Newsmax Headline: Gingrich Praises Ryan Budget Cuts, Except for Research
If you are a fiscal conservative, then you hold to certain core beliefs. If you are a fiscal conservative, then you see government’s role as limited and not overlapping into the private sector. If you are a fiscal conservative, you can recognize another fiscal conservative or its antithesis, a fiscal progressive. Unfortunately Newt is not a fiscal conservative and never has been. Paul Ryan is a fiscal conservative at his core and his budget documents his innate belief in small, limited government with a reliance on individuals excelling in an open, free society.
Fiscal conservatives believe:
- Deficit spending is unacceptable, period.
- That government should provide for a common national defense.
- That government should only provide services that cannot be provided by the private sector.
- That government should provide for an environment that promotes private sector initiative and the development of innovations.
Newt objections include: “One of them is cutting investment in science and research.” When a politician uses the word “INVESTMENT”, sit down and hold onto you wallet. We all believe that research and science is necessary to continue to the progress of humanity even though some of our “progress” may be a bit suspect. But, the private sector has provided the overwhelming majority of the innovations in medicine, technology, health, and other vital fields that are critical to improving the overall lot of human beings. The government intrusion, or cash infusion, into science and research has led to the funding of solutions in search of a problem, or worse, it has spawned an industry solely devoted to obtaining government grants and producing worthless studies. These include the creation of the Global Warming Hoax and many other environmental faux science conclusions that were passed off as scientific certainties.
To balance the government vs private sector’s ability to develop sound scientific solutions through research, one only needs to consider that the private sector will invest in research with the goal being the development of a product or service that would be in demand by the public. The government, on the other hand, has no real goal in their research projects and are funding projects because the Congress has provided our money to the agencies to hand out. There are no stated objectives to our giveaway programs, no required cost/benefit analysis, no milestone checking to see if the investment is providing tangible results before all of the money is spent. I find it fascinating the someone like Bill Gates, Microsoft Chairman, supports and touts government funding of research as the panacea to human development. This is from a man who created software that today is embraced by the overwhelming majority of mankind and that literally runs the day-to-day lives of all of us. Did the government provide funding to Microsoft? No but the government did sue Microsoft for anti-trust violations siphoning billions from a private company that could have gone into more research and development.
Is there a place for “pure science” in a society? Pure science being defined as an unbounded environment where anything can be challenged, researched, and created. The answer is yes but our experience has been that the creation of this type of pure science environment is always tainted by political intrusion and meddling. The “Manhattan Project” may be the last pure science endeavor as it was spawned out of an extreme national emergency and politicians were not initially allowed to meddle in the execution of the research. Pure Science should be managed by the private sector and if there is any public investment, is has to be in a controlled, NON DEFICIT environment. If budget pressures raise the cry for higher taxes, then these types of project have to go before taxes are raised.
Newt falls into the trap that government can provide innovation. Government can only provide a hindrance to innovation. Thousands of worthwhile innovations by the private sector have been killed by government agencies and their bureaucrats for a whole host of regulatory reasons. By its nature government is the main obstacle to human development by stifling personal initiative, increasing the costs for research through high regulatory fees and other regulations, and through the infusion of political correctness in who and what gets research grants. How many studies to disprove Global Warming do you think the EPA would give out? How many studies to disprove the effects of carbon dioxide on our environment would be funded by the EPA? How many studies to prove that adult stem cell research is far superior to embryonic stem cell research would the Health and Human Services approve? How many studies to prove that life begins at conception would be approved by any government agency?
Not to Newt: luke warm fiscal conservatives are just slower versions of fiscal progressives. You both end up in the same place it just takes you longer to drag us down. Keep writing books, giving speeches, and appearing on TV but stay out of the Presidential race in 2012. Your time passed in the 1990’s when you blinked when you were attacked by the Clinton machine. Apparently the left’s tactics worked on you.
Ryan is right. Balance the budget and eliminate the deficit. Get the private sector back to work…
Read more on Newsmax.com: Gingrich Praises Ryan Budget Cuts, Except for Research