Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President in the USA, argued passionately and eloquently against the idea that the Constitution restricts the power of the federal government to limit the spread of slavery, just as liberals today argue that the Constitution does not restrict the power of the federal government to limit incursions on a woman's right to choose her own reproductive actions.

Republican Teddy Roosevelt was an avid hunter and dedicated environmentalist who persuaded congress to set aside land for the national parks so that future generations may enjoy nature unspoiled by industrialists and developers. On a hunting trip, when presented with a caged bear cub to shoot, Teddy refused to shoot and insisted on setting it free, inspiring the creation of the "Teddy Bear" stuffed animal. Contrast this behavior with that of today's "avid" hunter who will shoot domesticated "game" birds and ignore rules of hunting safety.

Republican Dwight Eisenhower created our national freeway system, using the power of the federal government to promote the general welfare. The building of the freeway system in the 1950s and 1960s led to prosperity for all Americans.

Then came the so-called "Reagan Revolution" in the late 1960s in which funding for California schools and other infrastructure was significantly curtailed, leading to the decline of public education in California from the best in the nation and the world to nearly the worst.

What happened? How have otherwise responsible voters let this happen?

Reagan was a shill front man for wealthy elites.
He was the "leading man" for the role of "US for Sale".
The common wealth of our nation has been sold off from the back of a truck for the past 40 years.

The voting process is also big business.

Who was it who said, "you can have wealth concentrated into the hands of a few, and you can have democracy, but you can't have both."?

umm wouldnt that make democracy, communism? in other words everyone has fair distribution of money and no one is overltly wealthy.. The idea behind democracy is people are free to choose their jobs, their wealth and their ideologies. If you take away peoples right to be rich you take away their right to choose..

Nobody argues with a right to own private property and become wealthy by hard work or inheritance. It's the theft of public property and abuse of power that's at issue. That's why Teddy Roosevelt initiated "trust busting" back at the turn of the 19th century: to stop the predatory abuse of big money.

For government to promote the general welfare, to work for the prosperity of all, is not communism. It's what government is supposed to do as defined in our constitution:

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, to provide for the common defense, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of freedom to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution of the United States of America." (emphasis mine)

I agree that promoting wealth amongst all is good, I agree if we allow the super rich to control to much then we will fall into a illusionary democracy which is actually a monetary system. Stopping monopolies and encouraging systems that allow the poor to gain riches through hard work and dedication is a great ideal, however the problem is that the rich are all in the governement or just happen to throw a few million at congress to make sure that things go their way..

That's why the California "clean money bill" is so important in my state, and could serve as a model at the federal level.