View Article
21
Mitt Romney’s getting pummeled for saying 47% of the voters will not support him because no one getting a check from the government’s going to vote for him over Obama.
 
Even the conservative pundits are giving Romney the blazes.
 
But while Romney was fumbling the facts he may also have put his finger on our Modern 21st Century Third Millennium Democracy’s biggest dilemma.
 
David Brooks wrote this about Romney’s faux pas: ‘In 1980, about 30% of Americans received some form of government benefits. Today about 40% do...In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large… entitlement transfers have grown by more than 700% over the last fifty years… and this spending surge has increased faster under Republican administrators than Democratic ones.’
 
It’s a hard fact in our democracy: A majority can vote to reach into the treasury and help themselves to other people’s money whenever it wants. It’s redefined the meaning of ‘Majority Rule.’ And it’s not a new phenomenon.
 
Back during the 1820’s, Congressmen from the North (who wanted to protect manufacturers in New England from imports) and Congressmen from the West (who wanted Washington to build roads in their states) got together and passed tariffs – that were primarily paid by Southerners.
 
After the Civil War the railroad tycoons corralled enough votes in Congress to get the federal government to give them free and clear title to 12,000 acres of public land for each mile of track they laid – and, in the end, the tycoons ended up owning more land than there is in all of Germany.
 
Social Security and Medicare started out with the best of intentions but, today, unless you have the misfortune of dying young, when you retire the government is going to pay you a lot more than you ever paid into either program – whether you need the money or not. 
 
And there seems to be no solution to the problem – instead it looks like once a democracy gets itself good and organized (which takes around 200 years) this is where it ends up.
 
So, maybe, instead of backpedaling Romney ought to let fly and say: I know pointing out our government has become a system for plunder is unpopular – but here’s an even harder fact: An economy based on plunder won’t work and it’s just a matter of time before the plunder gets so out of hand the economy collapses. So do we fix the problem now or do we wait for the collapse?
 
It would probably cost Romney the election but that debate is coming sooner or later.
 
Actions: E-mail | Permalink | Comments (3) RSS comment feed |

Comments

zabouti
# zabouti
Friday, September 21, 2012 4:17 PM
I like your highway and railroad examples of how wealthy people use federal programs to enrich themselves. This is most clearly exemplified in today's defense and agricultural budgets.

I was genuinely shocked - this is not hyperbole even though I'm a liberal - a few years ago when I heard Mitch McConnell defend some part of the defense budget by saying that it created jobs. In other words, the program he was defending had no defense-related justification at all. We all know that Congress is constantly spending money on weapons that the military doesn't even want or need. There are far more effective jobs programs than that!

How about agricultural subsidies? Raise your hand if you think they're going to the family farmers for which subsidies were originally intended: I know who you're voting for.

So let's have the debate. But let's debate all the ways in which the government is plundered, and not just assume that only elderly and sick citizens are doing the plundering.
clarence swinney
# clarence swinney
Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:30 AM
Given Americans’ limited knowledge about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, let’s begin with an introduction to Mormon mores, where sin-wise “ unchastity is next to murder in seriousness .” The Mormon Church forbids any and all sex outside of heterosexual marriage , including “ necking and petting ”; masturbation; pornography; homosexuality; and abortion in almost all circumstances. Gays who act on their “ inclinations” are banned from entering Mormon temples, where many of the most important family events and sacred rituals—marriage, funerals, baptism of the dead—are celebrated. Traditional gender roles are encouraged , and often enforced. Mormonism bars women from the priesthood, enjoins them to have many children, and frowns on mothers working outside the home. In a nation of declining middle-class incomes, there’s not much the hierarchy can do to force mothers back into full-time motherhood and wifedom. Still, the LDS Church doesn’t employ Mormon women with young children or cover birth control for its employees .
In Mormonism, mothers may be exalted, but women sure aren’t equal.
To be sure, the LDS church isn’t impervious to change. It did, after all, end polygamy and eventually allow African American men into the priesthood. Yet when it comes to stepping into the 21st century on women’s equality, gay civil rights and sex—as many ordinary Mormons would prefer-- the Mormon Church has dug in its heels.
And this is where Romney comes in.
In 1981, the 34-year-old Romney was already a fabulously successful consultant at Bain & Company when the LDS hierarchy tasked him to be a lay bishop. The Belmont ward, where Romney’s family worshipped, was a hotbed of Mormon feminism —a sign, from Salt Lake City’s perspective, that the congregation needed a Mr. Turnaround. Romney ultimately spent nearly 14 years as a Mormon clergyman, becoming the highest Mormon Church leader in the Boston region. He resigned in 1994 to run for the U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy. Article alternet.org. nancy l. cohen
Carbine
# Carbine
Monday, September 24, 2012 5:08 PM
The above comment is Romney's equivalent of the "closet socialist" cross Obama has always had to bear. You can certainly build the case, based on past associations, statements, and actions, that Romney really believes in all the peculiar aspects of Mormanism, ranging from the unsavory to the ridiculous (and there's plenty of both there), just as you can build a case for Obama being a card-carrying Marxist based on his history. The real question for voters, however, is what would these guys do once elected? We already know the answer in Obama's case--he would fumble around pointlessly for four years trying to cajole the economy into action with higher taxes, more anti-business regulation, and massive deficit spending--a program that seems to confirm people's worst fears about his core philosophy. We just don't know yet about Romney. But the debates will give voters an idea.

Post Comment

Only registered users may post comments.
Blog by Snyder Interactive : Copyright (c) Talking About Politics   :  DNN Hosting  :  Terms Of Use  :  Privacy Statement