Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Obama supporters, you got some 'splaining to do

Please know before you read this that I am a proponent of neither political party, but my ideology is founded in the principles of conservatism and libertarianism. I understand how it is easy to confuse conservatism with the previous Republican administration and dominated houses of congress. Historically the Republican party based its roots in conservative values; however, the past eight years represent a departure there from, so don’t confuse conservatism with republicanism. The following is a challenge to all those who voted President Obama into office.

Would somebody please make a case for this spending bill? Would somebody explain how incurring more and more debt by spending our grandchildren’s money is fiscally responsible and how it salvages hurting economies? Would someone please substantiate! I understand how allotting money to our infrastructure can be a boon, but only a small fraction of this bill is dedicated to that. The reasons presented by the president and other congressional leaders are that something has to be done. We can’t just stand by and do nothing! We have to act! Only the government can fix this current crisis! My high school English teachers would have failed my papers if my arguments had been as vague and lacking in evidence.

Just remember this—the president’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, recently declared one of his political philosophies and values by saying, “You never want a serious crisis go to waste,” and it looks like they’re milking the fear associated with the current economic crisis for all it’s worth. By all accounts, this bill isn’t even a stimulus package. It is a partisan spending agenda; that’s all.

Sure, something has to be done. Yes, we have to act, but can you or anyone else defend this spending? Can anyone tout the merits of government spending as they relate to economies? Can you convince me that the biggest governmental power grab in history will restore or create the kind of economic prosperity that has been achieved otherwise? When has a government of man ever been known to create prosperity? Historically, a free market system has proven most effective; it hasn’t been proven perfect, but given the failings of big tax and spend governments worldwide, a free market, capitalistic economy has far surpassed the rest.

Consider the following parenting philosophy where any time children fall, make mistakes, or get hurt, the parents rush to their aid and rescue them. These are referred to as helicopter parents. Unfortunately, children born under this kind of nurturing fail to competently problem solve and make appropriate decisions for themselves as they become adults. When mother and father are nowhere to be seen, these kids are crippled. How then are the actions of our government toward these recently failing companies any different? Go ahead, little one, engage in sub-prime lending. Mummy and Daddy are here for you should anything go wrong. After all, you’re too important to fail.

If we had stayed true to our free market, capitalistic system, then these companies would have either pulled through on their own steam, or they would have failed and closed their doors. Allowing them leeway to succeed and fail has its consequences; nevertheless, it would be according to the free market system that allowed them to succeed in the first place. The system is cyclical; where one falls, another rises in its stead. Unfortunately, it appears that too many have lost the bravery necessary to weather the storm, and Mr. Obama seems to be pandering to that fear.

Go back and study the effects of governmental intervention and you will see that Roosevelt’s New Deal not only did nothing to fix the Great Depression, but his efforts prolonged it. It was the need created by World War II that set things straight, but Mr. Obama thinks the New Deal was ineffective because Roosevelt didn’t spend enough. Then how much more do we need to spend? The government has already spent trillions! They can’t even account for the 700 billion they all too recently spent nor the stimulus package of last summer nor the efficacy of recent bailouts. And you want them to spend more of your money? We the people can’t afford to pay for leaders, Democrats or Republicans who can’t balance their own budget. We simply can’t foot the bill anymore.

You may rebut and say that “of course we can pay for it. The rich of this nation make too much as it is, and they should be the ones to pay for this and that, and such and such.” Don’t you get it? The more they are taxed, the less they will be able to make, and the less they make, the fewer tax dollars they have pay for the socialist state that system would create. Furthermore, what incentive do they have to increase productivity when the government puts a cap on their success and earnings anyway? Answer me that! Eventually that well runs dry too!

So please, defend the social spending initiatives as they relate to restoring our economy. Help me see the hope that encouraged your support for our president. Defend your rational that would freely send more money to a system that is already up to its eye balls in debt, a system that has proven to be irresponsible in the dissemination of the people’s money. Is there a foundation to your logic, or is it just hope?

And another thing . . .

Every citizen of this nation should expect success in life to come of their own efforts. However, that isn’t to say that some people don’t experience great hardship and difficulty as they pursue happiness and success. Many are in need and do suffer. They most certainly do, but perhaps if we juxtaposed the sufferings of those in this nation with the sufferings of the poor in Honduras or Haiti, maybe we would cease to bemoan and condemn the free market system whereby we have come to enjoy our prosperity. When we talk about the hungry, suffering, uneducated masses of this country, do we refer to the naked two-year-old scavenging for food, the little boy whose own excrement remains pasted to his inner thighs, whose stomach is overly bloated from malnourishment? Do we refer to the woman making cakes to eat whose main ingredient is clay? Are we talking about moms and dads trying to provide for their families on less than two dollars a day? I doubt it. And tell me—do these people have access to food stamps? Can they get Medicaid? Will they receive unemployment benefits when they lose their jobs? Do their children have state funded public education and facilities where they can safely gather to learn? Do their children have more to eat besides a scant portion of rice and a meager gathering of beans? Do they even have uncontaminated water to drink? I’ve seen poverty there, and I’ve seen it here. There is no comparison, only a stark contrast between one land filled with opportunity and another starving for any opportunity. So to all public officials, please stop politicizing the plight of the poor in our country. It’s embarrassing.