"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." -- Ronald Reagan.
"I fear the federal Government more than the Soviet Union" -- Barry Goldwater
These two giants of conservatism betrayed fallacious thinking which will not buoy this country through the trials to come.
A nation must have a cohesive foreign policy. Freedom isn't free, nor is it popular, or even widespread. Rogue states, terrorists, and warmongers will stop at nothing to bring down liberal states, for their very existence poses an ongoing threaten to their dictatorial hegemony.
Government has a coveted role in our society. Agents of the state are assigned the task of protecting our rights, protecting us from fraud within, and foes from without.
In Goldwater's time, the Soviet Union posed a real and immanent threat to the United States. No matter how gargantuan the Great Society welfare state grew, the Soviets oppressed their people far worse, stifling markets and innovation, imprisoning dissenters, and subsidizing blood-thirsty warlords throughout the Third World.
President Johnson's encroachments on the freedoms of the American People and the impoverishing entitlements he forced upon the country compromised the freedom-fight of the United States against the Communists on behalf of liberal, capitalist states. Still, the need for a strong--but limited--government to protect the interests of free people at home and abroad cannot be denied.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Southern Sudan: Early Outcome of the Jasmine Revolution
Tunisia sneezed, and the whole Arab World is catching cold.
But the viral opposition to rabid Islamism, oppression, and corruption started spreading long before in the Republic of Sudan, which has been up to now one country divided by internal strife.
From 2005 to the present day, the civil war ripping that East Arab nation apart was reported throughout the world. George Clooney's star power intervened to capture the world's attention, labeling as genocide the massacre of Christians and Anamists at the hand of President Omer Hassan Al-Bashir's Janjaweed thugs.
Just this year, the Southern part of the nation secede in a widespread plebescite. Christians and Anamists to the South no longer need fear a repressive government run by radical Muslims.
If the civil war in Libya does not end soon, it is very likely that that nation will meet the same fate, cease to exist, and divide in two.
But the viral opposition to rabid Islamism, oppression, and corruption started spreading long before in the Republic of Sudan, which has been up to now one country divided by internal strife.
From 2005 to the present day, the civil war ripping that East Arab nation apart was reported throughout the world. George Clooney's star power intervened to capture the world's attention, labeling as genocide the massacre of Christians and Anamists at the hand of President Omer Hassan Al-Bashir's Janjaweed thugs.
Just this year, the Southern part of the nation secede in a widespread plebescite. Christians and Anamists to the South no longer need fear a repressive government run by radical Muslims.
If the civil war in Libya does not end soon, it is very likely that that nation will meet the same fate, cease to exist, and divide in two.
Obama's Schizophrenia: The Divided Mind of the American People
Foreign Policy in a democracy is dictated in part by what the voters are willing to support, or in the long run, tolerate.
Meaningful interventions into foreign conflicts, however, must rely on more than the supple will of the majority. Imagine if the United States had elected to stay out of World War II? For years, isolationist sentiment gripped the American public in shunning another American foray into foreign war. Yet the outcome, the downfall of the Nazi onslaught and termination of Japanese aggression in the Pacific more than compensate for the loss of life and treasure which the United States endured as an Allied Power.
Fast forward to the first decade of the Twenty-First Century. The Jasmine Revolution is sweeping out the Arab dictators of old in a ground swell of freedom. However, the United States' interest in this massive movement is complex. We support democracy, yet we also prize stability. Reliable dictators who promise peace with allies, even though they terrorize their own people, are less objectionable than freely elected terrorists who threaten our allies and our way of life.
The uncertainty of regime change in the Middle East is rendering many Americans double-minded. Yes, democratic reform, but not with the result of radical elements taking over in the Middle East with the expressed intent of destroying the United States, Israel, and Western values in general.This tension between idealism and realism has fostered a particularly long-running strand of political schizophrenia in the American electorate, infecting even the heads of state.
Yes, protect oppressed peoples throughout the Middle East. Yes, impress upon them that the United States supports their efforts to win greater freedoms and respect for their rights. However, will our republican idealism whither away in the face of more rigged elections, another crop of cruel strongmen, and increasing menace on the Jewish State?
Now that the Egyptian people have cast off their thirty-year President Honsi Mubarak, Israel and the United States face a crisis. Egypt, one of the few Arab states to have signed and honored a peace treaty with Israel, one of the few Arab states actively fighting terrorist cells and keeping at bay Islamicist groups, may fall out of the United States allied orbit and instigate chaos throughout the region. The world has yet to see if such a dire projection will come to pass, or if the Egyptian people will hold peaceful elections and establish a stable democratic government.
