The real test of the Tea Party and the new conservative majority in Congress is how committed they are to cutting the expenses of government. It is foolish to think it can be cut by a meaningful amount without cutting  the big and popular entitlement items like Medicare and Social Security. It will likely require cutting popular pork barrel spending on farm programs and other programs that have long outlived their usefulness and purpose.

Every program has a constituency that can justify their program in isolation.  It is considering the programs in context of the total that requires a decision.  It is the duty of our elected officials to say “no” to worthwhile programs we can no longer afford.

The cuts must be broad and should affect everybody, but inevitably some will be hurt more than others. Those that have benefitted the most from excess government largesse will probably feel the pain the most.

Congress will be tested by the onslaught of lobbyists and special interests.  But lobbyists are a byproduct of  excess regulations. And excess regulations favor established large enterprises over small and startup companies, because the regulations often require an extensive infrastructure that small businesses do not have.

It is not enough to just cut government expenses, though that is critical. The regulatory environment must be streamlined to allow new companies from the private sector to find profitable solutions to issues that this government thinks only they can solve.

We keep hearing that citizens want more from their government, but the question is rarely raised while the cost is included.  Asking what they would want from the government without telling them what it will cost is worthless wishing.

The new Congress must face the hard reality that a lot of programs must be cut and must respect that more voters, who are now more aware of the cost, are willing to do without.  The test will come when they must get clear and specific about meaningful cuts.

Until then it was all just more campaign rhetoric.

Coming down from Atlanta today I sought a liberal talk show and got Lynn Samuels at Sirius 146.

The most notable difference from the conservative talk shows was the frequent use of the word ‘fuck’ by the host as well as the guest.

What was interesting was the criticism of both the health care bill and the president. While they still preferred him to  McCain/ Palin, and the host referred to George W as a ‘fucking idiot’, they were very critical of the Obama’s inability to say anything substantive or communicate well in spite of his eloquence in front of a mike.

Ms. Samuels hated the bill because medical insurance stocks went up after the bill.  Of course most stocks went up and that alone means little. But to her if the bill was any good their stock price would have gone down. She was strongly critical of Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinick and other liberals who were against the bill and changed.  She suspected them of selling out for some personal gain. She accused her party of the same strong arm techniques she hated the Republicans for.

One self described liberal caller even warned of his concern about the growth in the power of government and how this power could be easily abused in the hands of someone who comes after Obama.

If the liberals hate the bill and the conservatives hate the bill, then who voted for it?

I find that following and being followed by a few thousand people on Twitter gives one a certain feel of the pulse of the electorate. I realize that most of my followers are right of center, thought I aim to get beyond left and right.

I have a few rules of who I follow. I avoid personal coaches, anybody blatantly selling anything, religious zealots, and language that crosses the line from information and opinion to vile hatred.

The right is angry. They largely attack the president for his policies. They are upset about the Ben Nelson payoff, the special deal to the union on health care, the deficit, etc.

Some twitterers may have more substance than others. But while the right is angry the left is often just downright nasty.  I try to find left of center sources, but this is typical of one leftist Twitterer that I just unfollowed.  These are excerpts from just one page of his posts:

“conservative assholes”

“spout lies”

“RACIST ASS”

“raped and pillaged this country” (Republicans)

“hateful racist worthless piece of shit”

“I’d vote your ass to a cemetery, you shitbag”

“You fucking idiot.”

“You’re a piece of shit.”

This Twitterer has over a thousand followers and follows many more. He claims to be retired.   I have thousands of followers and I have yet to see one of the conservative Twitterers  as vile as the one I am spotlighting.  It is not an isolated example.

These people suck any intelligence out of the political debate.

“I became a conservative by being around liberals and I became a libertarian by being around conservatives.  You realized that there’s something distinctly in common between the two groups, the left and the right; the worst part of each of them is the moralizing. On the left, you have people who want to dictate your behavior under the guise of tolerance.  Unless you disagree with them. Then the tolerance goes out the window.  Which kind of negates the whole idea of tolerance. That’s the politically correct tolerance.  Then when you become a conservative, the other kind of moralizing comes from religion. ”

From Greg Gutfield  ”What You’re Left With Is Libertarianism” in the October 2009 Reason

HKO comments- so is Libertarianism a political movement without morals or one without ‘moralizing’?  Is there a difference?