Scott Spiegel

Subscribe


Archive for June, 2011

CDC Prepares for Outbreak of Bachmann Derangement Syndrome

June 29, 2011 By: Scott Spiegel Category: Elections: 2012

Bachmann

Image by Scott Spiegel via Flickr

If there’s an 80% chance President Michele Bachmann would repeal ObamaCare, enact entitlement reform, and prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, I’m sold.

Whatever trivial misstatements she’s made in her political career, this three-term Minnesota Representative is the strongest nominee the GOP has seen so far this campaign season.

Fox News host Chris Wallace recently demonstrated his journalistic integrity and respect for women in politics by asking Bachmann, “Are you a flake?”

There’s more evidence that Barack Obama isn’t a capitalist than that Bachmann isn’t a serious candidate, though I don’t recall any journalist asking candidate Obama, “Are you a socialist?”  If this is how Fox treats Bachmann, one can only imagine how the mainstream media will treat her.

Fortunately, Bachmann appears quite capable of defending her record.

Unlike candidate Obama, Bachmann has a real work history, with actual responsibilities, including five years’ tenure as a tax attorney, and experience running two mental health clinics, a charter school, and a family farm.

Unlike Senator Obama, Bachmann productively used her time in Congress, taking leadership roles on allowing drilling in ANWR, repealing the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, and replacing ObamaCare with free market reforms.

Bachmann has labeled herself a “constitutional conservative”—precisely the correct label to use in this bizarre era of pay czars, light bulb bans, and trillion-dollar deficits.

Bachmann is a more seasoned version of Sarah Palin and an excellent substitute for Palin fans who believe the former governor unelectable.  (And if depicting Bachmann staring off-camera is the best Saturday Night Live can do to mock her, the 2012 election is going to be no career-booster for Kristen Wiig.)

Bachmann may not have extensive foreign policy experience, but she’s clearly capable of fighting the United States’ gravest enemies, as evidenced by her having survived growing up in a Democratic household.

America’s favorite Tea Party hostess stands up to powerful RINOs in the House who refuse to get serious on spending.  She organized and chairs the vital Congressional Tea Party Caucus.

To top it all off, she’s electable, as evidenced by her recent dead heat showing with Mitt Romney in Iowa, her first-place finish in a national Zogby poll, and her winning performance in the New Hampshire GOP primary debate this month.

Naturally, liberals have temporarily recovered from their Sarah Palin hysteria and are developing a creeping case of Bachmann Derangement Syndrome.

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly, for example, branded Bachmann a conspiracy theorist for her claim that Obama wants Medicare to go broke so seniors will be forced to rely on ObamaCare.  Bachmann was in fact mistaken: She failed to note that Obama also wants all private insurers to go broke so the whole country will be forced to rely on ObamaCare.

Benen called Bachmann’s concern that federal voluntary “community service” might lead to mandatory service “obvious madness.”  Apparently Benen was unaware that the original version of the GIVE Act authorized a “Congressional Commission on Civic Service” to address “whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented…” (p. 267 in a 275-page bill).  No mandatory service here—move along!  The Commission was eliminated from the bill after conservative uproar, but this incident highlights Democrats’ modus operandi for sneaking unpopular provisions into legislation: First they tuck something objectionable deep into a bill where few will read it; then Republicans find it and raise objections; and finally Democrats remove it, deny it was ever there, and scoff at Republicans for “fear-mongering.”

As another example, Washington Post “Fact Checker” and partisan hack Glenn Kessler derided Bachmann’s claim of $105 billion in implementation funds being “hidden” in the ObamaCare bill as “ridiculous,” giving it a maximum rating of “four Pinocchios” on his truthfulness scale.  In fact, former Appropriations Committee member Ernest Istook confirmed that the authors’ act of authorizing so many new programs and funding them in the same bill was highly unusual.  The legislation isn’t clear on what the money will be spent on, and Obama-appointed bureaucrats are unlikely to be held accountable for it.  Neither the Washington Post nor any other major news outlet reported on the $105 billion implementation sum—probably because, as Bachmann noted, it was broken into small pieces and scattered throughout the 2,000-page bill.  But because the provisions weren’t written in invisible ink, Kessler claimed Bachmann was lying through her teeth.

