So much for a nice carefree Sunday morning LOL.

[Havakasha]

I certainly dont see where corporations or corporate heads are very accountable. Has anyone gone to jail in the latest situation where the worlds economies were brought to their knees and millions have suffered devastating consequences. The powerful are usually safe from punishment. Corporations get away with murder all the time.
If you could get money out of politics, reform the political system and make sure EVERYONE voted at least then you would have a more representative govt.

I am certainly glad someone like Elizabeth Warren is being considered for a position as head of the new Consumer protection agency. Republicans would never have considered her. To me that makes a difference in my sense of govt's responsiveness to my concerns. i could go down a list of positions and say i am definitely happier that Obama is in power than i would have been if McCain had been.

[Havakasha]

Do you support this way of financing campaigns?


Interest-Group Spending Drives G.O.P. Lead in Ads
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: September 13, 2010

Outside groups supporting Republican candidates in House and Senate races across the country have been swamping their Democratic-leaning counterparts on television since early August as the midterm election season has begun heating up.
Driving the disparity in the ad wars has been an array of Republican-oriented organizations that are set up so they can accept donations of unlimited size from individuals and corporations without having to disclose them. The situation raises the possibility that a relatively small cadre of deep-pocketed donors, unknown to the general public, is shaping the battle for Congress in the early going.

The yawning gap in independent interest group spending is alarming some Democratic officials, who argue that it amounts to an effort on the part of wealthy Republican donors, as well as corporate interests, newly emboldened by regulatory changes, to buy the election.

“While each of our campaigns has the resources they need to be competitive, we now face shadow groups putting their thumbs on the scale with undisclosed, unlimited and unregulated donations,” said Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

As the primary season ends this week and the general election begins in earnest, the nightmare for the Democrats is that this is just the beginning. Tracking by Democratic media buyers, in fact, shows that other large chunks of television time have been set aside in the coming weeks in key House races by more Republican-leaning groups.

The snapshot of early television spending would seem to be a fulfillment of Democrats’ worst fears after the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case in January that lifted a ban on direct corporate spending on political campaigns.

It is not clear, however, whether it is actually an influx of new corporate money unleashed by the Citizens United decision that is driving the spending chasm, or other factors, notably, a political environment that favors Republicans.

There are only scattered clues that can be gleaned about the financing, like the two $1 million contributions from Louisiana companies tied to Harold Simmons, a Texas billionaire and longtime Republican donor who helped finance Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, in the campaign finance filings of one group, American Crossroads; and that David Koch, the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries, is closely tied to another major player, Americans for Prosperity.

Corporations have so far mostly chosen not to take advantage of the Citizens United ruling to directly sponsor campaign ads themselves.

Some, however, are most likely funneling more money into campaigns through some of these independent groups, said Lawrence M. Noble, a lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and a former general counsel for the Federal Election Commission. They had the right to make such contributions before the ruling, he said, but Citizens United made it more straightforward.

“There’s a greater comfort level,” Mr. Noble said.

Still, disclosure laws make it impossible to know for sure where the money for these groups is coming from in most cases.

“Corporate interests are buying the elections?” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group. “Oh no, it’s much worse than that. We don’t know who’s buying the election.”

If the trend on television continues and extends across other types of independent group spending, it would be a reversal from the past. In recent elections, it was Democrats who used so-called soft money vehicles, which are able to accept unrestricted donations, to a much greater degree.

In 2006, for example, the last midterm election, Democratic-leaning 527 groups, named for the part of the tax code they fall under, outspent Republican-leaning ones in federal races $121 million to $65 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

“The groups that perfected this were on the Democratic side,” said Steven Law, president and chief executive of American Crossroads, a Republican-oriented advocacy group, and its sister organization, Crossroads GPS. Crossroads GPS has been the biggest third-party player on television by far since early August.

In Senate races, Republican-leaning interest groups outspent Democratic-leaning ones on television $10.9 million to $1.3 million, from Aug. 1 to Sept. 8, according to Campaign Media Analysis Group, a company that tracks political advertising.

In the House, Republican-leaning groups outspent Democratic-leaning ones, $3.1 million to $1.5 million.

Television spending by the candidates themselves was fairly even during the period, with Republicans in the Senate pouring out about $19.6 million compared with $17.3 million by Democrats; in the House, Democrats spent $7.6 million to the Republicans $7 million. Spending by the party committees was negligible.

