The cause of limiting government looks bleak

By Adam Bitely


It seems like every presidential election cycle people get excited to nominate candidate that will roll back the expansion of government under the previous administration. For months, speculation of who the candidate will be that will stop the growth of government runs wild. But, as is always the case, reality sets in and those who thought they could stop the growth of government with a miracle candidate are left with choosing between the lesser of two evils.

2012 appears to be no different.

As it stands today, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are generating the most buzz for Republicans. With the GOP establishment lining up behind Romney and the social conservatives lining up behind Santorum, the media is focusing on these two candidates with Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul fighting to get in the mix.
People concerned about the out of control spending in Washington should be concerned about Romney or Santorum being the alternative to Obama.

Santorum’s record on spending leaves much more to be desired. He voted multiple times to raise the debt ceiling, supported the largest entitlement expansion since the Great Society programs started in the 1960’s and supported increased spending throughout the federal government especially to the Department of Education. He was known as a “yes-man” for the Republican form of Big Government spending during the Bush administration. Now he is campaigning as a small government conservative, even though his record is that of a Washington big spender.

Romney is no better. A supporter of the Bush bailouts of Wall Street, Obama’s auto bailouts and the author of the blueprint for ObamaCare, Romney should give any person who wants to stop Washington’s spending addiction pause. Romney has famously flip-flopped back and forth on various positions causing many voters to question how he will act in office. As a candidate for President though, Romney is suddenly “severely conservative” — whatever that means.

Both Romney and Santorum have records that show that if elected, the spending machine in Washington will keep running just as it always has. These are two people, who like most politicians, will maintain the status quo.

This cycle of politics and politicians as usual seems never ending. But that is how the system has worked for hundreds of years. The voters that decide elections are never the base of a party, rather, the decisive voters are in the middle and force the candidates on each side to cater to them in the run up to November. This leads to the party nominees moving to their true spot in the middle and saying whatever it takes to get the votes of the political middle. That is why the U.S. system rarely sees politicians elected that are way out on the wings politically.
Get full story here.