Politics and Money Essay -- What is Politics?

The late Alabama governor George Wallace once said, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats." Both Republicans and Democrats agree on taking our money. Where they differ is what to spend it on. A Democrat agrees to take our earnings and give them to cities and poor people. A Republican agrees to take our earnings and give them to farmers and failing businesses. Republicans have dominated both houses of Congress since 1994, a year when federal spending was $1.5 trillion. Less than a decade later federal spending in 2002 was over $2.1 trillion, a 37 percent increase. Some politicians might argue that the war on terrorism has been responsible for the massive spending increase. That's nonsense! According to a recent report titled Most New Spending Since 2001 Unrelated to the War on Terrorism by Brian Riedl, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, over half of all new spending since 2001 has been unrelated to defense and the 9/11 attacks. Just from 2001 through 2003, federal spending increased $296 billion, of which: $100 billion (34%) went to national defense; $32 billion (11%) went to 9/11 costs, such as homeland security, International aid, and rebuilding damage done by the 9/11 attacks. About · $164 billion (55%) went to spending completely unrelated to either defense or terrorist attacks. Most of the spending represents government t aking the earnings of one American and giving it to another American. Such acts are little more than legalized theft. How did legalized theft become so acceptable for it is not part of our history? Let's look at some of that history. In 1794, James Madison, the acknowledged father of our Constitution, wrote disapprovingly of a $15,000 appropriation for Fren... ...e; it's the American people. Politicians are elected to office on the promise that they will deliver to one group of Americans the earnings that belong to another group of Americans or they will confer a special privilege on one group of Americans that will be denied another. A politician who disavows this practice will not be elected or if elected run out of office and the reason is simple. If a politician doesn't use his office to deliver another American's earnings to his constituency, it doesn't mean that his constituency will pay lower federal taxes. It only means another state's citizens will enjoy the loot. Thus, when legalized theft becomes routine it pays for everyone to participate. Those not participating will end up as losers. While becoming a recipient of stolen property is optimal for the individual, it spells devastation for the nation as a whole.