Content provided in partnership with

Shadegg Will Oppose New Big-Government Programs

Human Events, Jan 23, 2006 by Jeffrey, Terence, Gizzi, John

HUMAN EVENTS Editors Terence Jeffrey and John Gizzi talked with Rep. John Shadegg (R.-Ariz.) last week about his campaign to become the new House majority leader.

Your opponents for the majority leadership voted for the Medicare prescription drug plan and the No Child Left Behind education program, both of which President Bush pushed hard for. You voted against both. As majority leader, could you actually stand up against a Republican President if he tried to push through another program that you opposed because it expanded government in an unwarranted way?

Most Popular Articles in Reference: The importance of understanding organizational culture; Credit card attitudes and behaviors of college students; What factors attract foreign direct investment?; Libraries Need Relationship Marketing - mutual interest marketing concept, ...; How to set performance goals: employee reviews are more than annual critiques; More »

REP. JOHN SHADEGG: The answer to that question is: Yes. I think the sentiment of the Congress has changed. Many members of the House now recognize that we need to define ourselves as opposed to the White House and make clear where we stand on issues like that.

George Bush has many strong points. I happen to like his foreign policy very much. I think spreading democracy throughout the world is the right thing to do. But on domestic policy there has been disappointment, and were he to call for another effort to expand government dramatically like either of those programs you mentioned, I think it would be easily doable to stand up to him and resist that.

What is the biggest problem facing House Republicans now?

REP. SHADEGG: The single biggest problem facing us right now is to get back on our agenda. We made two promises back in 1994. One was to shrink the size of the government-make it smaller, tax less, spend less, regulate less, expand individual responsibility and individual freedom, and have a strong national defense. But we also promised to clean up government. I think we have fallen short on both counts. We have not shrunk government. Indeed, we are expanding it at a breakneck speed that simply cannot be defended. We have also not cleaned it up. The most telling blow against us right now is that it appears that we did not change Washington, Washington changed us. We need to make clear to Americans that we will tolerate no improprieties, no late-night deals, no secret backroom exercise of power by a small group of powerful members, but we will decide issues on the merits. Getting back to our agenda-and making sure the American people understand that we are fulfilling both promises-is the challenge that faces Republicans in Congress.

Although the Contract With America, that you signed and were elected on in 1994, does not mention abolishing the Departments of Education or Energy or the National Endowment for the Arts, many Republicans that year campaigned very hard on those issues. There were moves in the embryonic stages of the Republican Congress to actually close down Cabinet departments or major agencies. Looking specifically at those three examples, do you think those issues can be resuscitated in Congress?

REP. SHADEGG: It is going to be very difficult to eliminate an entire department. I am sorry to say that, but it appears to be true. I personally believe there is no place in the federal government for a Department of Education. It is not in the Constitution. There is no mention anywhere in the Constitution that the federal government has any role in education. I believe that the federal government doesn't have a role in education. I have several members of my family, including my wife, who are teachers, who are not at all happy with the so-called No Child Left Behind bill, which I think has gone far astray from what it was even intended to do. And I would like to hope that at some point we could get the federal government out of the business of education altogether, and acknowledge that this is policy that should be decided at the state level. How viable that is in the near future, I am not sure.

I did work to try to abolish the Department of Education, and I personally believe it shouldn't exist.

The National Endowment for the Arts is one area where there is ongoing discussion of the role of government and whether we should be doing that at all. It still does not have a legitimate government purpose. It still should not exist as a federally funded function, and there is some sentiment to go back to that point.

When we tried to kill it before, the vote count simply wasn't there. We had too many moderate Republicans who had too many supporters back home to allow us to kill it, so we made an effort to clean it up. My friend, Rep. Mark Souder, would say that we made progress in that effort, but that it still needs more work. I think that is an ongoing debate and is a more realistic possibility than eliminating the Department of Education.

With regard to the Department of Energy: Again, abolishing the entire department, though, I don't know that it does anything in terms of what we really need to do in energy policy. I believe [it] is going to be extremely difficult. I am sorry to say that. That is not where my personal heart is. But I think that is the reality.

There's a perception that conservatives are really good at fighting in the House as the outsiders. You led the Republican Study Committee in that role. But as majority leader how do you deal with members like Rep. Chris Shays and Rep. Nancy Johnson of Connecticut-who take a more moderate approach, and are from the Northeast-and bring them behind an agenda that is basically conservative?

Shadegg Will Oppose New Big-Government Programs

Human Events, Jan 23, 2006 by Jeffrey, Terence, Gizzi, John

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Autos

Most Popular Articles in Reference

Most Popular Publications in Reference