The liberal site Think Progress blasted Bachmann as being crassly calculating for observing that Democrats hope to transform American society into one that’s more dependent on government, thereby securing a permanent “power base.”  In liberals’ projection of their own vile behavior, Republicans preventing Democrats from buying votes via taxpayer-funded entitlement programs is somehow the equivalent of Republicans buying votes.  This is like saying that Republicans’ efforts to prevent Democratic voter fraud is Republican voter fraud.

In Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi claimed that on Hardball, Bachmann had demanded McCarthy-style investigations of Congress to determine which of our leaders are anti-American.  In fact, Bachmann was merely responding to an endless, tiresome line of questioning from host Chris Matthews, who had introduced the label ‘anti-American’ and was trying to get Bachmann to pin it on her colleagues.  Matthews whined, “How many Congresspeople… There’s 435… How many are anti-American?… How many people in the Congress… How many do you suspect?”  After fending off his badgering for several minutes, Bachmann finally replied, “You’d have to ask them, Chris,” and added, “I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America?”  Not exactly the Salem witch trials.

These are just a few threads in the tangled web of “conspiracy theories,” “lies,” and “gaffes” that supposedly disqualify Bachmann from office.

Bachmann may not be the perfect candidate—who is?—but she’s the best conservatives have among those currently in the race.  I’d rather have a president with 80% of the facts at her command than one who governs according to 100% discredited crackpot redistributionist economic theories.

As Featured On EzineArticles

Print This Post Print This Post

Enhanced by Zemanta

Supreme Court 2011: Winning!

June 22, 2011 By: Scott Spiegel Category: Supreme Court

walmart

Image by Scott Spiegel via Flickr

While the three witches from Macbeth and that troll Stephen Breyer are busy conjuring up ways to make our lives miserable, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court has been handing down a remarkable number of excellent decisions as it closes its current term.  Is there hope yet for finding ObamaCare unconstitutional in 2012?

On Monday, the court ruled in favor of Wal-Mart that 1.6 million female employees from all different experience levels, supervisory positions, managerial structures, work specialties, employment backgrounds, ages, races, geographical regions, and 3,400 different retail stores cannot collectively prove that they were paid less or denied promotions because of their genitalia.

The plaintiffs didn’t have a particular manager in common, or a particular store, or even a particular region of the country.

Ignore for the moment the fact that a much higher percentage of female employees work part-time or take extended leave to give birth to or care for children, have shorter work histories, or assume fewer responsibilities or work less overtime because they have more modest aspirations for reaching upper management.  Never mind that Wal-Mart was named one of the 35 best companies for promoting females in 2007 by the National Association for Female Executives.

The fact remains: The purpose of our court system is to dispense justice by punishing offenders for specific, provable acts of wrongdoing.  The purpose of a class action lawsuit is to allow numerous victims who have suffered an identical inconvenience from a specific, narrow, defective or faulty product, service, or contractor—a medicine with an unforeseen side effect, a car door handle that breaks off, a provision violated in the fine print of a banking contract—to pool their resources and force a corporation to address a systematic problem via a substantial monetary settlement.

The purpose of the Wal-Mart suit, the biggest class action suit in history, was to drive a locomotive through the world’s largest public corporation—with as many “victims” on board as possible—rip the heart out of the company, and split the profits during the subsequent looting among the special interest groups that funded and the trial lawyers who prosecuted the suit.  A favorable ruling would also set a precedent for doing the same thing to other “exploitative” American companies such as Costco, which currently faces a similar lawsuit.

The court rejected the Wal-Mart suit in a unanimous decision, proving that liberals on the court haven’t gone completely insane.  The plaintiffs are still entitled to sue Wal-Mart for individual disputes over pay and promotions, and several plan to do so.  But of course that wasn’t enough for the liberal wing of the court.

The four liberals on the court, none of whom would be caught dead in Wal-Mart but three-quarters of whom have vaginas, ruled that the gender discrimination class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart, if tweaked just a bit, would be a splendid idea!  (Hey America, how’s that Wise Latina Woman qualification working out?)

The Wal-Mart case resembles what would happen if all of the country’s Asian-American teenagers decided to sue the nation’s public universities for discriminating against them in the college admissions process.

A New York Times op-ed writer somberly noted, “The underlying issue, which the Supreme Court has now ratified, is Wal-Mart’s authoritarian style, by which executives pressure store-level management to squeeze more and more from millions of clerks, stockers and lower-tier managers”—otherwise known as “running a business.”

