Redstate

By rhatican Posted in Archived — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

PROMOTED from the Diaries
   - MartinAKnight

I notice that you were interviewed for an article entitled "Boehner says House Republicans will learn from their 2006 missteps" in today's edition of the The Hill. In the piece you are quoted as saying, "I think the inventory of new ideas to solve the problems we have in America is running pretty empty…" and "I think we have to reach far and wide and not just look and see what’s on the shelf and pull it off."

(Absent from the story was any reference to "core principles" as in this statement you made when you were elected Minority Leader on November 17th of last year: "Republicans need to get back to our core principles and rededicate ourselves to the reform mind-set that put us in the majority 12 years ago." But I think I understand. "Core principles" -- whatever they might be; really, who knows or should even care when you get right down to it? -- are clearly not "new ideas," and as leader you have determined the party is positively starving for ideas, so who needs principles? Right? Besides, November 17th was a long time ago. That was then, this is now. I get it.)

In the spirit of being a loyal party man (and taking you at your word that you intend to "reach far and wide" for input -- if you are reading this, you are certainly doing that), I humbly offer up what is plainly a "new idea" to many a Republican in Congress in the 21st Century. I stumbled upon the thoughts in perusing some dusty old books at the library (but I also, luckily, found them on the internet, of all places -- it's amazing what you can find out there if you look for it, isn't it?).

Now I know what you're thinking. "Dusty old books"? Already been said by someone else? How can these be new ideas, rhatican? But rest assured -- I can answer these concerns. What if no one has ever heard of these ideas? Or if, by some fluke, people did hear them way back when they were spoken, they have been completely forgotten? Then what would you say? The beauty of the proposal I'm making is that the ideas on which it is based were spewed by a crazy old man from California (you know, the land of fruits and nuts), outdoors in the middle of winter, literally decades ago. Who could possibly remember them? In this way, few will suspect they were "on the shelf" all along. You have nothing to worry about. I have every reason to believe that the vast majority of your caucus will deem them highly original, breathtakingly refreshing, and even, possibly, worth giving a try.

Here they are:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem.
From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.
We hear much of special interest groups. Our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and our factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we are sick—professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truckdrivers. They are, in short, "We the people," this breed called Americans.

And then:

So, as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.
It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.

Mr. Congressman, if I may be so bold, I have a hunch you may be asking yourself at this stage, "So some lunatic on a blog may have given me a 'new idea' or two, how do I apply them to the real world, to legislation that will be up for a vote soon? What good is an idea if I can't make any practical use of it?" In anticipation of such questions, I have taken things a step further.

Are you aware of a federal program called "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB)? I have studied it a bit and have learned that it directly contradicts the new ideas articulated above. Under the laws enacting NCLB, schools throughout the nation are compelled to follow dictates from Washington concerning an enterprise -- namely something as dear and personal as the education of their residents' children -- that had, for most of this country's existence, been considered, exclusively and respectively, the domain of each state. (I have seen reference to something known as the "Tenth Amendment" -- I think it's in the Constitution -- in discussions of NCLB, but I'll leave that for lawyers to haggle over.) And the expense, in financial terms, of this betrayal of the "new idea" stated above? Why it's enormous! It's "the second fastest increasing category of spending in the Federal budget... faster than Defense (during wartime!)"[a quote from another regular contributor here at Redstate]. Somebody has even recently "acknowledged that funding for the new education mandates has increased '150 percent' since 2001 [to about 83 billion dollars per year]." Moreover, Ted Kennedy has indicated that he thinks it will be necessary to spend much, much more on NCLB. (Between you and me, Mr. Leader, when the bill that became NCLB was being drafted in 2001, the House was in the control of the G.O.P., as you may recall, while the Democrats controlled the Senate. The Chairman of the House Education Committee -- whose name escapes me right now, but I must assume he or she was a Republican, of all things -- worked closely with Senator Kennedy, the chairman of the Senate Education Committee, to make NCLB a reality. You may have to take that person aside and explain to him or her that the whole thing was a terrible, possibly idiotic, mistake. But I'm confident you are up to the task.)

What's even better is that NCLB is up for reauthorization, it seems, in the upcoming weeks.

So here is what I propose (again with the utmost humility): Lead the Republicans -- on the basis of those things the crazy old Californian said long ago -- in categorically opposing the reauthorization of NCLB to any degree. You and your Republican colleagues can stand firm and say that the federal government should remove itself entirely from the enterprise of educating our children. I think such an approach would do wonders to revitalize the party and give you real hope and optimism about winning back the majority in 2008. How does "Speaker John Boehner" sound?

Yours,

rhatican

P.S. I promise not to tell a soul you got the idea from me.