For many, the record of transition from dictatorship to democracy--the democratic process itself-- in the Middle East is not promising. After nine months of infighting, the Republic of Iraq has barely established a power-sharing coalition in Baghdad. In 2009, the Iranian people endured the fraudulent "re-election" of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a political robbery which nation-wide protests could not deter; moreover, President Obama refused to speak out against the rigged results, leaving oppressed people powerless to effect any legitimate change.
Then there is the sobering 2005 elections in the Gaza Strip, which gave the illegitimate organization Hamas a legitimate mandate to rule. From its inception, throughout its campaign up to its electoral victory, Hamas has been openly dedicated to the eradication of the Jewish State and imposing Sharia law throughout the world, starting with their little corner of Palestine.
The American People are duly circumspect about the the political turmoil which may result from the encroaching Jasmine Revolution.
Diplomatic deliberation must bear out a coherent policy, whether of intervention or isolation. If the United States will send military personnel to Libya, then why not Syria, a more crucial player in Middle Eastern politics? If we are committed to meaningful and lasting regime change throughout the region, then why did President Obama rescind funding to support democratic reform in Egypt? How can the President separate protecting Libyan civilians from Moammar Gadhafi, yet at the same time take off the table any interest in effecting regime change in Libya?
Then there are the calculations which factor in the domestic outcomes of extended military operations. The American people want freedom to reign supreme, yet they seem reluctant to invest more men and money on behalf of Middle Eastern freedom fighters. Are we committed to protect our own interests, too? At all? In any way possible? Are we willing to risk more American lives and dwindling resources into military expeditions with no clearly discernable end in sight?
Above all, any decisive results in the region will depend on decisive action from the United States, for the Arab states must make the moves that will make them or break them. Ultimately, Obama's foreign policy Schizophrenia is fundamentally a reflection of the ambivalence of the American people to regime change in the Middle East, whether it will bode well for worse, whether the cost of intervention is feasible of sustainable.
Meaningful interventions into foreign conflicts, however, must rely on more than the supple will of the majority. Imagine if the United States had elected to stay out of World War II? For years, isolationist sentiment gripped the American public in shunning another American foray into foreign war. Yet the outcome, the downfall of the Nazi onslaught and termination of Japanese aggression in the Pacific more than compensate for the loss of life and treasure which the United States endured as an Allied Power.
Fast forward to the first decade of the Twenty-First Century. The Jasmine Revolution is sweeping out the Arab dictators of old in a ground swell of freedom. However, the United States' interest in this massive movement is complex. We support democracy, yet we also prize stability. Reliable dictators who promise peace with allies, even though they terrorize their own people, are less objectionable than freely elected terrorists who threaten our allies and our way of life.
The uncertainty of regime change in the Middle East is rendering many Americans double-minded. Yes, democratic reform, but not with the result of radical elements taking over in the Middle East with the expressed intent of destroying the United States, Israel, and Western values in general.This tension between idealism and realism has fostered a particularly long-running strand of political schizophrenia in the American electorate, infecting even the heads of state.
Yes, protect oppressed peoples throughout the Middle East. Yes, impress upon them that the United States supports their efforts to win greater freedoms and respect for their rights. However, will our republican idealism whither away in the face of more rigged elections, another crop of cruel strongmen, and increasing menace on the Jewish State?
Now that the Egyptian people have cast off their thirty-year President Honsi Mubarak, Israel and the United States face a crisis. Egypt, one of the few Arab states to have signed and honored a peace treaty with Israel, one of the few Arab states actively fighting terrorist cells and keeping at bay Islamicist groups, may fall out of the United States allied orbit and instigate chaos throughout the region. The world has yet to see if such a dire projection will come to pass, or if the Egyptian people will hold peaceful elections and establish a stable democratic government.
For many, the record of transition from dictatorship to democracy--the democratic process itself-- in the Middle East is not promising. After nine months of infighting, the Republic of Iraq has barely established a power-sharing coalition in Baghdad. In 2009, the Iranian people endured the fraudulent "re-election" of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a political robbery which nation-wide protests could not deter; moreover, President Obama refused to speak out against the rigged results, leaving oppressed people powerless to effect any legitimate change.
