Archive for Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Government does too much

October 21, 2009


“That’s just the way it is. Some things will never change...” (Bruce Hornsby song lyric)

The Washington Post headline sounds as if a comedy writer, or someone fluent in George Orwell’s “Newspeak” wrote it: “Record-High Deficit May Dash Big Plans,” it said.

As if a contributing factor to the projected record-high deficit of $1.4 trillion has nothing to do with big spending by this and previous administrations. Is there no end? Will we ever reach a limit where government says “no more, we’ve done enough; you’re on your own now”? Apparently not. The “greatest generation” mostly lived within their means. They knew what it meant to go without all but essentials. Today, we think the sky is the limit when it comes to spending and that if we can conceive it, then we are entitled to it.

This is partly because of how dysfunctional Washington has become and partly due to our own sense of “what we are owed.” Government can spend, tax and do whatever it wishes. If you oppose what it does, you are a selfish, greedy, rich elitist who cares nothing about people less fortunate than yourself. But wait. Did we have fewer poor people before government stepped in to “cure” poverty? Do we have fewer now?

We aren’t sure if the war in Afghanistan can be won, but we know the war on poverty was lost. Once, the prospect of an empty stomach motivated most people to get up and start chasing opportunity. Today, people can do whatever they want and government will bail them out with a welfare check (for the poor) or a corporate welfare check (for the rich). Bad decisions? No problem. Failure is no longer an option.

Thomas, you are such a racist and an uncaring person. You’ve been lucky and should have to pony up for the less fortunate.

How about showing the “less fortunate” the way to become fortunate? Does anyone hear a politician in either party encouraging people to do for themselves, instead of relying on government? And that goes for big corporations, too.

People who play by the rules, stay in school, refuse to take drugs, marry before having children and stay married, are no longer considered worthy role models by government, which has no intention of making them the norm. These norms have disappeared in a cloud of diversity and political correctness. Government now proposes to transform health insurance and tax responsible citizens at increased rates to pay for the votes, uh, benefits, of others who are more content to take slices of other people’s pies rather than learn to bake their own.

If you have been an honest businessperson and give money to your church and charities to help others who want to succeed but are having difficulty doing so through no fault of their own, that no longer matters. In fact, government proposes to reduce the deductibility of your charitable giving because government sees itself as more capable of charity than you.

That’s what the Obama administration’s proposal to send a $250 check to every senior citizen is about. Seniors won’t get a cost of living adjustment in their Social Security checks next year because the cost of living hasn’t gone up. But because seniors have become accustomed to an annual raise, the president apparently thinks by giving it to them anyway, he can buy their support for health care legislation that is not in their interest.

Washington’s attitude toward those who make right decisions for themselves so as not to become a burden to government seems to be, “Good for you, but because you made all those right decisions (‘right’ being a relative term, so the government will say they were right FOR YOU), we will penalize your decisions and your success and take the money you earned and give it to others who didn’t earn it because we want their votes so we can preserve our political careers.”

“Well they passed a law in ‘64,

To give those who ain’t got a little more,

But it only goes so far.”

For government, it’s never far enough.


mickeyrat 8 years, 4 months ago

Yes, Cal, a time machine to go back to the days when candidate Reagan was berating President Carter for a $70 billion dollar deficit would be nice. I'm sure others of different political stripes would prefer to go back to different points in time to change course. However, it is 2009, and the rest of us have to live in it. Go back to your oatmeal and Matlock, thanks.

Bruce Liddel 8 years, 4 months ago

Amen Cal! But before you blame either of the big two parties, recall that the Federal Government has grown out of control under both of these parties.

Now you understand why I've become a Libertarian!

tbaker 8 years, 4 months ago

During the last year of Bill Clinton, our national debt was about 61% of our Gross Domestic Product (the total value of all goods and services produced in this country)

By the time W was through with his presidency, our debt had increased to around 70% of GDP. Yikes - right?

By the time Mr. Obama gets through just his first year as president, our debt will have increased to over 90% of GDP. Ouch!

By 2011, our National Debt will reach 100% of GDP. Our country will owe all the countries that loan us money more than the total value of our economy. This is called bankruptcy. Incidentally, these calculations do not include all the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, MEDICARE, and MEDICADE.

So yes Mickeyrat, the tyranny of these facts will most certainly force us to live with this. The sad fact is, far too many people believe the greatness of our country is measured by how many things the federal government can get involved in. Our founders saw the roll of the federal government in a completely different light, and designed it's powers to be very limited for a very good reason - a reason we will all be re-acquainted with very soon.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.