A major question is how big a mark labor unions will be able to make for Democrats; they have mostly held their fire on television up to this point. The one exception is the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which spent $1.2 million on House races. The Citizens United decision frees them up to more directly support candidates, as well, but even their leaders seemed to indicate that they would not be able to match pro-Republican expenditures over the airwaves.

“If we try to compete in that game, we can’t compete,” said Richard Trumka, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. “They have so much more resources.”

Fear has been building for some time among Democratic operatives that third-party spending on all fronts this year would favor Republicans, based on declarations by various groups on the amounts they were hoping to devote to this election. Spending on other activities, however, is much more difficult to track. Television advertising is, therefore, a useful gauge.

In Senate races over the last month, Crossroads GPS spent $4.8 million in California, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada and Pennsylvania. It was followed by the United States Chamber of Commerce, a Republican-leaning trade association, which spent $2.9 million in television advertising in Illinois, Missouri and New Hampshire.

Fund-raising for both of the Crossroads groups has been spearheaded by Karl Rove, the former political strategist for President George W. Bush, and Ed Gillespie, a former Republican Party chairman.

The groups are well on their way to meeting their combined fund-raising goal of just over $50 million for this election, Mr. Law said.

Crossroads GPS is organized as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, meaning it legally cannot devote more than half of its activities to politics, but it also means that it does not have to disclose its donors.

American Crossroads, on the other hand, recently filed paperwork to become an independent-expenditure political action committee, a new classification for third-party groups made possible by a pair of recent advisory opinions by the F.E.C. after the Citizens United decision. Such groups can accept donations of unlimited size but are required to regularly disclose their donors.

Perhaps not so coincidentally, American Crossroads spent only $437,000 on television in August and early September, much less than its sister-organization. Donations revealed in campaign finance filings by American Crossroads, however, offer a glimpse of the kinds of hefty contributions its leaders have been soliciting. There are the $1 million contributions linked to Mr. Simmons; and another $1 million donation came from a trust controlled by Jerry Perenchio, a former chairman of Univision and another major contributor to Republican causes.

Meanwhile, the biggest sponsor of television advertising in House races over the last month was Americans for Prosperity, which spent about $1.5 million, singling out races in which Republican candidates are at a fund-raising disadvantage.

Americans for Prosperity is another 501(c)(4), which does not have to disclose its donors. Mr. Koch, who has mostly supported Republicans over the years, serves as the chairman of its sister organization, Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which is much more limited in its political activities because it is set up as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

Steven Greenhouse contributed reporting.

[Atypical]

Tell that to the employees and customers of Enron. Did you listen to the tapes of the traders? The residents, sea life and families of the dead rig workers in the Gulf. The employees of Nike around the world. The eleven dead Massey miner's families. Let's see...only 3248 more stories to go.

How about this one?

Always Low Prices…But What About Cost?

May 7, 2010 — lyssa2690

We’ve all seen those commercials – the ones where a tantalizing burger is topped perfectly with crisp lettuce, the bun looks like it just was just baked, and everything is stacked up perfectly. Those are the commercials that make you crave that Big Mac. Yet when you finally pull away from the drive-thru window, the lettuce on your sandwich is wilted, the bun is squished into a pancake, and you have to restack everything before you dare to bite into it.

So what about those other commercials that we’ve all seen? A Wal-Mart associate smiles back at you from your television, beckoning you with the ultimate family image and low prices. Just like that Big Mac, you assume that what you see is what you’ll get at the supercenter, but when you wander through the doors past the Wal-Mart greeter, you wonder how all their employees seem to be in a perpetual bad mood.

The answer is simple, and it lies in the Wal-Mart 2010 Financial Report.

As of the 2010 fiscal year ending on January 31, the 8,416 Wal-Mart stores spread worldwide had racked up net sales just over $405 billion dollars – more than any other corporation. The company’s gross profit margin has been on the rise for at least the last five years, coming in at 24.8%, and net sales also continue to increase.

With astronomical numbers like these, you’d think Wal-Mart’s employees would be thrilled to come to work every day. But instead of enjoying the success of their employer, the majority of Wal-Mart’s associates face wages falling below the poverty line and less-than-adequate healthcare.

The average, full-time Wal-Mart employee, as of 2008, made only $20,774 per year, translating into almost $1,500 under the poverty level. At the opposite end of the scales, CEO Mike Duke pulled in over $12.2. $12.2 million dollars, that is. With increasing profits and record sales, the company could certainly afford to be paying their sales associates adequate wages (Wake Up Wal-Mart).

