Skip to comments.The Greater of Evils
Posted on 11/04/2012 5:11:16 AM PST by Kaslin
President Barack Obama is on Tuesdays ballot, seeking four more years as president of the United States. Like many Americans, I find that prospect deeply troubling — downright scary.
Some say the nation cannot survive another four years of Mr. Obama. Though that belief probably underestimates our resilience as a people, there is something about the Obama Administration that I find more frightening than the menacing administrations of presidents past.
Weeks ago, a friend suggested that we American voters have simply received the government for which we have cast our ballots. The enormous debt foisted on us by the various political gangs in Washington had somehow been all our own idea, and the corruption and cronyism that seems to be the federal governments standard operating procedure has been a pretty solid reflection of the hopes and desires of the American electorate.
I did not merely beg to differ; I adamantly demanded to differ. The very idea that the federal governments overspending, overstepping, waste, sloth and corruption had been somehow wished for and even chosen by voters (and was emblematic of the peoples same bad behavior) is patently absurd.
And easily refuted.
So, I began to present the simple case that every president, Republican or Democrat, from Gerald Ford on, had promised not more government, but less. They pledged from both the right and the left to streamline the bloated federal government and to balance the national budget. And they said these things to win our votes:
So, I thought, the record is mighty strong: those seeking to be president have, indeed, promised us a leaner federal government, though their promises have, admittedly, gone consistently unfulfilled. But the people cannot be blamed for being defrauded by lying politicians — especially since our other most notable choice was an equally lying politician or even a once-in-a-while truth-telling but tax-increasing big government politician.
As I detailed, smaller government promises got Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton and Bush (43) elected, though they nevertheless pursued many big government policies once in office. Then, it occurred to me that President Obama is really different.
Sure, Obama did promise a smidgen of middle-class tax relief in 2008, though his emphasis then and now is on hiking up taxes on the wealthy. He certainly didnt run against the excesses of Washington. No, he instead sought to make the case that the federal government could and should do more in our everyday lives.
Barack Obama is the first president in my adult life to embrace the idea of a bigger, more intrusive, most costly federal government that does more for you . . . or to you.
When someone builds a big business, Obama is quick to remind us that it could not have been done without the assistance of big government.
Sure, I could quote chapter and verse of Obamas harmful, disastrous policies from Obamacare to raising taxes, but it is his entire philosophy that government is the answer to every problem (even those created by government) that makes him so frightening.
Note that Ive not said a word about former Massachusetts Governor and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney (as my Mother always instructed). There are only two things Mr. Romney has going for him: hope and change.
The truth be told, the American people speak with forked tongue on the issue of Big Government and Entitlements. One one hand, they like the theoretical idea of reducing Governement spending and deficits. The problem is that when a brave politician (yes, there are a few) actually makes specific proposals, they get skewered in the polls. Politicans get elected by promising fuzzy reductions in things like fraud and waste. Of course, those savings never materialize.
Face it, as a people, we have largely gotten the Govenment the majority want. Freepers, for the most part, are excluded from this criticism as I’m assuming we actually vote our conservative values.
I respectfully disagree with the author.
We have a corrupt and fiscally irresponsible government BECAUSE voters select candidates whom they believe will give them ‘free’ things. And these voters care not a whit if the ‘free’ things are taken by force from their neighbors. Which voting is of course corrupt and fiscally irresponsible.
So a corrupt and fiscally irresponsible electorate chooses corrupt and fiscally irresponsible officials to populate what can only be a corrupt and fiscally irresponsible government. Regardless of protests to the contrary.
I agree. Many people say they’d like “smaller government,” but mean, “As long as everything that matters to me stays in place.” And many talk about cutting spending, but the method they propose is more government control.
We should all pay attention to the numbers that recently came out about “anti-poverty” spending: 2/3 of every dollar goes to run the programs, while only 1/3 reaches the intended beneficiaries. Whatever we may think about the beneficiaries of welfare spending, they’re not taking the money from us: government is.
Reagan's spending bought us a peaceful end to the Cold War, and made that "balanced budget" in the next decade possible.
George W. Bush defeated Al Gore in 2000 on a platform of a more humble foreign policy that would steer clear of nation-building efforts. The idea that he might engage the nation in two wars that would not be paid for except by the simple swipe of the national credit card and stuffing our generations IOUs into the diapers of newborns never occurred to anyone.
Of course, 911 and the trillion dollars that cost us had nothing to do with it. In spite of that, the deficit was at about 165 billion and shrinking when the Democrat majority Congress replaced the GOP majority Congress in Jan. 2007.
What what was accomplished in Iraq?
1. The sanctions that killed 500,000 children and teenagers were ended.
2. Women who in the 90s were watching their daughters starve under our sanctions are now watching their adult daughters join the police and military.
3. Intelligence gathered in Iraq helped lead us directly to Bin Laden.
You forgot to mention the Oil for Food program which was being used to manipulate the worlds oil prices and thus the worlds economy was also ended.
the more i find things that RR really said, the more i like him.....he called himself a conservative-libertarian, and that leaves lotsa folks in the lurch regarding what they call themselves and others...verrrryyy interesting...