Then there is the sobering 2005 elections in the Gaza Strip, which gave the illegitimate organization Hamas a legitimate mandate to rule. From its inception, throughout its campaign up to its electoral victory, Hamas has been openly dedicated to the eradication of the Jewish State and imposing Sharia law throughout the world, starting with their little corner of Palestine.
The American People are duly circumspect about the the political turmoil which may result from the encroaching Jasmine Revolution.
Diplomatic deliberation must bear out a coherent policy, whether of intervention or isolation. If the United States will send military personnel to Libya, then why not Syria, a more crucial player in Middle Eastern politics? If we are committed to meaningful and lasting regime change throughout the region, then why did President Obama rescind funding to support democratic reform in Egypt? How can the President separate protecting Libyan civilians from Moammar Gadhafi, yet at the same time take off the table any interest in effecting regime change in Libya?
Then there are the calculations which factor in the domestic outcomes of extended military operations. The American people want freedom to reign supreme, yet they seem reluctant to invest more men and money on behalf of Middle Eastern freedom fighters. Are we committed to protect our own interests, too? At all? In any way possible? Are we willing to risk more American lives and dwindling resources into military expeditions with no clearly discernable end in sight?
Above all, any decisive results in the region will depend on decisive action from the United States, for the Arab states must make the moves that will make them or break them. Ultimately, Obama's foreign policy Schizophrenia is fundamentally a reflection of the ambivalence of the American people to regime change in the Middle East, whether it will bode well for worse, whether the cost of intervention is feasible of sustainable.
Governor Brown and the Public Good of Goverment
In the midst of tension negotiations among California's legislators and the recently elected (re-elected?) Governor, Jerry Brown is pleading with law-makers and constituents throughout the state of California to advance the temporary tax hikes which will lapse July 1 of this year.
Without the extension of that revenue, Brown contends, the state of California will endured even deeper cuts than the previous years of the ever-growing fiscal insanity plaguing the Golden State.
He implores all interested parties on behalf of the common good that government is supposed to provide.
Therein lies the crux of the matter. Government, whether local, state, of federal, is not supposed to supply the public any good. The common good, in effect, does not exist, to the extent of defining and providing a series of policies that will please everyone.
Good government does not exists in its absence, but its reticence. Protecting individual rights to life, liberty, and happiness, that is the one role which belongs within the sphere of government. Thomas Jefferson expounded on this principle in the Declaration of Independence. Instead of welfare checks, subsidies, and generous pensions to state employees to prison guards, police officers, and even DMV clerks, the state of California would have defended individual rights, promoted commerce with minimal intervention, and secured the borders.
If lawmakers in Sacramento had heeded Thomas Jefferson's simple directive, then the Golden State would have retained its luster and lucre. But now, every interest group and politician has plundered the Golden Goose with entitlements, handouts, and unmitigated borrowing. Not only is there no money left, there is nothing left to borrow against.
Rather than promoting the common good, an activist government has widened the fiscal tragedy of bankruptcy to everyone. Good government is limited government, pure and simple.
Without the extension of that revenue, Brown contends, the state of California will endured even deeper cuts than the previous years of the ever-growing fiscal insanity plaguing the Golden State.
He implores all interested parties on behalf of the common good that government is supposed to provide.
Therein lies the crux of the matter. Government, whether local, state, of federal, is not supposed to supply the public any good. The common good, in effect, does not exist, to the extent of defining and providing a series of policies that will please everyone.
Good government does not exists in its absence, but its reticence. Protecting individual rights to life, liberty, and happiness, that is the one role which belongs within the sphere of government. Thomas Jefferson expounded on this principle in the Declaration of Independence. Instead of welfare checks, subsidies, and generous pensions to state employees to prison guards, police officers, and even DMV clerks, the state of California would have defended individual rights, promoted commerce with minimal intervention, and secured the borders.
If lawmakers in Sacramento had heeded Thomas Jefferson's simple directive, then the Golden State would have retained its luster and lucre. But now, every interest group and politician has plundered the Golden Goose with entitlements, handouts, and unmitigated borrowing. Not only is there no money left, there is nothing left to borrow against.
Rather than promoting the common good, an activist government has widened the fiscal tragedy of bankruptcy to everyone. Good government is limited government, pure and simple.
Obama's Schizophrenia: The (Extending and Extensive) Unrest in the Middle East
In addition to the divided, contradictory nature of the Obama Doctrine, there is the unclear military response to two pressing conflicts emerging in the Middle East.
