Rightwords... Prudent Conservatism

Unblocking the Economy

There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security (that is: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all...) should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is, some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision." The Road to Surfdom": F. A. Hayek

Thus we have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, and other welfare and job loss provisions for all. What is being debated is how to continue to pay for it all in the face of overwhelming national debt and its interest payments over the next 20 years, give or take, and while maintaining our military capability at "sufficient" levels, and, oh by the way, spurring the economy to life and making a lot more jobs. All in the right Hayekian direction, theoretically, but needing really serious tuning and pruning for affordability, safeguarding of free market principles and prevention of fraud and abuse. Politically, however...



The Democrats seem to want to minimize cuts in their programs and our entitlements, and to gain more revenue to pay the Piper and to add to their social programs. The Republicans seem adamantly to want to cut spending and avoid higher taxes in the first instance. There is a stymied position because of a complete lack of trust in the Obama administration by Republicans, who seem to be gun shy of mere verbal promises to cut spending while having to accept tax increases up front, as has happened in the past by, let us say, "slight of hand in Congress;" cuts which would diminish the power of the Democrats, plus many serious concerns about the low morality of this administration. The Democrats likewise suspect the Republicans of wanting to decimate their already legislated social structures, especially ObamaCare, do want to hold or increase their monetary and political power, accuse the Republicans of bad faith, etc. and hence do not trust the Republicans. The verbal offer of Obama of a 5 for 1 split was rejected, I suppose, for all of the above distrust reasons, plus nothing in writing. One key to the impasse is the fact of Republican control of the House, where all money bills must begin.



Yet, most of us citizens go along with Hayek, I believe, not full bore, perhaps, but to an acceptable degree of expenditures, and we want action on all the key elements to begin sharply.



This is a titanic struggle for power and control of the nation, and I am pessimistic that we can get on the right track without ceding power to one or the other parties for control of the Senate and the Presidency via the next election, and with a providential, lucky selection of key players in the government.



We need some genius to write a bill that is acceptable to both parties and the public.  My only thought is that the parties should come to a written agreement as to the principles of the way ahead, get public acceptance of it, and then write legislation that faithfully adheres to the agreement, pass it in both houses, and have the President sign it.

I hope that is what the supercommittee does!

Is this not the way things are today in the US?

The average voter really does try to find out something concrete about the person or persons he is voting for, and the MSM is most often of little help, or even far too much help! The blast of propaganda from all sides may or may not influence this voter. However, his interest picks up significantly when the candidate’s religion is brought up, since that is a major criterion that will be used by him to vote yea or nay, just as many voters do in sizing up any stranger.

Does this man believe in God? Does he make a serious attempt to follow the moral teachings of his religion, and if that religion is not well known to the voter, what are the similarities and differences from the voter’s own religion and morals? Can the man be trusted to follow the fundamental tenets of the majority of citizens, or does he bring a skewed view of the majority religion to the table? The further from the majority religion the candidate stands, or the further from the voters religion, the more the candidate’s views must be probed before he earns the vote–or not.

I suspect that any candidate that is not a Christian will receive considerably more attention to his statements about his beliefs than would an avowed Christian candidate. I also suspect that, regardless of qualifications, a candidate for the presidency that states he is an Atheist or an Agnostic will not receive a majority of votes in the US for some time to come. Then too, if the candidate ducks the question of his religious affiliation, he will become suspect until the issue is clarified satisfactorily. Of course, if the candidate professes an acceptable religion, but does not practice it, or even violates the moral code, this may have to be corrected dramatically downstream.