The Bitter Wastes

of politicized America:

Beyond its crass offensiveness, Hoyer’s rhetoric is remarkably blinkered. By definition, all political arrangements in our representative republic involve a process of demand and compromise. Hoyer’s Democrats are every bit as guilty of taking “hostages,” or displaying stubborn intransigence, as their political opponents. When the stakes are high, the struggle turns bitter. Come to think of it, things can get pretty nasty in Washington when the stakes are low, too.

The rest of us should consider the contemptible behavior of people like Hoyer as we watch the expansion of politics into every area of our lives. The government grows; the private sector diminishes; everything becomes a political act. Soon you will see the phrase “none of your business” become an antique aphorism, as quaint as telling someone to “dial” a telephone number. Everything is everyone’s business now. That’s what Big Government means.

That’s what America signed up for by re-electing Barack Obama, who is more dedicated to the contraction of the private sphere than any predecessor in living memory. He appears to sincerely believe that government control is necessary to achieve virtue. But the conduct of our political leadership doesn’t seem terribly virtuous, does it? It’s not even very polite.

Or even competent at anything except looting.

9 thoughts on “The Bitter Wastes

  1. ken anthony

    if impeachment were simple and common almost all would be the corrupt getting rid of the decent and honest.

    We are way past the tipping point. They don’t even try to hide the blatant corruption.

  2. Bilwick

    “Everything is everyone’s business now. That’s what Big Government means.”

    Waiting for Jim to check in with “And the problem with that would be . . . ?”
    Or his even-higher-on-the-Stupid-Scale: “That’s just civilization.”

  3. Paul Milenkovic

    OK, the idea behind “The Deal” or “the Grand Bargain” is that the President accepts as we do that the entitlement programs are unsustainable but in his theory we need a “balanced approach” of inflicting some tax pain on a few rich people as part of the social contract for inflicting “benefits” pain on the poorer masses.

    In other words, we cannot morally demand reductions in entitlements affecting the not-that-rich many without “the rich taking a haircut in all of this.” Yes, the demand is Marxist, but contained in it is a kind of political calculus of shared sacrifice in doing something that is politically amazing for a Democrat, that of admitting that the Entitlement State is unsustainable.

    This idea was the asking for a show of hands from the Republican primary candidates regarding a rejection of “a dollar in tax increases for ten dollars in entitlement cuts”, where every candidate to a man (plus Representative Bachmann) raised their hand, showing Tea Party solidarity and a kind of herd response to a demand from a liberal debate moderator.

    If I was on that dais, I would shouted out of turn, “Where did you get the idea of a formula of one dollar in taxes for every ten dollars in spending reduction? Who has even proposed that? The President was offered for every dollar in new taxes only four dollars in spending cuts, and he flat-out walked away from it!”

    It seems that “The Grand Bargain” is for every dollar in taxes, there is to be zero dollars in spending cuts. There is no Deal, there is no Grand Bargain, it appears to be for every dollar in taxes, there will be a dollar in new spending, and then some. That there is an existential crisis in government spending and in government debt does not seem to enter the President’s mind. He won the election, in his view, to defend the entitlement status quo, and there is no negotiating on anything.

    In my view, the House Republicans should have acted, should still act to stage a fighting retreat. Fine, the Senate passed a bill extending the Bush tax rates on the non-rich under 250K family income, put that bill on the floor, vote on it, and send it to the President to veto it if he dares.

    As Speaker, Nancy Pelosi wanted all of the Bush Tax cuts to lapse, to raise taxes on everybody. Now she is pleading from the Minority to bring the limited Senate Bill for a “Middle Class Tax Cut” to the floor. Do it. We are talking about making tax cuts advanced by President Bush to be permanent. Just grab this chance. Unless the President decides to veto what Mr. Reid’s Senate passed and what Ms. Pelosi was asking for. What he campaigned on. This is not my idea, this is from the architect of the Bush Tax Cuts as his Plan B.

    So the President will say, “That’s nice, but how about extending unemployment benefits?” Mr. Boehner will say, “What are you offering, Mr. President?” The President will say, “That’s nice, but how about the Debt Ceiling?” Mr. Boehner will say, “What are you offering Mr. President?” The President will say, “What about the Medicare Doc Fix?” Mr. Boehner will say, “What are you offering Mr. President?”

    Pass the Senate bill. And then adjourn. Go “passive aggressive” — there is no Deal, there is no Grand Bargain, there is no agreement on an existential debt crisis.

    Go over the Fiscal Cliff? That is Hitler ordering his generals (yeah, yeah, Godwin’s law and all of that), no retreat. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now.

    1. wodun

      “OK, the idea behind “The Deal” or “the Grand Bargain” is that the President accepts as we do that the entitlement programs are unsustainable but in his theory we need a “balanced approach” of inflicting some tax pain on a few rich people as part of the social contract for inflicting “benefits” pain on the poorer masses.”

      Have you noticed that Obama always says entitlement cuts are on the table yet never proposes any, demonizes the Republicans for even suggesting them, and cant get Democrats to vote for them? The man is all talk. You think even his friends in the media would get tired of this.

      I agree with your post and think the Republicans are incredibly stupid for not doing as you suggest.

      1. Jim

        Have you noticed that Obama always says entitlement cuts are on the table yet never proposes any

        Have you noticed that the GOP demands entitlement cuts*, but insists that it’s Obama’s job to propose them?

        * Except in the months leading up to an election, when GOP candidates promise to never touch Medicare or Social Security, and accuse the Democrats of cutting them.

        1. wodun

          You mean that they didn’t touch the cuts Obama already made to Medicare and somehow they are to blame for Obama’s cuts.

          And and changes to entitlements for retirees were not going to effect anyone currently using those programs, unlike Obama’s cuts to services that are effecting retirees today.

          Obama wont support any cuts, much less entitlement cuts and he can’t get his own party to vote for them. The GoP compromised and raised taxes on rich people. When will the Democrats compromise and cut entitlement spending or even spending on anything? IIRC, you commented in the past about Republican refusal to accept a 10:1 ratio of cuts and tax increases yet the Democrats wont even agree to a 2:1 deal.

          Our interest payments on debt are over $400b a year. Obama’s tax increases don’t even cover that much less the increased spending. The projected deficit for 2013 is $1.6t according to Obama’s own plan.

Comments are closed.