As if these wages aren’t bad enough, Wal-Mart mentions nothing of its overseas suppliers, which sometimes pay their sweatshop workers mere pennies a day to work in monotonous, unsafe conditions. Does the phrase “Made in China” sound all too familiar? The biggest supplier, not surprisingly, is China, which exported $18 billion in goods to Wal-Mart alone in 2004 (Wal-Mart’s China Inventory). Additionally, the Wal-Mart corporation is “legendary for quite straightforwardly telling [suppliers] what it will pay for their goods (The Wal-Mart You Don’t Know). But with the power it wields, the only thing worse than meeting the company’s demands might be not doing business with it in the first place.

Wal-Mart clearly stands at the top in ruthlessly dictating every aspect of business, right down to the rights of the corporation’s own workers. Countless allegations have been made by Wal-Mart’s employees that they were never compensated for work done on their breaks or other off-the-clock intervals (Wake Up Wal-Mart).

And it doesn’t stop there. On the Health and Wellness Fact Sheet, Wal-Mart’s Website boasts that their healthcare plan has some of the lowest premiums, ranging from $9 to $27 dollars per pay period. However, what they don’t tell you is that the annual out-of-pocket sum is over $5,000 before Wal-Mart begins to pay anything, and for families whose income is generated from the corporation alone, it comes close to one quarter of the earned income. Instead, Wal-Mart employees are turning, or even encouraged, to take advantage of government-funded programs like Medicaid. In 2009 alone, this cost taxpayers slightly less than $45 million dollars (Wake Up Wal-Mart). Should we be spending our hard-earned dollars just so that CEO Mike Duke can enjoy his profits? I think not.

So what does this all amount to? Unfriendly Wal-Mart greeters, cashiers, and sales associates. And who can blame them?

Wal-Mart’s empire revolves around low wages, worker exploitation, outsourcing, and inadequate healthcare so that they can bring you the lowest prices. Always. Ultimately, the decision is yours, but I, for one, refuse to be another enabler.

[Atypical]

(Reuters) - The food industry is jeopardizing U.S. public health by withholding information from food safety investigators or pressuring regulators to withdraw or alter policy designed to protect consumers, said a survey of government scientists and inspectors.

The study released on Monday by the Union of Concerned Scientists found one-in-four of those surveyed have seen corporate interests forcing their agency to withdraw or modify a policy or action designed to protect consumers during the past year.

Pressure to overhaul the food safety system has grown following high-profile outbreaks involving lettuce, peppers, eggs, peanuts, spinach and most recently, eggs that have sickened thousands and shaken the public's confidence in the safety of the food supply.

The 44-question survey, conducted earlier this year, also found more than 38 percent of those respondents said "public health has been harmed by agency practices that defer to business interests" at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Agriculture Department.

In addition, 31 percent said the presence of top agency decision makers who have worked for the food or agriculture industry "inappropriately" influences decisions.

"Upper level management does not adequately support field inspectors and the actions they take to protect the food supply," said Dean Wyatt, a USDA veterinarian who oversees federal slaughterhouse inspectors.

"Not only is there lack of support, but there's outright obstruction, retaliation and abuse of power," Wyatt said, noting he's been demoted by USDA for documenting violations.

A USDA spokesman said in a statement the safety of meat and poultry "is the sole function of our Food Safety Inspection Service and no other considerations should detract from carrying out their mission."

Brian Kennedy with the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents the industry, did not address the study directly, but said a strong partnership between its members, FDA and USDA "with the goal of protecting our food supply is in the best interest of public health."

Despite the concerns, 67 percent of the respondents -- 72 percent at FDA and 65 percent at USDA -- said their agency is "moving in the right direction." It also found 75 percent said their agency gives public health a lot or much weight in policy decisions.

"I think the good news (is) ... that we didn't in fact just get angry, grumpy people, the disenchanted responding to the survey," said Francesca Grifo, director of the Scientific Integrity Program, of UCS.

The survey was sent to about 8,000 individuals working on food safety at the FDA and USDA. Just over 1,700 employees from all levels of the food safety system responded, with more than 60 percent identifying themselves as inspectors.

Foodborne illnesses sicken an estimated 76 million people in the United States each year and are fatal to 5,000, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The massive salmonella outbreak that sparked a recall of more than a half billion eggs from two Iowa plants in August could provide momentum for the Senate to act on its own food safety bill later this month.

