle at airports.
• The inept Homeland Security Administration.
• The Guantanamo detention center.

Democracy: the Opiate of the Masses

We're taught that in a democracy we can change things by voting. Not if you put your faith in the loyal opposition. The loyal opposition is there to let you pretend you have a voice. If the people get angry enough, the loyal opposition tries to channel and divert their anger. Even now, another member of the loyal opposition, part of the sham campaign to pretend there was a choice in the 2008 Presidential election, Sarah Palin is busily trying to co-opt tea partiers. If that fails, the federal government has the tools to control the "disloyal opposition," and is acquiring more:

• According to this Department of Homeland Security report (pdf), opponents of the Obama administration are racists to be watched.[6] The federal government is creating fusion centers with local authorities to help with the watching. Those in power are afraid of the mob, they alleviate your burden only enough to keep you from revolting.[7][8]
• The Supreme Court ruled January 25, 2009 that police can frisk you on routine traffic stops to protect themselves. Cops won’t abuse this…. Right?
• They also want to track your cell phone.

You can't fight city hall by sending Tweedledee to replace Tweedledum. Make no mistake about it: Rs are the loyal opposition for now. They loyally oppose Ds in power--only because they want to be in control. R or D: there's no difference. They all suffer from the same disease; they think Congress can solve any problem simply by creating a new federal program or agency.

_________________________________________

[1] "Re-examining Massachusetts Health Care Post-election comments from the MSM miss the boat," By Trudy Lieberman, January 22, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/reexamining_massachusetts_heal.php?page=all on March 29, 2010).

"My own reporting over the past year shows that people in Massachusetts are concerned about affordability. One fifty-four-year-old woman, who lives in a small town south of Boston, told me she is an independent who voted for Brown because he could make a difference in Washington. That difference: stopping the health plan. “I know the plan is all wrong,” she said. What exactly was wrong? It was just like the one in Massachusetts, which makes people buy unaffordable insurance, she explained. “The Connector [the state’s shopping service] wants to determine your affordability. They don’t care if you have past loans or alimony to pay,” she said. Her daughter makes $32,000 working two jobs and can’t afford coverage; she pays the penalty for not having it."

[2] "Deciding Who Will Lead a Health Care Leader," By Kevin Sack, NY Times, March 26, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/health/policy/27massgov.html?th&emc=th on March 28, 2010).

[3] “Republican Deficit Hypocrisy,” Bruce Bartlett, Forbes magazine, 11.20.09, (Accessed at http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/19/republican-budget-hypocrisy-health-care-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html on April 1, 2010).

Rs complain about D tactics to pass health care reform, forgetting their history from 2003:

“...when the legislation came up for its final vote on Nov. 22, 2003, it was failing by 216 to 218 when the standard 15-minute time allowed for voting came to an end.

“What followed was one of the most extraordinary events in congressional history. The vote was kept open for almost three hours while the House Republican leadership brought massive pressure to bear on the handful of principled Republicans who had the nerve to put country ahead of party. The leadership even froze the C-SPAN cameras so that no one outside the House chamber could see what was going on.

“Among those congressmen strenuously pressed to change their vote was Nick Smith, R-Mich., who later charged that several members of Congress attempted to virtually bribe him, by promising to ensure that his son got his seat when he retired if he voted for the drug bill. One of those members, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was later admonished by the House Ethics Committee for going over the line in his efforts regarding Smith.

“Eventually, the arm-twisting got three Republicans to switch their votes from nay to yea: Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, Butch Otter of Idaho and Trent Franks of Arizona. Three Democrats also switched from nay to yea and two Republicans switched from yea to nay, for a final vote of 220 to 215. In the end, only 25 Republicans voted against the budget-busting drug bill. (All but 16 Democrats voted no.)”

[4] “Senate must raise debt ceiling above $12T,” By Walter Alarkon, 09/07/09, (Accessed at http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/57493-senate-must-raise-debt-ceiling-above-12t on April 1, 2010).

[5] “Pay of Hedge Fund Managers Roared Back Last Year,” By N elson D. Schwartz and Louise Story, NY Times, March 31, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/business/01hedge.html?th&emc=th on April 1, 2010).

[6] US Department of Homeland Security Assessment "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," (Accessed at http://www.wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf on March 28, 2010).

From page 2:

"The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.
— (U//LES) Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past.
— (U//LES) Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal
through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning.

(U//FOUO) The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.
— (U//FOUO) During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors.
— (U//FOUO) Growth of these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy, and the continued U.S. standing
as the preeminent world power.
(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

[7] "Principal forgiveness program may offer relief for underwater homeowners," Kenneth R. Harney, The Washington Post, March 27, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032604817.html on March 28, 2010).

[8] "A Bold U.S. Plan to Help Struggling Homeowners," By David Streitfeld, NY Times, March 26, 2010, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/business/27modify.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all on March 28, 2010).