Tea Anyone?

Conservative House members believe that Obamacare will ultimately bankrupt our country, whose debt has soared even more dangerously under Obama's presidency, and that to make no attempt to stop it or dramatically modify it, right now, would be both financially and morally unconscionable.  Fiscal rectitude is at the ideological heart of American conservatism.  The Right might feud over social issues and foreign interventionism, but is eternally wedded on the social and economic ill-effects of over-spending government and punishing debt. Would the left behave any more 'reasonably' than the House Conservatives if a national ban on abortion or the progressive income tax were passed into law? Governments make mistakes, and they need to be fixed.  And akin to misbegotten war, frequently there are few, if any, effective half-measure retreats.  Obamacare is such a mistake.... and a super-majority of American's now agree.

And for those of you who argue that Obama was reelected and the people voted for this and it was confirmed by the Supreme Court I ask you: would you empower a drug addict to define and create policy for the availability of illegal narcotics?  And what would you prescribe for a cure for a nation of drug addicts voting on those same measures? The majority of Americans have now become  addicts... and pusher-man-government programs are the narcotics.

What's it going to take to break our intractable, inexorable addiction to more and yet even more government spending?  I don't have a realistic answer and it very well may be pointless and tactically ill-timed to try to attempt to derail the Oblivion Express right now... around this issue.  But one shouldn't disparage, demean and excoriate a perhaps slightly overzealous, fiscally prudent and principled minority of citizens for trying.... and I can say with apodictic certainty that the requisite trillions of budget cutting required to maintain our nation's financial viability will never happen via reasonable discussion and compromise.

Might a default on the nation's debt now, by choice, perhaps prove ultimately less damaging than one by necessity later?


M.D.T.

Fanatic in Chief

After digesting the latest State of the Union address, it appears to me that Obama's lifetime goal just very well might be to be perceived as the most caring and morally indignant President in history irrespective of any and all lasting damage his policies might incur to the country's economic health and long term fiscal viability.  For him I believe it's always all about fairness and never effectiveness. His is, methinks, almost solely a moral crusade. What prudent, practical and rational person could believe that raising minimum wage won't destroy jobs and reduce employment opportunity? That national Head-Start will actually improve long-term educational performance? That fighting Quixotic global warming won't raise energy costs and undermine economic recovery? That imposing more taxes on top producers won't deter business investment? That extending state-subsidized health care to the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions won't raise costs?  I contend that the President and his acolytes couldn't possibly be so stupid as to believe these programs can deliver as sold, but, in fact, they just can't bring themselves to stand by passively in a world, they perceive, whose wholesale inequities so deeply offend their delicate and refined supra-egalitarian sensibilities.* There appears to be no limit to neither their shotgun social solutions nor their willingness to print money.  Obama is, to date, among Presidents, perhaps our nation's boldest and most disconnected embodiment of morally intolerant liberalism run amok. It's difficult not to arrive at the conclusion that the more his policies fail, the more ardently he believes in them and the more of the same he advocates. We're, in effect, doubling and tripling down on failure.  And that, by any sane measure, is the very definition of ... fanaticism.

The Crux of the Biscuit is that we as a nation have tacitly and perhaps unconsciously collectively agreed to the idea that it's OK for government to instigate unproven, potentially economically disastrous and ill-conceived social experiments in the name of fairness and compassion: that our system is so malevolent and effete that at worst, radical measures are required  and at best, acceptable.  What beats the hell out of me is why anyone running around spending someone else's money while simultaneously getting rich themselves meets our standards for a Nobel prize or a distinguished seat in our nation's Pantheon.  But, then again, our standards are the most vital issue of all now ... aren't they?.


Why people with high levels of mental skills and rhetorical talents would tie themselves into knots with such reasoning is a mystery. Perhaps it is just that they cannot give up a social vision that is so flattering to themselves, despite how detrimental it may be to the people they claim to be helping.     Thomas Sowell
 


M.D.T.