He continues, “There are tens of thousands of experienced Wal-Mart women who would like to be promoted to the first managerial rung, salaried assistant store manager.  But Wal-Mart makes it impossible for many of them to take that post, because its ruthless management style structures the job itself as one that most women, and especially those with young children or a relative to care for, would find difficult to accept.”  Yes, Wal-Mart sacrifices millions of dollars in profit to keep those pesky qualified females out of management jobs.  That must explain their unrivaled success!

The court—or rather, the conservative majority—ruled similarly in another class action suit against AT&T in April, declaring that the provision in the company’s cell phone contract that plaintiffs must file lawsuits individually and not as a class meant that, um, plaintiffs must file lawsuits individually and not as a class.

In other happy SCOTUS news, the court ruled that megalomaniacally power-hungry states like California and New York cannot force the federal government to adopt kooky, draconian global warming regulations for power plants.  Even President Obama—and the liberals on the court—had to side with the defendant on that one.

SCOTUS also recently refused to hear the appeal of ACORN, which demanded that its fine, upstanding reputation for turning away pimps and prostitutes who want to sell underage Guatemalan girls into sexual slavery—not to mention its squeaky clean financial records and sterling reputation on voter registration—should qualify it to receive the federal funds Congress cut off in 2010 after James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles’ sting operation.

Have we left the era of the Supreme Court awarding constitutional rights to non-Geneva Convention-respecting terrorists, affirming the power of the federal government to seize private homes to clear space for shopping malls that never get built, and declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant to be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency?

At this rate, the Supreme Court might actually rule that the federal government’s attempt to force individuals to buy a product from the private market is unconstitutional.

Print This Post Print This Post

Enhanced by Zemanta

Presidential Debate Cliffs Notes: So You Don’t Have To Watch

June 15, 2011 By: Scott Spiegel Category: Elections: 2012

MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE- JUNE 13: Republican...

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

John King: Welcome to our 2012 Republican primary debate.  On stage are all the candidates who felt like showing up tonight.  Let’s skip the boring opening statements and have candidates introduce themselves.

Rick Santorum: I’m a former senator who nonetheless has experience making tough executive governing managerial ruling leadership decisions.

Michele Bachmann: I’m a businesswoman with 5 children and 23 foster children.

Newt Gingrich: Obama sucks.

Mitt Romney: I lost in 2008, but that won’t happen again, because Republicans are the party of “it’s his turn.”

Ron Paul: I am a senator who used to deliver babies and now champions liberty and libertarianism.

Tim Pawlenty: I’m a husband, father, neighbor, and lover.  Of America.

Herman Cain: I am not a politician and have no political experience.  I know pizza.

King: What would you do to create jobs?

Cain: Uncertainty is stalling this train that is our economy.  We need to lower taxes, which is like greasing the caboose, and then decrease interest rates, which is like putting the fuel in the tank of the train that is our economy.

King: Is it possible for the economy to grow at 5% a year?

Pawlenty: Our president is an anemic declinist who thinks we can’t have 5% growth like China or Brazil.

King: What are your views on Dodd-Frank?

Bachmann: I’m looking forward to answering that question.  But first… Guess what: I’m running for president!

King: What three steps would you take to repeal ObamaCare?

Bachmann: I introduced the first bill to kill ObamaCare and will not rest until it is dead and buried.  Take that to the bank and cash the check.

King: Governor Romney, how will you ever be elected, given that you passed ObamaCare in Massachusetts?

Romney: That’s not fair.  Massachusetts’ plan was different, because it abridged people’s liberties and introduced massive regulations on the state level, not the federal level.

Pawlenty: Obama said he looked to Massachusetts as a model for his plan.  [Nelson Muntz laugh and finger-pointing at Romney]  Ha-ha!

King: Speaker, should there be an individual mandate, as you have passionately argued hundreds of times in the past before it became unpopular?

Gingrich: In addition to the presidency, we also need more Senate seats.

Audience member: Do you support right-to-work laws?

Pawlenty: Yes, even though I and most of my family have been in unions most of our lives.

Gingrich: I hope New Hampshire adopts it.  Why would you want to be stupid like California when you could be smart like Texas?

King: Every time we go to or come back from a break, I’m going to ask a pointless random personal question.  Leno or Conan?

Santorum: Leno.  Conan is too edgy.

King: And we’re back.  Elvis or Johnny Cash?

Bachmann: Both.  I love “Christmas with Elvis.”

Audience member: What assistance should government give to private industry?

Paul: None, duh.

King: Stop applauding, audience.  We know you’re Republicans and love their answers, but you’re taking up too much time.  Mr. Cain, why did you support TARP?

Cain: I actually supported TARP before I opposed it.

King: “Dancing with the Stars” or “American Idol”?

Gingrich: “American Idol.”

King: BlackBerry or iPhone?

Paul: BlackBerry.

Audience member: How will you keep Medicare solvent forever?

Paul: It is not solvent, will never be solvent, and was never designed to be solvent.  That’s why we need to cut our military.

Pawlenty: I have a plan that’s better than Paul Ryan’s.  I’m not going to show it to you.

King: Speaker, why did you call Ryan’s plan “social engineering”?

Gingrich: I put my foot in my mouth.  But the question was too narrow and the answer was taken out of context.

Audience member: How do you feel about separation of church and state?

Pawlenty: It was designed to protect religious people from atheists.

Paul: Congress should make no law abridging the right to express your faith, especially if it’s Christian.

King: Deep dish or thin crust?

Cain: Deep dish.

King: Spicy or mild barbecue?

Romney: Spicy, of course.

Audience member: Gay marriage is legal in New Hampshire.  Would you interfere with states’ rights on the issue?

Bachmann: Marriage should be between a man and a woman, because children need a mother and a father.  I come from a broken home, and I was raised by a single mother, and I turned out great.

King: Should Congress pass a federal marriage amendment, or should states deal with it?

Cain: States.

Paul: Get government out of marriage.

Pawlenty: Amendment.

Romney: Amendment.

Gingrich: Amendment.

Santorum: Amendment.

Bachmann: Oh, are all the real candidates in favor of an amendment?  Well, let me jump in and say that I am too, but let me also remind you that I don’t favor trampling on states’ rights, even though I’m totally contradicting myself.

Audience member: What are your views on immigration?

Gingrich: We are not a heartless nation.  We can kick 20 million people out of the country without being cruel.

King: Coke or Pepsi?

Pawlenty: Coke.

Audience member: Should we get out of Afghanistan?

Romney: We should bring the troops home quickly, assuming the Afghan military can defend the country against the Taliban, which it obviously can’t.

Paul: I would get us out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and Pakistan, because we have no national security interests there, or anywhere else in the world.

Pawlenty: That’s crazy.  I favor defending the nation against outside threats.  Hello, it’s called “Commander in Chief”?

Cain: To paraphrase my grandmother, Libya is a mess.

King: Who made the worse vice presidential pick in 2008—Obama or McCain?

Pawlenty: Biden is a horse’s ass.

Romney: I have bad blood with Palin, so I’m going to avoid the question and just reiterate that Obama sucks.

King: What have you learned in the past two hours?

Santorum: Nothing.  If I’m delusional enough to think I have a chance of winning, do you think I’m capable of absorbing new information about the candidates or my prospects?

Bachmann: I’ve learned about the goodness of the American people.

Romney: New Hampshire loves the future.

Cain: It’s all about the children and the grandchildren.

King: Good night.  God, I feel old.

Print This Post Print This Post

Enhanced by Zemanta

Democratic Sleazeballs Don’t Resign, They Become Elder Statesmen

June 08, 2011 By: Scott Spiegel Category: Crime/Ethics

weiner

Image by Scott Spiegel via Flickr

Democratic politicians believe that resigning after a scandal is more damning to their reputations than clinging to power and tarnishing their offices.

Based on the reaction of their voting base, apparently they’re right.

On Monday, New York Representative Anthony Weiner held a tearful press conference in which he admitted to having sent lewd photos of himself to half a dozen women and falsely claiming his Twitter account had been hacked.  In the same speech, he declared that he nonetheless had no intention of resigning.  His defenders in the press have been positively huffy at the mere suggestion of resignation.

Last year New York Representative Charles Rangel was found guilty of 11 ethics violations, including failure to pay taxes and non-disclosure of income.  The former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman remains proudly in office, after having abused reporters with multiple rounds of curse-laden scolding for daring to inquire about his wrongdoing.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and Senators Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Roland Burris were all under investigation, reprimanded, or indicted in connection with the pay-for-play scandal involving President-elect Obama’s Senate seat in 2008, yet all refused to give up their seats.  Blagojevich was forced to step down by the Illinois legislature, which barred him from public service for life.

New York Governor Elliot Spitzer was compelled to resign after a prostitution scandal in 2008, but shamelessly accepted an offer to host a highly-touted, prime time political talk show on CNN two years later.

Louisiana Representative William Jefferson was found guilty of 11 bribery and corruption charges in 2007 and sentenced to 13 years in jail, but did not resign.  He won reelection in 2006, a year after the FBI recovered $90,000 hidden in his freezer, but was voted out next election.

Ohio Representative Jim Traficant was sentenced to 8 years in jail for financial corruption in 2002, but did not resign and was expelled from the House.  Not deterred in the least in his political ambitions, Traficant ran a historic (losing) reelection campaign from his prison cell in Allenwood, Pennsylvania.  Around the same time, California Representative Gary Condit was revealed to have had an affair with intern Chandra Levy, but declined to resign and even ran for reelection (and lost).  Proving that sleazeballs stick up for one another, Condit was the sole ‘nay’ vote in the 420-1 resolution to expel Traficant.

President Bill Clinton lied under oath about his relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky in 1998.  Clinton was a serial philanderer and sexual harasser and possible rapist.  His punishment: increased approval ratings, the chance to stay in office for the remainder of his term, and status since then as a highly sought-after speaker, political consultant, and international ambassador.

Washington, D.C. Mayor Marion Barry was caught on tape smoking crack with an FBI informant in 1990 and sent to jail on drug charges.  Nonetheless, Barry served out his full term as mayor while awaiting trial.  After fulfilling his six-month sentence, Barry shocked the nation by running for and winning the mayoralty in 1994 and serving another four-year term.

Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank spent the 1980s living with a paid escort and convicted felon who was running a prostitution ring out of Frank’s Washington townhouse.  Frank was reprimanded by the House, yet won reelection with 66% of the vote the year the scandal was uncovered.  He has never resigned, has been given plum political appointments, and has only become more popular among supporters over time.

Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy drove a young woman off a bridge and left her to drown in 1969, yet received only a two-month suspended sentence.  Though the notoriety from the incident dampened his presidential aspirations, Kennedy never resigned and held office until his death four decades later.

In contrast to these Democratic sleazebags, Republican politicians are more likely to recognize that the honorable thing to do when found guilty of wrongdoing is to quit, even when they have carried out far less egregious acts than Democrats.

Senator John Ensign of Nevada resigned last month over an extramarital affair.

New York Representative Chris Lee resigned this year after it was discovered he had sent shirtless photos to a woman he met online.

Idaho Senator Larry Craig tapped his foot in a bathroom stall to solicit a sexual act, was charged with disorderly conduct, and subsequently announced his resignation in 2007, though the charges were so flimsy that he changed his mind and simply decided not to run for reelection.

Florida Representative Mark Foley sent flirty texts to postpubescent aides; he resigned in 2006.

George W. Bush advisor Karl Rove resigned over his role in the “Lawyergate” non-scandal and the trumped-up Valerie Plame affair.  Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales also resigned over Lawyergate.

Tom DeLay resigned in 2006 after being investigated but not indicted in connection with the Abramoff lobbying scandal.

Louisiana Senator and Speaker-elect Bob Livingston resigned in 1999 due to an extramarital affair.  Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich resigned after charges of financial impropriety in 1997.

President Richard Nixon was involved in activity that would have constituted a slow day at the office during the Clinton presidency, yet he resigned in 1974.  Nixon’s Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned in 1973 after committing tax fraud.

There’s clearly ample wrongdoing on both sides.  Why do Democratic politicians feel they have the sacred right to stay in office even after they’ve disgraced themselves and embarrassed the constituents who voted for them?

Simple: Liberals see themselves as sagacious, visionary elites who wield power because they have been sanctioned to control the lives of the ignorant masses.

In contrast, Republican politicians understand that, just as government should be limited in size and scope, so should their powers, which means that if they prove themselves unfit for the job, they are easily replaceable.

Anthony Weiner is a sleazeball, a liar, and a fraud—but hey, he can’t leave, because there’s important work to be done, like nationalizing the country’s health care system.

Print This Post Print This Post

Enhanced by Zemanta

MediScare: Anatomy of a Fraudulent Campaign Theme

June 01, 2011 By: Scott Spiegel Category: Elections: 2012

mediscare

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised at Congressional Democrats’ withering scorn for House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s proposal to turn Medicare into a voucher system, a plan to which their party has yet to offer an alternative.

This is the party that vituperatively opposed all GOP spending cuts for the past two years, yet unlawfully failed to pass a budget during that period.

The party that insists on calling Republicans the Party of No should be labeled the Party of No Ideas of Their Own.

Charles Blow, for example, filled a recent column with purple prose elucidating why voters find Ryan’s plan repugnant: “[T]he electorate is hurting—a pulsing mass of tender nerves, hypersensitive to things that portend pain, reflexively reacting to the thump of even the softest mallet.”  (And most of them don’t even read the New York Times!)  He continued: “This is not to say that Medicare isn’t in crisis.  It is.  But, we don’t have to gut it to save it.”  He then spent precisely zero space suggesting any alternative solutions.

Blow and other liberals have been crowing about the obscure special election Democrat Kathy Hochul won in NY-26 last week.  They claim that Republican Jane Corwin lost because of Ryan’s recently proposed Medicare plan, since seniors in the district were terrified that electing her would increase the chances of their Medicare payments being cut.

Never mind that Democrats inserted into the race a fake Tea Party candidate who siphoned off up to 9% of the Corwin vote; that the previous officeholder was a Republican embroiled in a sex scandal; or that Corwin was a lousy candidate who failed to utter a word in defense of Ryan’s proposal until days before the election.

(Hey, how is it that thundering losses in the 2010 midterm elections weren’t a referendum on ObamaCare, but loss of one seat in a murky district in upstate New York constitutes a wholehearted rejection of conservatism?)

The irony of Democrats’ MediScare campaign is that Ryan’s relatively mild-mannered proposal is the only plan that would save Medicare.  Continuing to fund Medicare at current levels, the Democrats’ strategy, will bankrupt it.

For those who love Medicare and want to see it continue (which I don’t—but hey, to each his own), the scariest choice is doing nothing to reform it.  In contrast, the most reassuring strategy would be a course of action similar to Ryan’s.

I suspect that if pollsters asking voters whether they want Medicare cut presented the real alternative to that possibility—namely, the fund going bankrupt and an unelected board of bureaucrats rationing care for everyone—the public would be a little more receptive to Ryan’s plan.

Democratic naysayers are rife with general notions of how to deal with entitlement reform, but all of these consist of reflexive opposition to any steps Republicans want to take.

For example, Ryan has quite reasonably proposed reducing Medicare benefits for wealthy retirees—who need them less, if at all—to save money.

But leftists like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders oppose even cutting benefits for the wealthy: “The strength of Social Security and Medicare is that everybody is in.  Once you start breaking that universality and you say that if you’re above a certain income [you’re out], two years later that income goes down and 10 years later it becomes a welfare program.”

Would that Social Security and Medicare were only welfare programs!  They’d sure cost a lot less.  They’d also restore a lot more freedom to the middle class in deciding how to invest their money and plan for retirement.

But for liberals, it’s all about control.  Their message to the wealthy is: We’ll tax the bejesus out of you, but then we’ll deign to give you benefits you don’t need, and then exercise complete control over when and how you receive them.  Aren’t you grateful?

For conservatives, it’s all about liberty.  Their message to the wealthy is: We won’t bother you with government-run insurance you don’t need, and we also won’t harass you with exorbitant taxes for the sin of being productive.  Go do your thing!

Sanders, an avowed socialist whose views are nonetheless inches away from the Democratic mainstream, proves once again that liberals are instinctively upside-down on every public policy issue of importance.  Even when it makes sound fiscal sense to steer benefits toward the poor and take them away from the rich, liberals somehow find a way to oppose that progressive notion.

Democrats claim that 20 years from now, seniors will be getting less from the government to cover their health care costs.  Yes, and if Democrats get their way, not only will seniors will be getting less, the government will be deciding how they spend it, via an unelected Medicare rationing board, rather than letting them shop the market for the care they like best.  Now which party’s plan does the public prefer?

Another political axiom the MediScare campaign proves is that liberals will always take the route that proves most politically feasible, regardless of whether it fails to address the public policy conundrum under consideration, unfairly smears their opponents, or makes no logical sense.

Thus, even the Times’ Gail Collins had to admit, “There is no escaping our fate. We are going to spend the next 17 months hearing about how the Republicans want to kill off Medicare…  By the fall, there will be ads showing the Republicans hacking their way through rows of bedridden seniors with scimitars.”

What’s most frightening: Democrats’ brazenness in hiding behind MediScare so as not to have to address the Medicare crisis, the public’s likelihood of falling for MediScare, or Republicans’ failure to explain MediScare’s utter absurdity?

Print This Post Print This Post

Enhanced by Zemanta