The House passed food reform legislation in July 2009

[Atypical]

So sayeth SiriuslyLong...

"At least with a corporation, corrupt or not, the goal is to return value to its stockholders. A corporation is accountable." (Well, that's all that matters, I guess. Just the money.)


VA, Prudential Made Secret Deal

Could this resonate as much as the Walter Reed scandal? Bloomberg reports that since 1999, Prudential Financial Inc. has had a secret agreement with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs that allows it to withhold lump-sum payments of life-insurance benefits to the family of fallen soldiers—so that Prudential can invest that money and keep whatever money it makes for itself. The arrangement was completely secret for 10 years until it was put into writing in 2009. "Every veteran I've spoken with is appalled at the brazen war profiteering by Prudential," says the executive director of Veterans for Common Sense. Survivors who request lump-sum payments are sent "checkbooks"—essentially, IOUs that aren't insured by the FDIC—instead of actual checks. Prudential makes eight times as much through the investments as what it pays in interest to beneficiaries.

Complete DISGUSTING article @

http://e.thedailybeast.com/a/hBMj9SL...NleSAM8f/dail2

[SiriuslyLong]

I certainly dont see where corporations or corporate heads are very accountable. Has anyone gone to jail in the latest situation where the worlds economies were brought to their knees and millions have suffered devastating consequences. The powerful are usually safe from punishment. Corporations get away with murder all the time.
If you could get money out of politics, reform the political system and make sure EVERYONE voted at least then you would have a more representative govt.

I am certainly glad someone like Elizabeth Warren is being considered for a position as head of the new Consumer protection agency. Republicans would never have considered her. To me that makes a difference in my sense of govt's responsiveness to my concerns. i could go down a list of positions and say i am definitely happier that Obama is in power than i would have been if McCain had been.

You are presented with video evidence of your party telling the American people that "nothing is wrong" with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and you have the nerve to call for corporate heads? These ignorant bastards are to blame (all or in part) for the mess we are in. Retrospect provides perfect vision.

How about this. What happenend to the CEO of BP after the spill? Answer - he was sent packing. How many of your beloved politicians are sent packing. Answer - zero. They are indoctrinated by their geopolicital bases. It's far more corrupt than any corporation will EVER be.

[SiriuslyLong]

Tell that to the employees and customers of Enron. Did you listen to the tapes of the traders? The residents, sea life and families of the dead rig workers in the Gulf. The employees of Nike around the world. The eleven dead Massey miner's families. Let's see...only 3248 more stories to go.

How about this one?

Always Low Prices…But What About Cost?

May 7, 2010 — lyssa2690

We’ve all seen those commercials – the ones where a tantalizing burger is topped perfectly with crisp lettuce, the bun looks like it just was just baked, and everything is stacked up perfectly. Those are the commercials that make you crave that Big Mac. Yet when you finally pull away from the drive-thru window, the lettuce on your sandwich is wilted, the bun is squished into a pancake, and you have to restack everything before you dare to bite into it.

So what about those other commercials that we’ve all seen? A Wal-Mart associate smiles back at you from your television, beckoning you with the ultimate family image and low prices. Just like that Big Mac, you assume that what you see is what you’ll get at the supercenter, but when you wander through the doors past the Wal-Mart greeter, you wonder how all their employees seem to be in a perpetual bad mood.

The answer is simple, and it lies in the Wal-Mart 2010 Financial Report.

As of the 2010 fiscal year ending on January 31, the 8,416 Wal-Mart stores spread worldwide had racked up net sales just over $405 billion dollars – more than any other corporation. The company’s gross profit margin has been on the rise for at least the last five years, coming in at 24.8%, and net sales also continue to increase.

With astronomical numbers like these, you’d think Wal-Mart’s employees would be thrilled to come to work every day. But instead of enjoying the success of their employer, the majority of Wal-Mart’s associates face wages falling below the poverty line and less-than-adequate healthcare.

The average, full-time Wal-Mart employee, as of 2008, made only $20,774 per year, translating into almost $1,500 under the poverty level. At the opposite end of the scales, CEO Mike Duke pulled in over $12.2. $12.2 million dollars, that is. With increasing profits and record sales, the company could certainly afford to be paying their sales associates adequate wages (Wake Up Wal-Mart).

