UNF's #1 Student-Run News Source

UNF Spinnaker

UNF's #1 Student-Run News Source

UNF Spinnaker

UNF's #1 Student-Run News Source

UNF Spinnaker

Analysis: ‘Change’ same as ‘compassionate conservatism’

In the era of Bush’s version of “compassionate conservatism,” the size and scope of the government has dramatically increased, which is seemingly at odds with Republicans’ supposed love of

And it is eerily similar with the future Obama has promised.

When counties with the highest household income in America are examined, the top three are Louden County, Virginia; Fairfax County, Virginia; and Howard County, Maryland – all of which are suburbs or exurbs of Washington D.C.

After the 2000 census, 14 of the 100 richest counties were in the Washington D.C. area, while in 2007, they were the top nine of the richest 20, according to a new Reason Foundation study conducted this month.

And though Washington hasn’t completely escaped the current economic recession, real estate advisers Grub & Ellis Company recently rated the D.C. metro area the top market in the country for commercial real estate investment.

This is ironic, since there is no industry in Washington D.C.

Washington doesn’t create real wealth, it simply redistributes it.

As government expands and appropriates more wealth from the private sector – either through regulation, taxes or spending – the wealth created through productive areas of the economy goes to Washington to be distributed to its politically connected corporations and economic sectors.

The Washington boom isn’t due to an excessively product-private economy that the government taxes at a static rate. The government – regardless of which political party is in power – is increasing its grasp over American society.

As it stands now, the federal government spends one out of every four dollars – 25 percent of the Gross Domestic Product.

And in January 2007, there were an additional 20,000 government employees since the same time in 2000, and the average federal salary was $106,579 per year including benefits, nearly double the average salary in the private sector, according to the Bureau of Labors Statistics.

There are also an estimated 7.6 million people who earned their paycheck through government  contracts in 2005, a 50 percent increase over 2002.

Taxpayers paid double in 2007 compared to 2002 – $400 billion. And federal outlays increased during that period by $500 billion, according to The Washington Post.

Even after President Barack Obama’s victory against Sen. John McCain and Bush’s “failed policies,” he is following in Bush’s footsteps quite quickly.

Obama is already planning to spend the remaining $350 billion of the Troubled Asset Relief Program in the same manner as Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Bush.

Obama and the Democrat Congress also promised to expand the federal budget, the federal payroll and the government’s power over the private sector, while calling for the creation of 600,000 new federal employees.

If big government, poor regulation and a lack of any realistic monetary policy got us here, how exactly is Obama’s version of “Change” different from Bush’s version of “Compassionate Conservatism?”

E-mail James Cannon II at [email protected].

View Comments (2)
More to Discover

Comments (2)

Spinnaker intends for this area to be used to foster healthy, thought-provoking discussion. Comments are expected to adhere to our standards and to be respectful and constructive. As such, we do not permit the use of profanity, foul language, personal attacks, slurs, defamation, or the use of language that might be interpreted as libelous. Comments are reviewed and will be removed if they do not adhere to these standards. Spinnaker does not allow anonymous comments, and Spinnaker requires a valid email address. The email address will not be displayed but will be used to confirm your comments.
All UNF Spinnaker Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • J

    John Lofton, Recovering RepublicanJan 21, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    Forget “conservatism,” please. It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

    “[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”

    Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

    John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com

    Recovering Republican

    [email protected]

  • B

    BrianJan 21, 2009 at 8:58 pm


    Well said, but sadly it will fall on deaf ears as people can’t seem to realize that when more people are taking out of the system than putting in an economy WILL falter.