The liberal pocketbook


I continue to ponder the mind of the liberal. While his goals always are lofty and well meaning, socially moralistic and cloaked in compassion, they are also absent a base in reality.

More disturbing is the mindset that personal responsibility is not the primary resource we should rely upon, but rather the collective resources of others frequently filtered through the morass of government. 

Liberal objectives are hard to argue against except in the cold light of reality. The problem is that reality is easily pushed to the future in the name of “progress.” The liberal mindset is also difficult to overcome because many, perhaps most people live their lives that way, i.e. fulfilling their personal desires regardless of affordability or longer term consequences and ultimately using others resources to alleviate their troubles (bankruptcy, credit card “relief”, income tax settlement or simply walking away from a house).

The United States is in serious financial trouble, likely the most serious in it’s short history. The interest on our debt alone is near $800,000,000,000. Our dependence on foreign lenders threatens our leadership in the world and perhaps our security. What more do we need for a wake-up call? Yet, in the face of the obvious the liberal continues to push for more entitlements, and more spending, content to rely on growing debt and higher taxes. As Margaret Thatcher once said, sooner or later you run out of other peoples money.  Entitlement as a way of life fosters a continuing dependency on others.

Take one minor example. The struggle to contain health care costs is well known, these costs affect every American. Yet, as we attempt to control these costs through reform, the liberal seeks to expand the entitlement indefinitely. Contained in the reform effort is significant expansion of the Medicare prescription benefit. Is this a desirable thing to do, certainly. Is it affordable, no. But we are told it will be paid for with other cuts and there you have the essence of the matter ” other cuts” should be used to lower current costs, not pay for a new irrevocable expense. In a related matter we are told Medicare cuts will be used to pay for government subsidies for other health care, OK sounds good. Except that Medicare is going broke and if there are billions in savings to be had, they need to be used to lower  total costs not shift them from one program to the other. There are many other examples beyond the health care issue but they all come down to the same thing.

We just don’t get it; we cannot distinguish between what we want and what may be desirable and what we can afford.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s