Libya is already devolving into civil war. The Obama Administration claims no aim to effect regime change, but merely to assist in assisting the European members of NATO and the Arab League in assisting the rebels in ousting dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
Then there's Syria. President Bashas al-Assad has already fired on his own people, with the slaughter numbering into the hundreds. The United States has a greater strategic interest in a moderate regime rising up from the toppling unrest in autocratic Syria, as does Israel.
Yet the President has not sent military support to aid the Syrian people. He has not even withdrawn the US Ambassador from Damascus, as President George W. Bush had done in 2005.
If President Obama wants to pursue a foreign policy of liberal internationalism, protecting innocent civilians from cruel dictators, then how does he account for not sending troops into Syria, or Yemen and La Cote D'Ivoire?
Libya is already devolving into civil war. The Obama Administration claims no aim to effect regime change, but merely to assist in assisting the European members of NATO and the Arab League in assisting the rebels in ousting dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
Then there's Syria. President Bashas al-Assad has already fired on his own people, with the slaughter numbering into the hundreds. The United States has a greater strategic interest in a moderate regime rising up from the toppling unrest in autocratic Syria, as does Israel.
Yet the President has not sent military support to aid the Syrian people. He has not even withdrawn the US Ambassador from Damascus, as President George W. Bush had done in 2005.
If President Obama wants to pursue a foreign policy of liberal internationalism, protecting innocent civilians from cruel dictators, then how does he account for not sending troops into Syria, or Yemen and La Cote D'Ivoire?
Obama's Schizophrenia: The (Nonexistent) Obama Doctrine
From Wikipedia: "The Obama Doctrine is a term frequently used to describe one or several unifying principles of the foreign policy of Barack Obama. Unlike the Monroe Doctrine, the Obama Doctrine is not a specific foreign policy introduced by the executive, but rather a phrase used to describe Obama's general style of foreign policy. This has left journalists and political commentators to speculate on what the exact tenets of an Obama Doctrine might look like. Generally speaking, it is accepted that a central part of such a doctrine would be negotiation and collaboration over confrontation and unilateralism in international affairs."
From "The Fix": "Obama irritated both extremes by going into Libya (liberals disapproved) but not aiming for Moammar Gaddafi’s ouster (conservatives disapproved)."
Obama wants the United States to be involved in the Libyan civil war which may sweep another Arab strongman from power; yet he also wants "not be involved" in a meaningful way. How can the American military protect the Libyan people without targeting the source of their misery, Moammar Gadhafi?
Rather than confronting this glaring contradiction of policy, media analysts are attempting to cobble together the substance of Obama's policy into a coherent whole, which in fact does not exist. This incoherence betrays the political schizophrenia endemic to Obama's foreign policy, a pragmatist in practice who still wants to please his base, fend off taunts of international weakness, and attempt to bolster American stature in a growing, globalized world.
Foreign Policy requires a commitment to a clearly-articulated agenda, something which President Obama has still failed to do. One cannot invade a country with any force and then claim to have no interest in regime change. The United States is providing the bulk of the fire power in a conflict in which the President has insisted that the United States is playing only a supporting role. Furthermore, the outcome of this civil war will not present any meaningful changes or challenges, compared to the uprisings stirring up in Syria (a distant but innocuous adversary), Yemen (a consistent U.S. ally against Al Qaeda) and a nuclear, menacing Iran.
According to what principles does Presindent Obama wish to involve the United States in the blooming Jasmine Revolution engulfing the Arab World? Do we assist our allies? Do we end up contradicting our commitment to freedom and democracy for all people? If not, do we aid the oppressed peoples of every nation? Is there a strategic interest in encouraging regime change at all? In which nations? Or, do we stay out altogether?
These complex questions require diligent answers before the President commits anymore troops, blood, and treasure to another conflict in the Middle East.
From "The Fix": "Obama irritated both extremes by going into Libya (liberals disapproved) but not aiming for Moammar Gaddafi’s ouster (conservatives disapproved)."
Obama wants the United States to be involved in the Libyan civil war which may sweep another Arab strongman from power; yet he also wants "not be involved" in a meaningful way. How can the American military protect the Libyan people without targeting the source of their misery, Moammar Gadhafi?
