Funny how Republicans are just now coming to their fiscal senses after 8 years of near comatose governnance.
On Nov 20, 8:34 pm, "M.A. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Was Obamathe Only Socialist Running?Posted byMike Tennantat 12:41 > PMGeorgeWill doesn't think so.In fact, says he, "spreading [wealth] is mostly > what Washington does. Here, the Constitution is an afterthought; the supreme > law of the land is the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed > costs."GOP must admit it has spread wealthBy George Will > Washington Post Writers Group > Sunday, November 16, 2008 > Washington - Conservatism’s current intellectual chaos reverberated in the > GOP ticket’s end-of-campaign crescendo of surreal warnings that big > government - verily, “socialism” - would impend were Democrats elected. John > McCain and Sarah Palin experienced this epiphany when Barack Obama told a > plumber that he would “spread the wealth around.” > America can’t have that, exclaimed the Republican ticket while Republicans - > whose prescription drug entitlement is the largest expansion of the welfare > state since President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society gave birth to Medicare > in 1965; a majority of whom in Congress supported a lavish farm bill at a > time of record profits for the less than 2 percent of the American > people-cum-corporations who farm - and their administration were partially > nationalizing the banking system, putting Detroit on the dole and looking > around to see whether some bit of what is smilingly called “the private > sector” has been inadvertently left off the ever-expanding list of entities > eligible for a bailout from the $1 trillion or so that is to be “spread > around.” > The seepage of government into everywhere is, we are assured, to be temporary > and nonpolitical. Well. > Probably as temporary as New York City’s rent controls, which were born as > emergency responses to the Second World War, and which are still distorting > the city’s housing market. The Depression, which FDR failed to end but which > Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor did end, was the excuse for agriculture > subsidies that have lived past three score years and 10. > The distribution of a trillion dollars by a political institution - the > federal government - will be nonpolitical? How could it be? Either markets > allocate resources, or government - meaning politics - allocates them. Now > that distrust of markets is high, Americans are supposed to believe that the > institution they trust least - Congress - will pony up $1 trillion and then > passively recede, never putting its 10 thumbs, like a manic Jack Horner, into > the pie? Surely Congress will direct the executive branch to show compassion > for this, that and the other industry. And it will mandate “socially > responsible” spending - an infinitely elastic term - by the favored companies. > Detroit has not yet started spending the $25 billion that Congress has > approved but already is, like Oliver Twist, holding out its porridge bowl and > saying, “Please, sir, I want some more.” > McCain and Palin, plucky foes of spreading the wealth, must have known that > such spreading is mostly what Washington does. Here, the Constitution is an > afterthought; the supreme law of the land is the principle of concentrated > benefits and dispersed costs. Sugar import quotas cost the American people > approximately $2 billion a year, but that sum is siphoned from 300 million > consumers in small, hidden increments that are not noticed. > Conservatives rightly think, or once did, that much, indeed most, government > spreading of wealth is economically destructive and morally dubious - > destructive because, by directing capital to suboptimum uses, it slows wealth > creation; morally dubious because the wealth being spread belongs to those > who created it, not government. But if conservatives call all such spreading > by government “socialism,” that becomes a classification that no longer > classifies: It includes almost everything, including the refundable tax > credit on which McCain’s health care plan depended. > Hyperbole is not harmless; careless language bewitches the speaker’s > intelligence. And falsely shouting “socialism!” in a crowded theater such as > Washington causes yawning. This is the only major industrial society that has > never had a large socialist party ideologically, meaning candidly, committed > to redistribution of wealth. This is partly because Americans are an > aspirational, not an envious people. It is also because the socialism we do > have is the surreptitious socialism of the strong, e.g. sugar producers > represented by their Washington hirelings. > In America, socialism is un-American. Instead, Americans merely do > rent-seeking - bending government for the benefit of private factions. The > difference is in degree, including the degree of candor. The rehabilitation > of conservatism cannot begin until conservatives are candid about their > complicity in what government has become. > As for the president-elect, he promises to change Washington. He will, by > making matters worse. He will intensify rent-seeking by finding new ways - > this will not be easy - to expand, even more than the current administration > has, government’s influence on spreading the > wealth.http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/11/16/willed.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
