Comments (49) | Add a comment
Thomas Mitchell
The audacity of hypocrisy
Updated: Apr. 10, 2012 | 10:54 a.m.
"I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816
A passel of Nevada politicians tripped over each other in the mad dash to chastise President Barack Obama for yet another cheap shot at the presumed profligacy of a Vegas vacation. But did anyone really listen to the content of his "Father Knows Best" lecture?
"Responsible families don't do their budgets the way the federal government does. Right?" Obama preached in that speech in Nashua, N.H., on Tuesday. "When times are tough, you tighten your belts. You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don't blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices. It's time your government did the same."
It is time for your government to do the same, but on Monday, Obama outlined his budget, which calls for plopping down a double-or-nothing Keynesian wager that more federal deficit spending just might somehow, maybe defibrillate a comatose economy. He covered this bet with a multitrillion-dollar IOU from our great-grandchildren's college funds, lunch money, mortgage payments, utility bills and walking around money.
It was the audacity of hypocrisy.
Only a couple of days before that, in the State of the Union address, Obama proposed throwing more of our money at someone else's higher education, seemingly so no one would ever need to bother to save for college.
"In this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job," he proclaimed in his usual teleprompter voice, drowned out by the congressional audience led by the jack-in-the-box Pelosi puppet over his left shoulder.
"To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. (Applause against those evil bank profits.) Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. (Applause for redistributing the wealth.) And let's tell another 1 million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years -- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service. (Applause for reneging on debts.)"
Now, exactly what kind of education "guarantees a good job" when no business can afford to hire -- even with all those promised tax breaks for hiring the unemployed? A tax break is of no consequence when the balance sheets are written in red. And what in the world is "public service"? I take it that is not dropping out of college to start a computer company called Microsoft and creating hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs while producing time-saving tools for home and office.
By the way, Microsoft has laid off more than 5,000 of those employees in the past year.
In his budget speech, Obama declared, "We also continue to lay a new foundation for lasting growth, which is essential as well. Just as it would be a terrible mistake to borrow against our children's future to pay our way today, it would be equally wrong to neglect their future by failing to invest in areas that will determine our economic success in this new century. ... (Talk about having it both ways.)
"We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences; as if waste doesn't matter; as if the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like Monopoly money; as if we can ignore this challenge for another generation. We can't."
But he does. He proposed a $1.6 trillion deficit this fiscal year alone, the highest since World War II.
Contrast this with Thomas Jefferson's first State of the Union address, in which he implored "that it never may be seen here that after leaving to labor the smallest portion of its earnings on which it can subsist, Government shall itself consume the whole residue of what it was instituted to guard."
At least when you gamble in Las Vegas, you have a slight chance of winning.
Thomas Mitchell is editor of the Review-Journal and writes about the role of the press and access to public information. He may be contacted at 383-0261 or via e-mail at tmitchell@reviewjournal.com. Read his blog at lvrj.com/blogs/mitchell.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Mr. Anonymous poster said the following:
<We're in a rush for the "tyranny of socialism."
Feels good to finally admit the truth, doesn't it?
Now, if we could just get past this hatred you have for God.... Oh, I'm sorry, the State is your Higher Power, isn't it?
"Athos wrote on February 08, 2010 01:07 PM: What's your game, pal? You in a rush for the tyranny of socialism?"
Yes, Sarah, I mean Glen, I mean Athos, or whatever your drama-queen Republicon handle.
We're in a rush for the "tyranny of socialism."
Athos is a psycho Crister born-again.
Tell us, Athos, where did your currently accepted version the Bible come from, exactly?
Exactly where? What was the process for rejecting excellent ancient texts because those who decided the would be rejected were even more wacked than you are?
What was the process? Do you think all of those drunkard priests were divinely inspired?
Clearly, you aren't.
You are a mental case, like most of those who decided which ancient writings would make it into ONE of the official Christian canons.
Pull your head out.
nyp.
1. what you like or what I like, is irrelevant. We have a REPUBLIC, that adheres to the rule of law. Bottom-up system, as opposed to what we have now, which is top down (No Child Left Behind ring a bell?). The CCSD is a total bureaucratic mess, and should be separated into 4, 5 or even 6 independent districts. The theory is that it brings the governing body closer to the people, who then can monitor and dictate policy. Follow so far?
2. Cop out, nyp. You boast and brag how you proffer the truth, yet can't follow Bush's last budget, or how it ballooned to over $1 trillion deficit? Or who voted for more and more, in the Senate, who now occupies the White House?
What's your game, pal? You in a rush for the tyranny of socialism?
to "Athos"
1. You are correct that the constitution does not mention college education as an "inalienable right." Nor does it mention elementary education as an inalienable right. But I like the fact that we have public elementary schools. You don't, so we will just have to disagree.
2. I'm afraid your second point is too incoherent to respond to.
nyp, nice KOS talking point.
1. Our federal government has abused the 10th amendment for over 100 years. NO WHERE in our constitution can you find college education as an inalienable right. You do know what an inalienable right is, don't you? We were founded on a principle of self reliance. What you are championing is socialism, taken almost verbatim from the planks of the communist manifesto. You should be ashamed of yourself, but then again, Dr. Utopia promotes a powerful elixir.
2. Lies, again. Bush's budget (who Senator Obama voted on, remember?, was $3 Trillion, the largest proposed at it's time. That was a projected $400 billion deficit, which is shameful in itself. You remember where the additional $870 billion came from?
Also, when you include the off budget items of SS and medicare (both are broke, by the way) Clinton left almost $500 billion deficit. These clowns have been cooking the books for so long, it would take Hercules to fix them.
nyp, when will you seriously look at the problems facing not only our generation, but those that come after us (I know it's difficult for you to think about anyone other than yourself, but TRY, will you?) Democracy doesn't work. Our style of republic government, when followed as our constitution dictates, is the only thing that will work for a free people.
to "Athos":
1. You do not know constitutional law. Read New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, Pennhurst v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, et al.
When you have a Supreme Court decision that specifically states that Congress cannot condition the disbursement of federal funds on affirmative actions by states or localities, please let us know.
2. You also do not understand federal budgeting. President Clinton left his successor a budget in surplus. President Bush left his successor a deficit of $1.4 trillion -- the largest deficit relative to the size of the economy since the end of World War II. If President Bush's policies remained unchanged - as you and Mr. Mitchell advocate - the projected deficits over the next ten years would be significantly higher (according to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) than under President Obama's budget.
nyp=liar=troll
1. can't be done, no matter how hard you sweat the details. Constitution doesn't call for it.
2.Bush deficit < Obama deficit. Easy to fact check.
3.this is the liar part. The only thing you'll take seriously is another socialist point/counterpoint.