Rather than confronting this glaring contradiction of policy, media analysts are attempting to cobble together the substance of Obama's policy into a coherent whole, which in fact does not exist. This incoherence betrays the political schizophrenia endemic to Obama's foreign policy, a pragmatist in practice who still wants to please his base, fend off taunts of international weakness, and attempt to bolster American stature in a growing, globalized world.
Foreign Policy requires a commitment to a clearly-articulated agenda, something which President Obama has still failed to do. One cannot invade a country with any force and then claim to have no interest in regime change. The United States is providing the bulk of the fire power in a conflict in which the President has insisted that the United States is playing only a supporting role. Furthermore, the outcome of this civil war will not present any meaningful changes or challenges, compared to the uprisings stirring up in Syria (a distant but innocuous adversary), Yemen (a consistent U.S. ally against Al Qaeda) and a nuclear, menacing Iran.
According to what principles does Presindent Obama wish to involve the United States in the blooming Jasmine Revolution engulfing the Arab World? Do we assist our allies? Do we end up contradicting our commitment to freedom and democracy for all people? If not, do we aid the oppressed peoples of every nation? Is there a strategic interest in encouraging regime change at all? In which nations? Or, do we stay out altogether?
These complex questions require diligent answers before the President commits anymore troops, blood, and treasure to another conflict in the Middle East.
Friday, April 1, 2011
"The Devil We Know vs. The Devil We Don't Know": A Reflection
Israel has witnessed with trepidation the foundering of hostile, yet stable regimes throughout the Middle East. Egypt and Israel had a formal, but peaceful relationship following Anwar Sadat's treat with the Jewish state. There was little evidence of resistance or resentment against Israel form Tunisia and Libya, for that matter.
The ouster of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and the potential power vacuum to emerge following either the deposition or reinstatement of Moammar Gadhafi may invite Al-Qaeda operatives.
Egypt is holding presidential elections to decide the democratic future of its government, where the Muslim Brotherhood, an institution in opposition to Israel, is gaining prominence.
Despite the icy relationship with Syria, another state ravaged by growing populist unrest, Israeli diplomats consider the peaceful borders better than political unrest which may spill over in Northern Israel and throughout the Middle East.
Unsaid in this debate is the false premise that stable dictators can be easily defined as "The Devil We Know." PLO leader Yasser Arafat appeared like a negotiable strongman to the West, yet preached terror and calumny against the West and Israel to the West Bank. Rather than positioning themselves with the interests of the "allied" Western states in mind, they preach peace and cooperation in order to take on international aid, then demonize them in order to succor favor with their oppressed people, who focus on hating the Occupying Jewish State and its puppet-supporter, the United States of America.
Israel and the United States can never assume that any alliance with a desperate nation will yield any long-term stablility, especially when dictators who harm their own people and exploit their poverty to enrich themselves have hardly any incentive to cooperate with liberal societies antithetical to their selfish interests.
"The Devil we know" simply does not exist, for the Devil himself is a liar, an angel of light deceiving many. No better description better fits the vile dictators of the Middle East who are falling from power.
The ouster of Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and the potential power vacuum to emerge following either the deposition or reinstatement of Moammar Gadhafi may invite Al-Qaeda operatives.
Egypt is holding presidential elections to decide the democratic future of its government, where the Muslim Brotherhood, an institution in opposition to Israel, is gaining prominence.
Despite the icy relationship with Syria, another state ravaged by growing populist unrest, Israeli diplomats consider the peaceful borders better than political unrest which may spill over in Northern Israel and throughout the Middle East.
Unsaid in this debate is the false premise that stable dictators can be easily defined as "The Devil We Know." PLO leader Yasser Arafat appeared like a negotiable strongman to the West, yet preached terror and calumny against the West and Israel to the West Bank. Rather than positioning themselves with the interests of the "allied" Western states in mind, they preach peace and cooperation in order to take on international aid, then demonize them in order to succor favor with their oppressed people, who focus on hating the Occupying Jewish State and its puppet-supporter, the United States of America.
Israel and the United States can never assume that any alliance with a desperate nation will yield any long-term stablility, especially when dictators who harm their own people and exploit their poverty to enrich themselves have hardly any incentive to cooperate with liberal societies antithetical to their selfish interests.
"The Devil we know" simply does not exist, for the Devil himself is a liar, an angel of light deceiving many. No better description better fits the vile dictators of the Middle East who are falling from power.