As if these wages aren’t bad enough, Wal-Mart mentions nothing of its overseas suppliers, which sometimes pay their sweatshop workers mere pennies a day to work in monotonous, unsafe conditions. Does the phrase “Made in China” sound all too familiar? The biggest supplier, not surprisingly, is China, which exported $18 billion in goods to Wal-Mart alone in 2004 (Wal-Mart’s China Inventory). Additionally, the Wal-Mart corporation is “legendary for quite straightforwardly telling [suppliers] what it will pay for their goods (The Wal-Mart You Don’t Know). But with the power it wields, the only thing worse than meeting the company’s demands might be not doing business with it in the first place.

Wal-Mart clearly stands at the top in ruthlessly dictating every aspect of business, right down to the rights of the corporation’s own workers. Countless allegations have been made by Wal-Mart’s employees that they were never compensated for work done on their breaks or other off-the-clock intervals (Wake Up Wal-Mart).

And it doesn’t stop there. On the Health and Wellness Fact Sheet, Wal-Mart’s Website boasts that their healthcare plan has some of the lowest premiums, ranging from $9 to $27 dollars per pay period. However, what they don’t tell you is that the annual out-of-pocket sum is over $5,000 before Wal-Mart begins to pay anything, and for families whose income is generated from the corporation alone, it comes close to one quarter of the earned income. Instead, Wal-Mart employees are turning, or even encouraged, to take advantage of government-funded programs like Medicaid. In 2009 alone, this cost taxpayers slightly less than $45 million dollars (Wake Up Wal-Mart). Should we be spending our hard-earned dollars just so that CEO Mike Duke can enjoy his profits? I think not.

So what does this all amount to? Unfriendly Wal-Mart greeters, cashiers, and sales associates. And who can blame them?

Wal-Mart’s empire revolves around low wages, worker exploitation, outsourcing, and inadequate healthcare so that they can bring you the lowest prices. Always. Ultimately, the decision is yours, but I, for one, refuse to be another enabler.

My intent of posting this "spam" was not to put virute on Walmart. On the contrary, I hate the place. Dinner after dinner I talk to my customers, and no one shops there. I don't step foot in the place.

The interesting part was indeed what can be perceived as failures of the federal government. That's what I was posting. THat's why it's in caps. And for you that have "full faith"......... well, God bless you.

[SiriuslyLong]

So sayeth SiriuslyLong...

"At least with a corporation, corrupt or not, the goal is to return value to its stockholders. A corporation is accountable." (Well, that's all that matters, I guess. Just the money.)


VA, Prudential Made Secret Deal

Could this resonate as much as the Walter Reed scandal? Bloomberg reports that since 1999, Prudential Financial Inc. has had a secret agreement with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs that allows it to withhold lump-sum payments of life-insurance benefits to the family of fallen soldiers—so that Prudential can invest that money and keep whatever money it makes for itself. The arrangement was completely secret for 10 years until it was put into writing in 2009. "Every veteran I've spoken with is appalled at the brazen war profiteering by Prudential," says the executive director of Veterans for Common Sense. Survivors who request lump-sum payments are sent "checkbooks"—essentially, IOUs that aren't insured by the FDIC—instead of actual checks. Prudential makes eight times as much through the investments as what it pays in interest to beneficiaries.

Complete DISGUSTING article @

http://e.thedailybeast.com/a/hBMj9SL...NleSAM8f/dail2

"secret agreement" - that implies an agreement was reached.

The cocksucker from the department Deptarment of Vetrans Affairs... where is he, they? Right, on to bigger and better things. Might even be in Obama's cabnet.

It's always a one way street you guys. Get real. Greed and avorice works both ways, and I'm damn sure you are laying blame on the wrong side. You choose to believe otherwise. You fail to acknowledge the corporations pay me and people like me wages and benefits. I guess you want the government to provide that function?

[Havakasha]

All you could come up with in this entire financial collapse on Wall Street is Tony Hayward (who has nothing to do with it)? What a goddamn joke.

Many corporate heads these days make way too much money (salaries are way out of wack) and dont give a shit if they bring down the whole system just as long as they make their millions.

And by the way, BP's Tony Hayward left with benefits valued at more than $18 million dollars. Wow that is some REAL punishment.

Politicians CAN be voted out of office (in the House every 2 years). The problem is the political system (dont hear you taking me up on my suggestion to get money out of politics and to reform the system) and the citizens who vote for many of the jerks.Too many of these so called citizens dont do the homework citizenship requires. Many listen to Fox news all the time and dont know the goddamn FACTS on just about anything.

