COUNTRY SITS AT HISTORIC CROSSROADS

Voters have heard much this presidential campaign about the end of the Cold War, mostly from President Bush, who contends that his role in its end is compelling justification for his re-election.

But the real reason to keep Bush, and a Republican administration, in the White House four more years is to ensure a proper response to the natural shift away from massive defense spending and its centralizing affect on government.

For the first time since the end of World War II, Americans today have a legitimate opportunity to wean from the breasts of "Uncle Sow" an apt national symbol inspired by Rush Limbaugh a growing class of sucklers dependent on the prodigious growth of government.

It's amazing to think that politicians used to actually debate how much influence Washington ought to have on the daily lives of citizens, and, unlike today, there were clearly drawn lines on the issue. Generally, Republicans abhorred deficit spending and wanted to scrap New Deal social programs in lieu of less government and lower taxes.

Today, moderate Republicans (read milquetoasts) tend to be just as anxious as Democrats not only to "tax and spend," but also to regulate, restrict and intrude at every opportunity as the leviathan state continues to swell.

So how did we get from there to here? As the past four years has made painfully clear, one of the weaknesses of our form of government is the potential for contrasting political parties to check and balance Washington into gridlock.

When conservatives first began to see the threat of communist expansion after World War II, they placed strong defense at the top of their priorities. Many conservative lawmakers who were otherwise opposed to increased funding for social programs gave into demands from big government advocates who agreed to increased defense budgets in exchange for more spending on domestic programs. The scenario was repeated throughout the Cold War. Even Ronald Reagan was saddled by such constraints. He took office with the rousing vow of cuts not only in taxes but in government spending, including the abandonment of whole programs. Reagan welshed on his vow in part because he deemed a victory in the Cold War a justifiable reason for not bursting the ever-expanding beltway balloon.

Thank God he, and all the other heroes of that war, were successful. But now that the Cold War is over, all those teeth-gritting compromises made by conservatives since Truman was president need be no more than bad memories. It's time to embrace real cuts in government; in taxes and spending for defense and social programs.

It's amazing to me that people become enraged when their local city government makes a decision that only marginally affects their lives, yet they sit idly by while lawmakers in La-la land, D.C. are busy robbing upwards of a third of their income. And for what? For programs that are of no benefit to most of us, and don't work for those they're intended to help. There's something wrong when the IRS takes money out of my paycheck (ie. groceries from my refrigerator and clothes off my kids' backs) for a welfare program for retirees on the promise that I'll also be able to tap into the program when I'm 65. I can take care of my own needs, thank you, if only you'd get your grubby fingers out of my wallet.

Does anybody really enjoy government's increasing intrusion through higher taxes and more laws and regulations? We hear election babble about a middle income tax cut of 1 percent. It's incredible. If you want to give me a tax break Mr. Politician, why don't you abolish the IRS? The Boston Tea Party was thrown over a tax of about 3 percent. It's amazing we can sleep at night.

Only one party even bothers to give lip service to the need for less government, and there are Republicans although George Bush might not be one of them who would sincerely love to butcher the fattened hog of entitlements. If it's change the voters want, or an end to gridlock, they should vote Republicans into Congress, not Bill Clinton into the White House. Regardless of his so-called "moderate" appeal, a Clinton cabinet would be a left-wing cabinet, as would his federal judge appointments. He'd also have a rubber-stamp Congress to ensure continued growth in government spending.

Mr. Perot as an independent would be unable to amass Congressional support for the radical changes that are needed. A Republican administration would be most liable to work to make wholesale cuts in government.

With the Cold War's end, our nation sits at an historic crossroads: To the left is a familiar route continued taxes and wasteful spending. To the right, the path has succumbed to weeds of ignorance and neglect. But it's a straight path and an old one. It's the route of less government, real cuts in spending and taxation, and it happens to be the lone road platted on the map of our nation's founding.