Leave the Garden State Governor in Peace
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is a man of many words. He is also a man of his word. No matter how many times news analysts and pundits press him about his Presidential prospects for 2012, he adamantly refutes any such speculation.
He is committed to serving the state of New Jersey. He is committed to following through on the work that he started, and he will fulfill his responsibilities until their expected end. In spite of Christie's firm decision, recent polls indicate that Governor Christie is the only Republican (so far) most likely to defeat President Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election.
What is Christie's appeal? His charisma. He is outspoken and effective, a skilled negotiator who is not afraid to take on the troubling domestic issues affecting this nation.
Where does this charisma come from? His character. He says what he means, and he means what he says. As governor, he pledged not to raise taxes, even on the rich, and he didn't, even when the proposed legislation was embedded in a generous tax credit to the New Jersey middle class. When teacher's unions roared disapproval that they contribute more to their benefits, he stuck to his principles. Chris Christie has articulated the dire necessity of municipal and state fiscal restraint. He can make bold, controversial moves in the public sector because he appreciates the gravity of the state's finances. Even when public employees, bureaucrats, and the media cry foul, he stays true to his word and his vision.
Christie knows what matters, and he is not afraid who knows it. Rather than inducing Governor Christie to compromise his hallmark integrity by running for President, Republican Party hopefuls need to find another candidate with the same proven character and conviction. Then the Republicans will have a candidate with the requisite charisma to take on President Obama, a man of many words, but many more wavering convictions.
Meanwhile, Republican Party operators' hounding after a non-candidate is not merely an exercise in futility, but would inadvertently ruin the very brand that Republicans ought to replicate.
He is committed to serving the state of New Jersey. He is committed to following through on the work that he started, and he will fulfill his responsibilities until their expected end. In spite of Christie's firm decision, recent polls indicate that Governor Christie is the only Republican (so far) most likely to defeat President Obama in the 2012 Presidential Election.
What is Christie's appeal? His charisma. He is outspoken and effective, a skilled negotiator who is not afraid to take on the troubling domestic issues affecting this nation.
Where does this charisma come from? His character. He says what he means, and he means what he says. As governor, he pledged not to raise taxes, even on the rich, and he didn't, even when the proposed legislation was embedded in a generous tax credit to the New Jersey middle class. When teacher's unions roared disapproval that they contribute more to their benefits, he stuck to his principles. Chris Christie has articulated the dire necessity of municipal and state fiscal restraint. He can make bold, controversial moves in the public sector because he appreciates the gravity of the state's finances. Even when public employees, bureaucrats, and the media cry foul, he stays true to his word and his vision.
Christie knows what matters, and he is not afraid who knows it. Rather than inducing Governor Christie to compromise his hallmark integrity by running for President, Republican Party hopefuls need to find another candidate with the same proven character and conviction. Then the Republicans will have a candidate with the requisite charisma to take on President Obama, a man of many words, but many more wavering convictions.
Meanwhile, Republican Party operators' hounding after a non-candidate is not merely an exercise in futility, but would inadvertently ruin the very brand that Republicans ought to replicate.
Don't Lose the Message, Republicans!
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich seemed provocative and petty when he squared off against President Clinton in 1995 over balanced budgets and budget cuts. Their impasse to prepare the federal budget ended up looking like the Speaker's fault, even though the Republican revolution which had swept him and his party into power was predicated on cutting the deficit and balancing the budget. The Republican base has a better media system now than before. FOX news, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, the TEA Party, all organizations getting out the less-government libertarian message. Also, the budget crisis threatening this country is undeniably obvious, compared to the 1990's, when NASDAQ 5000 wealth covered up mounting debt.
Current House Speaker John Boehner must not let his unsettled apprehensions from 15 years ago prevent him from pursuing a direct course of action. The United States understands the dire need for a balanced budget that cuts expenses and shores up cost. As long as Boehner and company stress that they are not budging on the budget because they have the short-term and long-term well-being of the nation in mind, they will cast President Obama in a spendthrift unserious light which will make him look petty for not pursuing the necessary cuts to preserve the fiscal order of the Union.
Current House Speaker John Boehner must not let his unsettled apprehensions from 15 years ago prevent him from pursuing a direct course of action. The United States understands the dire need for a balanced budget that cuts expenses and shores up cost. As long as Boehner and company stress that they are not budging on the budget because they have the short-term and long-term well-being of the nation in mind, they will cast President Obama in a spendthrift unserious light which will make him look petty for not pursuing the necessary cuts to preserve the fiscal order of the Union.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Recession of the State: Renaissance of the Libertarian Right
As long as there was plenty of money, nobody really cared how Government spent it.
