My latest in the American News:
John McCain spreads the fiction that the budget can be balanced by cutting pork barrel spending.
Barack Obama is right. This spendying represents a tiny fraction of government spending.
McCain advocates an “across the board” spending freeze, excepting defense and veterans spending. The reason for an “across the board” freeze is obvious; it liberates McCain from advocating any particular spending cuts, protecting him from the inevitable voter backlash.
On entitlements, McCain argues pathetically that reforming Social Security is as “easy” as mouthing platitudes about bipartisanship. This fools voters into thinking no tough choices need to be made regarding Social Security. Similarly, McCain advocates forming a commission to reform Medicare. Again, this gets McCain off the hook from suggesting anything specific.
McCain must know that his proposals do not approach the comprehensive entitlement reform necessary to balance the budget. Yet he says he will balance the budget. What does one call someone who says things he knows to be false?
Mc- Cain's foreign policy is a continuation of the idealistic belief that nations can be made democratic by force coupled with wishful thinking. McCain correctly perceives the inability of government to plan our complex lives. So why does he think it can create democracy out of whole cloth?
If McCain's proposals are inadequate, Obama makes McCain look like a noble statesman. When asked in a debate about entitlement reform, Obama ducked the question, avoiding anything approaching addressing the entitlement problem.
Obama actually aims to add to the entitlement problem by offering an unimaginably expensive national health care plan that even in the short run will add hundreds of billions to our national debt.
When asked about spending cuts, Obama responds by citing the spending he will increase. He promotes massive spending increases on health care, alternative energy, infrastructure and education. Independent estimates indicate that Obama has proposed close to $900 billion in new spending, but just $80 billion in new revenue. Yet he claims he will balance the budget.
Obama knows that the country cannot simultaneously pay for his proposals and balance the budget. Yet he continues to claim that we can. What does one call someone who says things he knows to be false?
Obama's foreign policy is based on the na•ve belief that all peoples of the world want the same thing and the only thing preventing world peace is for the eloquent Obama to explain this to us all. Obama lacks any appreciation of true evil or the necessity for a nation to display power in the world.
Obama's candidacy is based on demagoguery, flattering the people that “we are the change we have been waiting for” while blaming all of America's problems on “greed” and George Bush. Obama is winning based on making promises that he cannot hope to deliver on. The coming disappointment will only add to our cynicism about public affairs.
Political philosopher Patrick Deneen has recently written, “[O]ur laws and lawmakers ultimately follow the public will. Deficits, indebtedness and profligacy emanated as demands of the culture. When confronted with limits, people demanded the fealty and expansion of government.” Our major party candidates have said nothing to suggest they will demand any self-restraint on our part.
Both candidates advocate taxing and spending policies sure to drive our public debt even higher. Both candidates are making us a deal. Indulge ourselves now and let future generations pay for it. I haven't met the person who doesn't like being given stuff and letting someone else pay for it. The fact that we will accept this deal says as much about us as it does about the politicians.
But we don't have to agree to this. Perhaps this is an election to vote “none of the above.”
Recent Comments