In his election campaigns, Bush made just as much of an appeal to emotion as Barack Obama has done. Both men are Harvard educated, but Bush's language isn't as eloquent as Obama's. Countries DO need leaders who are articulate and eloquent. People need leadership through reason as well as through inspiration. Both are required to lead.
Whether Bush is actually born again or not is a different matter. Like any politician wanting to get elected, he appealed to that group which would likely give him the most votes and get him elected, just as Obama is going to do. What politician wouldn't?
In his election campaigns, Bush spoke about just as many platitudes as Obama does. Even when Bush was specific, the question, as has always been the question in campaigns when the issue of what programs he (or she) is going to offer arises is...How is this person going to pay for it? Payment for programs will come one of two ways: make businesses pay for it or make the taxpayers pay for it. Either you scalp businesses or you scalp taxpayers. Tax cuts are a loss of revenue to the government and are passing the buck on to somebody else.
Even Republicans sin with the issue of taxes. If Republican legislators really want to make a difference, they should push to pass legislation which abolishes the income tax. But of course that would wipe out their fatcat paychecks (along with the paychecks and perks of the Democrats), and abolishing income tax would potentially defund their contituents' programs. It'll never happen. The only way abolishing income tax would happen is if there is a WILL to make it happen above and beyond screaming constituents, special interests, etc.
The government probably doesn't have enough money to fix potholes because of what it's spending on the Iraq war; although potholes are often the job of the local municipality or state in which we reside. The larger issue is that the people have no way to tell HOW and on WHAT the government is spending its money. If we received a balance sheet and income statement every year, then we could more fully hold our government accountable as to what it spends.
I get the sense with right wing people that they believe they are right and the liberals are wrong. Likewise liberals believe the same about the right. I suggest the healthier approach is to acknowledge both have flaws and find one thing both can agree on.
The question of how to pay for things without income tax is for a separate posting entirely.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Abolishing the income tax would do far more harm to the whole structure that surrounds government in Washington than it would to individual congressmen. The salary of a congressman is insignificant in the greater scheme of things. Where they can make real money is in lobbying. After a couple years out of office, they can hike down to K Street and take a fat job in one of the countless lobbying organizations that ply congressmen with campaign donations and write legislation that suits their interests.
Once you have a taxation system that is simple and treats everyone equitably combined with a federal government that devolves power back to the states, lobbyists have little reason for existing. Think of all the lawyers who will have to find productive work! Think of all the restaurants, bars, and escort services that will lose customers. The housing market in DC and the surrounding area might crash utterly when all those firms, contractors, and their employees find no more reason to be there. Perish the thought!
The federal government is like a fat alcoholic. Every four or eight years, we give it a liver transplant and sometimes we take it to rehab in the interim, but the burgers, fries, and booze won't stop until it drops from a coronary or a stroke.
As for Obama, he is the skin of Martin Luther King stuffed with straw. There's no "there" there. As an Illinois senator, he only voted "present" when a particularly controversial issue came up, like a boxer who avoids any opponents that might damage his pretty nose. After fudging on his relationship with his pastor, he finally made that brilliantly obfuscatory speech that the media swallowed whole as the final word on race in America.
Bush is ineloquent, to be charitable, but Obama is eloquence without substance. He speaks of "change" and "turning the page," but to what? In the end, he offers nothing substantially new--just the thawed leftovers of The Great Society. He speaks of being a bipartisan uniter, but what significant bill has he co-sponsored with a Republican? Much to the chagrin of conservatives, Obama's bipartisan efforts are laughable when compared to McCain's.
Obama is a collective delusion. He is an empty vessel into which idealistic people pour their hopes, regardless of the lack of any evidence that he can deliver. Some people are so enamored with the idea of having our first black president that their uncritical acceptance of him turns into an unconscious affirmative action program. It's ironic that the only thing that got the media to turn cold toward the Clintons was Barack Obama. Last year, Hillary was on her way to being made Queen. Well, black knight takes queen--checkmate.
Whether it's Barack or Hillary, we can't afford either of them. If they're not going to spend the money on the war, they're going to spend it on something else. Whether they get that money by taxing businesses or individuals is a distinction without a difference. Businesses don't pay taxes. Consumers do. Everything you buy has taxes embedded in the price every step of the way, so even if you have no income tax liability, you're still paying taxes. Just because you don't feel the weenie doesn't mean you're not getting screwed.
To my knowledge, Bush has offered NO bipartisan legislation, and he has had NO plan for Iraq from the get-go.
So if we're going to accuse Obama of having no plan, we can't leave Bush out either.
Post a Comment