Hahn's Rationale (or Rationalizations) Part II

From Redondo Beach based "Easy Reader":

"Hahn said she voted against the [debt-ceiling] deal because sentiment in District 36was strongly opposed. The Congresswoman indicated that budget cuts should be accompanied with tax increases on the wealthiest Americans."

Since Hahn coasted into office relying on fringe state-dependent elements throughout Los Angeles City, it is no surprise that she wants to attack the rich and give to the poor, only to make the rich no so much, and the poor. . .well, poorer.

This tired "The Government is here to help" philosophy still stirs reactionary liberals, politicians still hooked on the state as the chief and reliable source of all that is good and great in rescuing the nation's down and out. Yet look at the track record of government (mal)feasance: How many chief executives have been dismissed from the LA County Child Welfare Unit? Why the infighting between LA County CEO Fujioka and the same board which had so enthusiastically hired him? Consider also the abysmal employment in the City of Los Angeles and California state-wide. Has burgeoning government growth have anything better to offer? Even local governments cannot serve their citizens as broadly as before, or never intended to (see Bell, Vernon, and to less clear extent, Montebello).

Public school districts now contract out this basic need to charter organizations, for better or worse. States across the Union are cutting state mandates and responsibilities for the basic reasons that they cannot afford to be all things for all people. Private initiatives are picking up the slack which the public sector inadvertently created.

Currently, Ms. Hahn is still pushing the same failed statist status quo which ushered in the large-scale Great Recession that we are struggling with. When will the voters in the CA-36th step up and demand a less intrusive, less powerful, more limited national government that leaves well enough alone and sticks to the basics outlined in the Constitution?