Considering
all of the damage that the two Obama Administrations wrought upon our nation, I
submit that the most devastating of all was the legitimization that it is
alright to float along in our society; living off the sweat and providence of
others while being perfectly capable of providing for oneself. Obama spent eight long and torturous years
shilling this philosophy of socialism under the veil of identity politics and
partisan dishonesty. The unfortunate
truth is that today’s Democratic Party and all of its anticipated 2020
Presidential Wannabes embrace this mantra.
They might present it in many different forms and they may cloak it in
many other rhetorical riffs of camouflage; but the message is clear: It is perfectly acceptable to demand free
stuff from the government while doing nothing to support those free gifts.
Republicans
continue to insist that those that are capable should either be employed,
actively seek employment, or pursue training that would make them employable in
order to qualify for this subsistence. It
is a position that is pretty much diametrically opposed to that of the Democrats. It is one point of strong agreement between
me and the Republican Party. George Bush
took a poke at bridging the gap between the extremes of these two differing
approaches under the guise of compassionate
conservatism…with very limited success.
He did manage some bipartisan victories during his terms, particularly
in the area of education. The true
value and quality of these legislative accomplishments are still being debated
and may be a better example of bipartisan dumbing down of principles rather
than the forging of effective law and policy.
Whichever the case may be, there is likely widespread support for the
ideal that because our nation is greatly blessed, there is a moral obligation
upon all to help provide for those among us who are truly in need. The obvious rub comes when we seek to define what
exactly constitutes a basic need; who
exactly qualifies as truly in need;
and who is capable of contributing to
the burden of financing the provision.
As an Independent, I cling to the old premise of a citizen contributing
commensurate with their means; give what you can afford. I support a tax base that is short and
broad. I would love to see a nation
where everyone that is capable of contributing has some skin in the game.
I
can also get on board with the broad and general concept that all U.S. citizens
should have access to basic health care.
Take blame and politics off the table and let us all acknowledge that
there are simply too many people in our country, especially children and
elderly, living without basic health care.
However, I balk rather enthusiastically when we start talking about
Uncle Sam taking over the health care industry (i.e. Obamacare). How could
that possibly go wrong? After all, look
what our good Uncle has done with the Post Office, Congress, the annual federal
budget process, and…well, you get my point.
I want to see this government health care debate go in the direction of
enacting laws that establish an environment which allows the private sector,
through competition and innovation, to compete
for citizen health care dollars. And in
that context, I see no problem with a vigorous debate that redefines fundamental
health care, exactly who cannot afford this care, and how that care can be best
provided. Without crawling into the
weeds, there can be little doubt that procedures like elective abortions,
plastic surgeries, and elective gender-altering procedures have no place in the
category of basic needs. This is not the
place for social engineering.
I
see no problem with a nation that has different levels of health care for
different levels of income. Part of
being wealthy is being able to afford a better standard of living. Let’s just be certain that we give the
opportunity to attain wealth to all citizens
and that we require all citizens to contribute to the expenses of running the
nation…commensurate with their wealth.
And for those resource-challenged citizens that cannot afford basic
health care…I see no problem with a thoughtful expansion of the Medicare and
Medicaid Programs to include them; making certain that we are practical about what we provide and who we provide it to.
In
today’s America, no child or elderly person should go hungry or go without
basic health care. And let it also be
said that no able bodied or similarly capable person should go without some
obligation to help finance the programs that care for our children and
elderly. Them that need help ought to be
helped. Them that’s able to work ought
to work. Everyone should pay at least something in the form of
taxes. All of this should go into the discussion about national health
care legislation. It is so simple, and
yet so complex. And then we wonder why
WDC can’t come up with a bipartisan solution?
Don’t miss the next post! Follow
on Twitter
@centerlineright. If you enjoy
the blog, pass it on to your friends.
And
now we come to the Democratic successor to Obama’s floating for the free stuff policies. No one knows who will come out of the pack to
carry the Democratic Party banner into the 2020 Presidential Election; but
early indications are that the most likely candidates are standing to the left
of Obama. Let me say that again…it is
quite possible that the next Democratic candidate for President will be even more liberal than Obama. The leadership of the Democratic Party has
been seized by a contingent of outspoken Liberals who are pulling the Party
far, far to the left of any historical stance previously occupied by the
majority of Democrats. Bernie is an
avowed Socialist. AOC is still evolving,
but she certainly seems to embrace the Socialist tenets. Given her naked ambition and opportunism, Ms.
Harris is hard to peg regarding her political philosophy. But her recent proposal to eliminate all
private health insurance in America for a single-payer (Uncle Sam) system indicates that she will be occupying much the
same ground as other liberal Dems.
We
must have a healthy and rational
Democratic Party. Absolute control for
Republicans will inevitably lead to corruption.
My Republican friends say I am too easy on the lunatic Dems, but we truly
need them to come to their senses.
How bizarre is it to realize that the most pragmatic candidates on the
Democratic short list of nominees would include Slow Joe Biden and Crooked
Hillary? THIS is the best Democrats can do with an opportunity to run
against Donald Trump going to the winner?
I
am fascinated by the approach taken by the mainstream media towards covering
the early stages of the Democratic Presidential Nominee race as compared to the
last one conducted by the Republicans.
The exhibition of their political bias is shameless and it will be
fascinating to see how it all plays out. Past experience shows how they treated
the 2016 Republican Nominee lineup as a collection of stooges; whereas the 2020
lineup of Democratic Nominees is welcomed as a group of saviors. Here is just a sneak preview of many features
to come: https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/is-bernie-sanders-the-dems-great-white-hope.php
Like
many American voters, I find myself on board the good ship Trump
Trawler…looking across the bay at the Democratic garbage scow named Mueller
Mainliner. It is difficult for me to see
a decent candidate rise from the sewage being transported by the
Mainliner. However, I am moving as far
as possible to the stern in order to get away from the Captain’s quarters on
the Trawler. The Republicans must find a
solution to the irreverence, crude behavior, incivility, and arrogance of their
boy Donald. The Democrats must put the
lazy and incompetent reign of Obama behind them and once again find their voice
as a real alternative to conservative policies that occasionally stray too far
to the right for comfort. What are the
chances we could have two opposing candidates in November of 2020 that are not
even being mentioned now? Yeah…I know…and
the Saints are in the Super Bowl, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment