The public's mood is one of anger and apprehension. Anger at the mishandling of our affairs by the political establishment as well as the loss of jobs, a decrease in personal wealth and a crushing debt; apprehension as to what the future holds for all of us.
The establishment is generally thought of as the nation's power structure represented by those politicians who hold office and their appointees. But it can also refer to those who influence decisions such as lobbyists, special interests and the news media. Its members come from both political parties.
We did not reach our current crises in one day or even one year. Prolific spending, undue political influence in the private sector, burdensome regulations and decisions made in favor of special interests have been going on for years under the aegis of both parties.
One of the reasons for Obama's election in 2008 was his call for change which he left undefined. We now know what he meant. His record shows:
No significant changes to address those problems caused by government malfeasance and inefficiencies. There was, however, a changing of the guard from one set of special interests to another.
Changes that were not aimed at the roots of our problems but at programs that would fundamentally alter our government and society as well as diminish our personal freedoms.
A waste of resources to promote a political vision for a government directed economy in disregard of our huge debt and the adverse impact on the country's future.
Obama did not initiate the process leading to our current problems. But he has aggravated them significantly. The public mood reflects a deep sense of being let down by the very people, especially the President, who should be representing the public interest and not special interests.
In the current election cycle, Ron Paul was the first beneficiary of the public's mood. He currently has a loyal and dedicated following among young people who are naturally inclined to be against authority.
Newt Gingrich has recently turned his campaign around by effectively tapping into the public mood. His demeanor and aggressiveness toward government bureaucracy and to the press has touched a deep seated sentiment. We now see Mitt Romney also responding, if somewhat timidly, with an emphasis for government reforms. But it is Gingrich who is now dominating the debate and has the attention of the public.
The establishment is now concerned that the status quo, and their position in it, will be undermined by Gingrich's ascendency. They will do all they can to defeat him. But consider this: How much consideration should we give to an establishment that is largely responsible for our current problems?
The establishment is generally thought of as the nation's power structure represented by those politicians who hold office and their appointees. But it can also refer to those who influence decisions such as lobbyists, special interests and the news media. Its members come from both political parties.
We did not reach our current crises in one day or even one year. Prolific spending, undue political influence in the private sector, burdensome regulations and decisions made in favor of special interests have been going on for years under the aegis of both parties.
One of the reasons for Obama's election in 2008 was his call for change which he left undefined. We now know what he meant. His record shows:
No significant changes to address those problems caused by government malfeasance and inefficiencies. There was, however, a changing of the guard from one set of special interests to another.
Changes that were not aimed at the roots of our problems but at programs that would fundamentally alter our government and society as well as diminish our personal freedoms.
A waste of resources to promote a political vision for a government directed economy in disregard of our huge debt and the adverse impact on the country's future.
Obama did not initiate the process leading to our current problems. But he has aggravated them significantly. The public mood reflects a deep sense of being let down by the very people, especially the President, who should be representing the public interest and not special interests.
In the current election cycle, Ron Paul was the first beneficiary of the public's mood. He currently has a loyal and dedicated following among young people who are naturally inclined to be against authority.
Newt Gingrich has recently turned his campaign around by effectively tapping into the public mood. His demeanor and aggressiveness toward government bureaucracy and to the press has touched a deep seated sentiment. We now see Mitt Romney also responding, if somewhat timidly, with an emphasis for government reforms. But it is Gingrich who is now dominating the debate and has the attention of the public.
The establishment is now concerned that the status quo, and their position in it, will be undermined by Gingrich's ascendency. They will do all they can to defeat him. But consider this: How much consideration should we give to an establishment that is largely responsible for our current problems?
That is all correct Norman. Listening to the POTUS last night as he promised more and more. Hope some one was keeping a list all of which is going to cost more money. Not much mention of fraud in Medicare that i heard before I fell asleep. We can not do everything -let the free market do more.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that "right on" comment. We didn't watch POTUS last night but from I read this morning, it was the same "we know best", big government BS.
DeletePhilosophy aside, big government is impractical. As the cliche goes: Stick to what you do best--if anyone tries to do too much (government, business, individuals) they usually end up doing nothing well. Besides, big government is not exactly conducive to a free economy and personal liberty. Back to basics: small and limited government, more power to the states and to individuals-- I now have a deeper appreciation for the wisdom of our founding fathers.
Thanks again for your comments.
All good points but you're being far too polite. The Obama Administration has been very clear in its desire to "fundamentally transform" America. That phrase reveals that his team believes America is "fundamentally wrong". In terms of political philosophy, the U.S. Constitution talks about "negative" freedoms meaning what government can't do to its citizens. The Constitution sets limits on government power because ther Founding Fathers were very concerned about a return to monarchy.
ReplyDeleteMr. Obama turns that on its head but interpreting the Constitution as a document of "positive" freedoms; that is, what government can do to its citizens.
And this, my friends, is the root cause of all of Obama's overreach. Here's how it works - he sabotages the legal interaction between the Executive and Legislative branches, accuses the latter of obstructionism, then moves out unilaterally. That's it. Right out of Saul Lewinsky's book and quite simple if you ask me.
And here are just some the results:
1) ObamaCare and the individual mandate which forces a citizen to enter into a private contract. This is a major overeach of the Commerce Clause. It is illegal and it violates our FUNDAMENTAL right to individual soveriegnty.
2) Cronyism - Solyndra. Campaign donors' money gets recycled to pet projects that picks winners and losers. In America, picking winners and losers is the role of private capital in a competitive marketplace.
3) Over regulation - we now have over 150 regulations costing over $100 million each to implement. That's up from about 85 under Bush. The EPA is also embarking on a major reorganization that will see its powers expanded to virtually every aspect of U.S. economic life.
4) Recess Appointments/Czars - This practice is a blatant unilateral move by the President. This Administration has had more Czars than any other and his latest recess appointment was made when the Senate WAS in session. That's illegal.
I could go on, but you get the point.
In closing, America doesn't need to be "fundamentally transformed". Conservatives want to save America. Save it from those who want to enslave us to the government and control every aspect of our lives. There is ample evidence of the failure of such a societal model right across the Atlantic - in Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and probably soon France. They're drowning it debt, low economic growth and high unemployment.
Conservatives believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility. Those concepts form the core of the social contract and the backbone of the U.S. Constitution. These principles need to fought for and preserved for our children if this country is to have a bright and prosperous future. If we lose this fight then our future will look like that of Greece or even worse.
"Anonymous" provides us with important facts re. Obama's goal to fundamentally change America. I agree with his analysis in this comment and his second one as well following this one.
DeleteWe did not arrive at this current crises overnight although Obama deserves much of the blame. Prior administrations have short circuited the Constitution and the legislative process for expediency sake. FDR had almost unlimited power during the depression and WWII. LBJ waged a war without proper Congressional approval and he also extended the power of the Federal Government through his "Great Society" programs. And let us not forget that it was Richard Nixon that initiated "revenue sharing" with the states, a backdoor method of exercising power through the purse. All of these actions, and more, by politicians of both parties, aided and abetted by their media and K Street cronies, laid the groundwork for Obama's radical agenda.
I include two quotes from F.A. Hayek's book, "The Road to Serfdom";
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." (David Hume)
"What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven," (Holderin)
Oh, I forgot a major one. How silly of me
ReplyDelete5) Limits on personal wealth. Mr. Obama was clear in is SOTU speech when he said if you a make more than $1 million you should pay "more". So who's to decide? Him? A "committee"? This is just classic left-wing economic engineering. Hayek warned of this a long time ago when he said (correctly) that a centrally planned economy requires a totalitarian form of goverment. Here's a brief dialogue of how a typical day would go:
Government Planner: "Good morning. State your name and occupation."
Winston: "Hello. I'm a nuclear physicst with a PhD in physics and Master's Degree in nuclear chemistry".
Government Planner: "Oh, right. One of those. Well, we need a potato picker today so you're a potato picker. And do not EVEN THINK of picking more potatoes than the weakest amongst you. We have to be equal ya know"
Winston: "But, um, sorry sir but shouldn't I be engineering an energy station so we can be more energy self-sufficient?"
Government Planner: "Whaaaaaat?! Are you deaf? It's potatoes. Potatoes, Potatoes, Potatoes!"