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.
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.
