Historic Shmistoric
Perhaps the best way to really grasp the true scope of our spending problem is the fact that
a budget cut of .86% (point-eight-six) is the largest in history.
Think about that, and also that in the 8 days preceding this alleged historic milestone we spent roughly the same amount in interest on borrowed debt.
So excuse me if my excitometer stops somewhere between flaccid and limp.
This is getting to be a habit. President Obama ferociously resists tax cuts, trade agreements and spending cuts—right up to the moment he strikes a deal with Republicans and hails the tax cuts, trade agreements and spending cuts as his idea. What a difference an election makes.
Reminds me of the scoundrel being run out of town who jumps out in front of the crowd and pretends to lead the parade. 'Tis Downright Clintonian. While the WSJ election reference above was to 2010, this, like all things Democrat, is all about winning the next election, and nothing else. If the polls indicate a swing to the right is necessary to win then don't be surprised by the forthcoming onslaught of Reagan/Obama comparisons.
Yes, this may indicate a change in direction. Yes, our ship of state has all the agility of an aircraft carrier, not a speed boat, so a change in course will necessarily have to be gradual. Yes, the House is only one half of one third of the co-equal branches.
That said, any progress toward limited government is remarkable so we should appreciate any victory, regardless how small. The right took this one, to the delight of some conservatives and the chagrin of others, but larger battles loom. Since anything but the subject at hand works in favor of Democrats we can count on tons of ink about this little conservative family feud.
This week the White House will give themselves a do-over on their budget as a counter argument to the Ryan plan. Tax hikes would be a good bet, sure thing if there ever was one, rich paying their "fair" share and all that.
I italicize fair because it is a situational term, it's definition subject to those who use it and in what context. Some, Michael Moore et. al. for example, thinks taxing the rich 100% would be fair. Forget for a moment the math on that works out to about one years worth of relative liquidity. The idea that the wealthy are comparatively a lot more mobile, so could just take their potentially job-producing kajillions and leave, and can also afford a lot more tax attorneys and accountants, than the rest of rest of us, doesn't seemed to have registered with the tax the evil greedy rich crowd. Why bother with pesky details of reality when hysterical sound bites will do?
Others, yours truly for example, are willing to pay a reasonable amount in taxes to the extent fairness is equally applied to how they are spent. After all, by what definition of fair can you condone the forceful confiscation of private earnings only to flush them down a rat hole? In the age of hyper information, in both velocity and specificity, "for the public good" just won't cut it anymore. One is reminded of a famous movie scene where a bucket of a reality is thrown on the wicked witch of of the left.
In a broader sense, fairness has no meaning at all if someones definition of it is coercively imposed on someone else. Fairness without consensus is neither.
Comments