Monday, February 23, 2009

Palin: "Veto That Stimulus Bill!"

A week ago, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) said the Stimulus Bill means "America's best days are behind it." On her interview with Greta van Susteren a week ago, Governor Sarah Palin said Obama should "veto the Stimulus bill" -- that is, HIS Stimulus Bill.

Today, Monday, Feb. 23, Obama is talking about "investing" the Stimulus money -- all of it borrowed, all of it repayable by taxpayers -- on behalf of the American people. He doesn't explain why he won't allow Americans to invest the money themselves. As usual, Obama is in the position of promoting bad economic policies while saying he's doing it on our behalf. Total cynicism? Absolutely.

Last Saturday on FOX, Ben Stein talked about the Stimulus Bill as little more than an effort to pay off Democratic voters -- and to buy the votes of new ones. Failed institutions, like GM and Chrysler, get rewarded -- mindlessly -- because the unions supported Obama. Huge amount of money get redistributed to states like Massachusetts (reportedly getting $9 billion), California, and Michigan, mainly because their electoral votes went for Obama. In contrast, Red states, generally much more responsibly governed than their "Blue" counterparts, get proportionately less.

"Pay to Play"

To use Illinois terms, states like Maryland and Massachusetts "played" the game Obama's way, so they get paid. As Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts told CNN's John King on Sunday, people in that state "want bridges and highways.' It never seemed to occur to him that if people in a state want something, they should ante up and pay for it themselves.

As Gov. Palin told the Republican National Convention, experience had taught the people of that state a valuable lesson. Yes, something like the "Bridge to Nowhere" would provide some benefits to the state (easier transportation, construction jobs), but it would come at a high cost to the nation. Thus, as she said, "If we need a bridge, we'll build it ourselves."

That classic American concept of self-reliance has little meaning to people like David Axelrod and Obama. People who are self-reliant are immune for the kind of vote-buying traditional in places like Chicago.

The problem with bailouts isn't that they don't provide short term help to some states and individuals. The problem is that they do great damage to the productive members of society, essentially punishing them for BEING productive. They -- we -- don't get "bailed out." In fact, the "water" -- the tax bills -- threatens to come up to our eyeballs.

To our credit, we don't want to be bailed out. We refuse to engage in what John McCain called "generational warfare," where our children and grandchildren pay the bill so that we can pretend we're better off than in fact we are.

By all means, let's help people who -- through no fault of their own -- are in trouble. But let's not help those who have no intention of helping themselves. Remember, our country's motto is "In God we trust" -- and not "gimme, gimme, gimme."

A society where no one is allowed to fail eventually becomes one where no one is able to succeed.

We sometimes hear how "complicated" the economic situation is, but that's just plain false. As people like Louisiana's Bobby Jindal and Alaska's Sarah Palin know, life and economics are fairly simple.

For example, you don't buy a house -- or have a lifestyle or spend money -- that you can't afford. You make sacrifices. You don't assume that the economy will never take a nosedive. You don't expect that someone else is going to pay your bills. You don't spend every last cent you have coming in. You don't have children and then assume that "society" (i.e., the taxpayers) will pay for their upbringing.

America is a country for free people. It is not a country for people who are perpetually dependent on government.

Does Obama understand such basic facts of life? Why should he? He's "The Affirmative Action Kid."

Yes, he talks about his "student loans," but he went to an expensive prep school in Hawaii and then to three of the costliest schools in America -- Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard. What percentage of his educational costs did Barack Obama pay? Of course, he hasn't released such facts -- nor will he ever. A good assumption is that he paid a relatively small amount.

From all avialable evidence, other people financed Barack Obama's education. He got mostly a free ride. It was an early version of his economic policy, where Other People's Money (OPM) is made available to help out Obama's chosen few. It all fits the definition of socialism, which is not so much an economic policy as a vote-buying scheme.

However, what happens when the productive members of society get tired of financing the unproductive? Unfortunately, it looks as if we're all going to find out the answer to that question . . . in the form of diminished economic growth, reduced opportunities, higher inflation, and less personal freedom.

No comments: