Mickey Kaus has a long, long take on the Obama Elitist business.
After listening to Left, Right and Center and reading the New Republic, I've been thinking about this all day, and I think I have come to a sort of conclusion about it.
First of all, it is elitist to argue that lower class Americans cling to God, guns, and (opposition to) gays and vote Republican because they are bitter and disenfranchised. It is elitist to say that anyone should vote Democratic because it is in their best interest, according to a smarty pants outsider.
However, the fundamental question is flawed. There is nothing about the Democratic candidates that implies they are going to prevent anyone from hunting or worshipping. Are Democrats going to call for homosexuals to be horsewhipped in the public square? No. Are Democrats going to raise taxes on the rich and expand programs that may help the poor? Probably.
So therefore, are you REALLY better off voting for Republicans, who have been screwing you relentlessly for generations? Or for Democrats, who may do something you don't like on the margins, but will result in you having a better quality of life?
You decide.
"So therefore, are you REALLY better off voting for Republicans, who have been screwing you relentlessly for generations? Or for Democrats, who may do something you don't like on the margins, but will result in you having a better quality of life?"
ReplyDeleteAbout 1/3 like the the tone of your question. About 1/3 disagree with it, and invert the names of the parties. The 1/3 in the middle can be swayed one way or another, and see less difference between the parties that the absolutists/partisans see.
"programs that may help the poor? "
I like the inclusion of "may", which means that they possibly might help the poor. What is more certain is that new programs will create more rich bureacrats draining tax dollars, and if the Democrats get their way (like they tried with the new Homeland Security department) the workers in the departments will be forced to give some of their paycheck to the Democratic Party. That's rather corrupt, large numbers of government employees are forced to do that now.
Personally, I'd like to see the government hold off on getting even more greedy (hold the line on any tax hikes) until some serious effort is done about waste spending.
Consider the recent budget crisis in Michigan. The governor insisted that all waste had been cut, but the "prevailing wage" law which demands that government overpay for contracts was left intact. Also, the state employees who pull down half a million a year did not get any pay cuts.
Now, look at one just onestate employee getting $500,000 a year in compensation. You could cut this to $120,000 a year and that would still be a handsome reward. Then imagine spending this money on the poor instead of making the rich even richer. The $380,000 saved from not overpaying just one of these state employees could be used to give a few poor kids top-flight college educations.
Ah yes, waste, fraud, and abuse, that old classic. Don't spend any money on anything, because of waste, fraud and abuse. Don't send kids to college, because of waste fraud and abuse. Don't give kids health insurance, because of waste fraud and abuse.
ReplyDeleteOh, and stick a dart into unions, too. It's such a terrible idea to give workers a say in their workplace. Making Federal employees join a union is the next best thing to Socialism, that's for sure.
Prevailing wage law? Yeah, heaven forbid somebody can support a family on the salary they earn from working for the state.
Waste, fraud, and abuse? You mean the Republican Party Platform?
"Don't spend any money on anything"
ReplyDeleteIf we don't increase spending, we are still spending trillions. Spending trillions must count for spending? Surely?
If we cut "waste, fraud, and abuse", then we have more money to spend on college and health insurance if we want. Esp. where there is waste in the college loan programs and Medicare/Medicaid: less waste in these programs means more to serve the needy.
"Oh, and stick a dart into unions, too. It's such a terrible idea to give workers a say in their workplace"
They already have a say. However, the situation where they force people to join and then force them to give to candidates that might or might not represent their interests really stifles worker's voices. Also, only qualified people should have a say in management decisions.
"Making Federal employees join a union is the next best thing to Socialism"
No, it is just bad public policy, and leads to poor government service, corruption, and a growth in bureacracy for bureacracy's sake. It shifts government departments from a priority of serving the public (or the poor!) to a priority of enriching government employees. I have no idea where socialism comes into this, but yet again I did not mention the word.
Unions have their place. In the private sector, they put the screws to corporate fat-cats, and it is not a national crisis if sometimes the business's product gets worse (cars?) as a result.
It his, however, more of a national crisis because government unions stick it to the public, instead of corporate fat cats. And the "product" that suffers can be public safety, infrastructure, education, or other vital things.
"Yeah, heaven forbid somebody can support a family on the salary they earn from working for the state."
A government agency should pay its workers for the value of the work. No more, no less. If the family has other needs above and beyond the money actually fairly earned, handle that through the welfare system. Welfare is means-tested, whereas overpaying everyone in a government department is not.
"Waste, fraud, and abuse? You mean the Republican Party Platform?"
There is plenty in both party platforms, and in the pork-laden legislation that both parties pass in Congress. Senator Al Gore headed a commission that produced a report on this, and he found it on both sides.
Cutting existing waste ensures more money to serve people who need government services.