You just dont get it S&L. I dont hate all corporations or corporate heads i just hate what SOME of them have done to our country and what some Politicians have allowed them to get away with. You seem to hate Govt PERIOD and thats just plain stupid. Go read David Brooks column in the other thread please.

P.S. I am starting to think you might need electric shock therapy for your ABSOLUTE fixation on fannie and freddie as the cause of everything. You seem stuck on Fox news talking points and i had thought you were way smarter than that. I am really surprised with what seems to be your lack of ability or interest in taking new information and incorporating it into your world view. Again please read David Brooks column about Govt and Republicans.

[Havakasha]

I brought the article over here so all can read it. This is a Republican's point of view just remember. I dont agree with a number of his points about govt today but....

OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Day After Tomorrow
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: September 13, 2010

Every political movement has a story. The surging Republican Party has a story, too. It is a story of virtue betrayed and innocence threatened.
Through most of its history, the narrative begins, the United States was a limited government nation, with restrained central power and an independent citizenry. But over the years, forces have arisen that seek to change America’s essential nature. These forces would replace America’s traditional free enterprise system with a European-style cradle-to-grave social democracy.

These statist forces are more powerful than ever in the age of Obama. So it is the duty for those who believe in the traditional American system to stand up and defend the Constitution. There is no middle ground. Every small new government program puts us on the slippery slope toward a smothering nanny state.

As Paul Ryan and Arthur Brooks put it in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, “The road to serfdom in America does not involve a knock in the night or a jack-booted thug. It starts with smooth-talking politicians offering seemingly innocuous compromises, and an opportunistic leadership that chooses not to stand up for America’s enduring principles of freedom and entrepreneurship.”

Ryan and Brooks are two of the most important conservative thinkers today. Ryan is the leading Republican policy entrepreneur in the House. Brooks is president of the highly influential American Enterprise Institute and a much-cited author. My admiration for both is unbounded.

Yet the story Republicans are telling each other, which Ryan and Brooks have reinforced, is an oversimplified version of American history, with dangerous implications.

The fact is, the American story is not just the story of limited governments; it is the story of limited but energetic governments that used aggressive federal power to promote growth and social mobility. George Washington used industrial policy, trade policy and federal research dollars to build a manufacturing economy alongside the agricultural one. The Whig Party used federal dollars to promote a development project called the American System.

Abraham Lincoln supported state-sponsored banks to encourage development, lavish infrastructure projects, increased spending on public education. Franklin Roosevelt provided basic security so people were freer to move and dare. The Republican sponsors of welfare reform increased regulations and government spending — demanding work in exchange for dollars.

Throughout American history, in other words, there have been leaders who regarded government like fire — a useful tool when used judiciously and a dangerous menace when it gets out of control. They didn’t build their political philosophy on whether government was big or not. Government is a means, not an end. They built their philosophy on making America virtuous, dynamic and great. They supported government action when it furthered those ends and opposed it when it didn’t.

If the current Republican Party regards every new bit of government action as a step on the road to serfdom, then the party will be taking this long, mainstream American tradition and exiling it from the G.O.P.

That will be a political tragedy. There are millions of voters who, while alarmed by the Democrats’ lavish spending, still look to government to play some positive role. They fled the G.O.P. after the government shutdown of 1995, and they would do so again.

It would be a fiscal tragedy. Over the next decade there will have to be spending cuts and tax increases. If Republicans decide that even the smallest tax increases put us on the road to serfdom, then there will never be a deal, and the country will careen toward bankruptcy.

It would also be a policy tragedy. Republicans are right to oppose the current concentration of power in Washington. But once that is halted, America faces a series of problems that can’t be addressed simply by getting government out of the way.

The social fabric is fraying. Human capital is being squandered. Society is segmenting. The labor markets are ill. Wages are lagging. Inequality is increasing. The nation is overconsuming and underinnovating. China and India are surging. Not all of these challenges can be addressed by the spontaneous healing powers of the market.

Most important, it would be an intellectual tragedy. Conservatism is supposed to be nonideological and context-driven. If all government action is automatically dismissed as quasi socialist, then there is no need to think. A pall of dogmatism will settle over the right.

Republicans are riding a wave of revulsion about what is happening in Washington. But it is also time to start talking about the day after tomorrow, after the centralizing forces are thwarted. I hope that as Arthur Brooks and Paul Ryan lead a resurgent conservatism, they’ll think about the limited-but-energetic government tradition, which stands between Barry Goldwater and François Mitterrand, but at the heart of the American experience.