If city managers were paying themselves exorbitant six-figure salaries, if part-time councilmembers took CEO pay, no one cared, as long as everyone got paid, as long as the trash was picked up every week and the bad guys got locked up.
If the head of charities and state relief agencies received huge paychecks with benefits, no one cared, because there was enough of whatever to hand out to everybody.
If school personnel were compensated far out of proportion to the work they did, it didn't matter, as long as there were enough teachers for the right number of students.
If public workers strong-armed state legislators for a generous pensions and benefits, it made little difference, for the taxpayers themselves else was so busy throwing around their own easy money.
Then struck the Great Recession. The Day of Reckoning has Come. For the nation to survive, it will require the transition to the Recession of the State.
The secret is out: State Governments never had to begin with the kind of money that they were throwing around. All the wealth has gone *POOF!* in a haze of hazardous borrowing, unmerited credit, and short-term long-term loans come due.
Now cash-strapped states and municipalities do not have the resources to fund basic services.
From municipalities to the Federal Governments, the people demand to know: "Where's the money? Show us the money!"
Now the people care about six-figure salaries for do-nothing jobs. We care about $400hammers, rampant medicare fraud, bridges to nowhere, unsustainable pension and health benefits obligations. We ask why the money that was meant for right and reasonable purposes was never spent in the right way. The people are challenging the frivolous, arbitrary, and undocumented expenditures of their state and local institutions. The Great Recession has impelled us to the Recession of the State.
The Recession of the State has lead to local recovery. City dwellers are getting active when before they had never bothered to vote in local elections. TEA Party rallies across the country have thrown out tax-and-spend legislators for prudent politicians who will heed the demand for economical government that leaves the tax-payer alone.
The Recession of the State has also induced educational reform. With school districts bankrupt from doling out undeserved benefits, they must make fiscally prudent policy decisions. Parents will no longer stand for subsidizing a system which on the surface had fooled them for so long, deceived their children into an empty education.
Fiscal responsibility, lesser government, individual accountability, and an end to the ubiquitous nanny state . .
The Recession of the State is the Renaissance of the Libertarian Right!
If city managers were paying themselves exorbitant six-figure salaries, if part-time councilmembers took CEO pay, no one cared, as long as everyone got paid, as long as the trash was picked up every week and the bad guys got locked up.
If the head of charities and state relief agencies received huge paychecks with benefits, no one cared, because there was enough of whatever to hand out to everybody.
If school personnel were compensated far out of proportion to the work they did, it didn't matter, as long as there were enough teachers for the right number of students.
If public workers strong-armed state legislators for a generous pensions and benefits, it made little difference, for the taxpayers themselves else was so busy throwing around their own easy money.
Then struck the Great Recession. The Day of Reckoning has Come. For the nation to survive, it will require the transition to the Recession of the State.
The secret is out: State Governments never had to begin with the kind of money that they were throwing around. All the wealth has gone *POOF!* in a haze of hazardous borrowing, unmerited credit, and short-term long-term loans come due.
Now cash-strapped states and municipalities do not have the resources to fund basic services.
From municipalities to the Federal Governments, the people demand to know: "Where's the money? Show us the money!"
Now the people care about six-figure salaries for do-nothing jobs. We care about $400hammers, rampant medicare fraud, bridges to nowhere, unsustainable pension and health benefits obligations. We ask why the money that was meant for right and reasonable purposes was never spent in the right way. The people are challenging the frivolous, arbitrary, and undocumented expenditures of their state and local institutions. The Great Recession has impelled us to the Recession of the State.
The Recession of the State has lead to local recovery. City dwellers are getting active when before they had never bothered to vote in local elections. TEA Party rallies across the country have thrown out tax-and-spend legislators for prudent politicians who will heed the demand for economical government that leaves the tax-payer alone.
The Recession of the State has also induced educational reform. With school districts bankrupt from doling out undeserved benefits, they must make fiscally prudent policy decisions. Parents will no longer stand for subsidizing a system which on the surface had fooled them for so long, deceived their children into an empty education.
Fiscal responsibility, lesser government, individual accountability, and an end to the ubiquitous nanny state . .
The Recession of the State is the Renaissance of the Libertarian Right!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)