It seems hard to believe that a few of you haven’t decided
how to vote tomorrow -- 2% according to Rasmussen Polls. Perhaps your
indecisiveness is from the queasy feeling you get when you really think about
what Democrats and Republicans have to offer.
Whether it’s the Federal budget, the role of government or
social policy, hypocrisy abounds. Here
are just a few of my favorite examples.
***********************************
One could spend lots of time debating the merits of various
government programs. But, our fiscal
mess isn’t about Big Bird; it’s about entitlement and tax reform. Yet, Democrats steadfastly refuse to consider
entitlement reform and Republicans will not consider any increase in
taxes. A number of bi-partisan groups –
including the President’s own commission (Simpson-Bowles) – have concluded that
we must do both.
The commission recommends entitlement reforms that include
reducing benefits to upper income recipients and indexing the eligibility age
to life expectancy. Without it, they
say, Social Security will go broke by 2037. Among its other recommendations is the
elimination or dramatic reduction of “tax expenditures”. In plain English, they are saying that one
can’t balance the budget without getting rid of or capping deductions that
affect the middle class. In other
words, you can’t preserve entitlements without raising taxes and the idea that
tax increases sufficient to reduce the deficit won’t touch the middle class is
absurd.
Yet, both presidential candidates have promised the middle
class they will not see a tax increase.
*************************************
Among my favorite contradictions is the way in which our
political leaders approach the goal of reducing carbon emissions. The 2009 Obama stimulus includes programs
that invest in private green technology companies. Anyone who is paying attention knows that at
least two of them – Solyndra and A123 – have gone bankrupt following a combined
government investment of over $700 Million.
Senator Chuck Grassley has been among the most vocal of
critics. Taxpayer money should not be
invested in businesses that can’t attract private money because they are
financially unviable, says Grassley.
Now, assets of those companies are being picked over by Chinese
businesses. In effect, the assets
purchased by the taxpayers will be acquired at a discount creating green jobs
in China.
 |
| Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) |
But, Grassley is a Republican from Iowa, where every
presidential candidate is compelled to take the "Ethanol Pledge" or risk a poor
showing in the Iowa Caucuses. You see,
Iowa produces more corn that any state in the nation. The Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007, which was supported by Grassley, requires that gasoline sold in this
country include 15 Billion gallons of ethanol from corn by 2015. Never mind that Ethanol requires more energy
to produce than it, in turn, produces. Or
that the law is driving up the cost of food during our current drought. It helps farmers in Grassley’s home state.
**********************************
There is an old saw about the road to Hell being paved with
good intentions. Everyone likes being
charitable. Everyone likes to help
others. Many even see government as a
solution to the need to provide for those less fortunate.
But, when we look around us all we see is government going
broke trying. Exhibit A is the state of
Illinois. Promised pension and
healthcare benefits to government employees have left the state with the second
highest debt per capita (behind New York).
The State Budget Crisis Task Force concluded that despite all that
borrowing, Illinois’ public pension system’s shortfall is estimated at $85
billion. So, how can government improve schools, upgrade crumbling
infrastructure and improve the lives of the poor? The deficit is hurting the people that
liberals hope to help.
Over the years, voters haven’t been willing to pay higher
taxes to fund the programs they say they want.
But, if no one wants to pay for it, do they really want it? And, if they don’t really want it, shouldn’t
our political leaders stop approving it?
***********************************
Conservatives like to talk about freedom. They refer to the right to “life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness” asserted in the Declaration of Independence. So, why doesn’t that right extend to those
who disagree with the minority of Americans who describe themselves as
evangelical Christians?
The Republican Party caters to xenophobes and homophobes. And the debate over a woman’s right to
reproductive choice has elicited some of the most offensive comments about rape
that I have heard since the 1970’s. Does
Todd Akin really believe that “if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has
ways to try to shut that whole thing down”?
He was talking about pregnancies.
Where did this guy study biology?
And, what exactly is a legitimate rape?
I am an old white guy.
So, the social policies of Republicans don't affect me directly. But one must wonder. Will there be enough old white guys left in
America to elect Republicans in the future?
*********************************
Democrats undermine their credibility when they can’t pay
for the programs they invent. And,
Republicans undermine their credibility when they preach freedom but seek to
limit it for those with whom they disagree.
It’s no wonder you’re undecided.
WHO WILL LEAD?
