Maybe the Democrats won't try this little maneuver [the vapor bill] next week, but they're going to bring ObamaCare to a vote eventually – they've invested too much energy and political capital in getting this far. Enraging their base by giving up without a vote would deal as much damage as pushing through the health-care bill and weathering a storm of outrage from the majority of Americans who oppose it, so they might as well take their shot. If the nerve of the Blue Dog Democrats fails, and they don't get a bill through Congress, it will be a shattering blow to their party, and a fatal embarrassment to the President. If they muscle health-care reform through, they face an electoral bloodbath in 2010 from a population justly furious at the notion of industries nationalized through half-written bills, hustled through Congress at breakneck speed.
If the population isn't furious about that, then we have reached the end of this chapter in American history – a chapter that began with a sprawling agrarian nation mastering the power of industry to defeat world-conquering monsters, and rebuild the broken nations of its grandparents. I do not believe that chapter will end with a tired, timid people agreeing they cannot be trusted to take care of their own bodies, but I speak from faith, not prophecy.No matter how the ObamaCare saga ends, we are approaching the near horizon, where the sea meets the sky. Everything will be different after this. I hope it will be better. If the Democrats lose Congressional power in 2010, the passion and intelligence of the town-hall protesters should next be turned against the Republicans, who could use a few miles of road work under the watchful eye of several million tough coaches. The task ahead for them will be enormous, for the failure of Obama's absurd ideas leaves a unique opportunity to do something that has never been done in the modern era: make the government smaller.
Is God back? While watching the Glenn Beck program, three women, yes I said three, boldly proclaimed their Christianity and how their decision to follow Christ has affected their politics. Other than religious programs, people do not talk about their faith on TV without being portrayed as fanatics or nut cases. It was truly refreshing. Could this mean God is back from exile from the public square?
Another Beck show guest was a black man, Charles V. Payne, founder, CEO and Chief Analyst of Wall Street Strategies. Payne shared his moving tale of growing up in a poor inner city neighborhood. He said his fellow black students beat him up daily for "speaking too white", getting good grades and daring to have a dream of becoming a businessman. "The kids were not simply jealous of me, they were extremely hostile" said Payne. He attributes the black students' negative attitudes to a victim and entitlement mindset instilled in them by liberals.I thought to myself, "Wow!" Black people do not come on TV and tell the truth about the negative effects liberalism has had on the black community. Nor, does anyone hold blacks accountable. Blacks are victims. Every and any problem they could possibly have is the fault of rich, racist, conservative, white Republicans. I mean, everybody knows that!
[Kay Zwerling of KSCO in Santa Cruz]'s premise was, "If I had told you that within the first 200 days of Barack Obama's presidency...?" And her short list of political atrocities began.
Kay wondered aloud, who would have believed that within the first seven months of the new administration, 90% of all mortgages in the United States would be backed by the federal government (placing the taxpayer at risk for over $5 trillion dollars, I might add). The U.S. government, she said, would also become a major shareholder in one of the world's largest banks, Citigroup-who would have believed it? In addition, Kay pointed out the feds hostile takeover of General Motors and Chrysler, the sacking of their respective CEO's, replacing them with political appointees, and then heartlessly closing hundreds of profitable dealerships across the country, many of whose owners were known to have contributed to Republican politicians and conservative causes.If Kay had told America this would happen upon electing Barack Obama as president, would the country have listened?I began working off of Kay's supposition, presenting the same sort of questions to my listeners on KSFO in San Francisco:"If I told you that if elected, the budget deficit for Barack Obama's first fiscal year would total $1.6 trillion dollars, and in ten years the predicted national debt would surge to $16 trillion, would you have believed me? And we conservatives thought George Bush had a spending problem," I declared."If I would have told you that the Obama White House would drop the lukewarm phrase 'War on Terror' and replace it an even wimpier one: 'Overseas Contingency Operation,' would you have believed me? And if I told you we'd soon be reciting Miranda rights to terrorists captured on the battlefield-AK-47 toting thugs attempting to kill Americans soldiers in Afghanistan-would you have listened?"
In 1932, FDR had an opportunity to change the conventional way that governments deal with a recession. His predecessor, Herbert Hoover, who also had a tendency towards central planning, had started the process. Instead of allowing markets to correct themselves as they had in all the previous panics, as depressions were then called, both men instituted programs of government intervention.
Hoover signed the Smoot Hawley tariff even after many of the leading economists of the time personally implored him not to sign it. A tariff would help improve farm prices, which was a cornerstone of the progressive movement. He asked businesses not to lower wages, as had been done in previous panics. Wages remained high but unemployment soared.Although Roosevelt had campaigned on a platform of balanced budgets, once in office things changed. Many of his advisors were college professors and writers from within the progressive movement. Very few were trained economists, but several had been to Russia and seen Stalin's central planning first hand. Others had an admiration of Benito Mussolini's nationalization of industry in Italy. Once FDR was in office they were determined to apply what they had seen in America.If this narrative sounds familiar, it should. The progressives of the 1920's that had been shut out of politics since Wilson's administration needed a crisis to return to power and institute their ideas of central planning in America. Today liberals are trying to do the same. Progressives of the 1930's stifled industrial production with regulation and unionization and today they want to do the same. During the Depression, progressives wanted to control the production of energy, today they propose cap and trade to do the same thing.
I don't want to sound petty, but I think considering how much time Mr. Obama is still spending campaigning, it is appropriate for the American people to question who is actually governing our nation?
Mr. Obama is constantly on television; frequently on the road appearing at rallies and delivering prepared speeches; submitting to interviews (he has been on 60 Minutes three times in the past six months!); and generally continuing to campaign. Yes, Ronald Reagan did go before the American people to get around an opposition Congress -- but the last I looked it is Mr. Obama's party that controls both the House and the Senate. The other striking difference between the new "constant communicator" Obama, and Mr. Reagan the "great communicator," was that Mr. Reagan always came to the American people with substance and clarity. All we hear from Mr. Obama is platitudes and rally-speak!So, who is governing our nation?
All of these are good, thought-provoking opinion pieces that are worthy of some pondering.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment