Good question
Why do candidates who propose abolishing federal agencies get painted as fringe wackjobs, while candidates who propose we create multiple new ones are viewed as inspiring visionaries?
Candidate A says, “This cabinet-level federal agency isn’t working, and hasn’t in the 30 years of its existence, despite an ever-increasing budget. Let’s abolish it and save the taxpayers money.” Candidate B says, “This cabinet-level federal agency isn’t working, and hasn’t in the 30 years of its existence, despite an ever-increasing budget. Let’s spend more money on it!”
Candidate A is invariably painted as a nut, while candidate B, who’s parroting ol’ Al Einstein’s very definition of insanity, is cast as the clear-thinking, optimistic guy with all the good ideas.
The status quo: it’s easier than thinking!
November 7th, 2007 at 11:51 am
I think the media has sold them that this is a good thing for America. Take note that today the Canadian dollar overtakes the US dollar at 1 for 1.09. Oil prices will more than likely hit 100 a barrel today (at this moment it stands at $98.62), and Warren Buffet complains on national TV his dissatisfaction with government corperate assistance and welfare where he only paid out 16-17% in taxes while the average American pays an estimated 32% in taxes hitting the middle class hard. The reason that they throw money at things is so that each year they can claim more and more in the anual budget. Just like local government, the game is to spend all you can and if there is a surplus spend it on anything just to spend it so you can request a higher amount for the next years budget. The main issue now is that they have spent the tax payers to a breaking point, and if someone does not do something soon, China will be the new Communist America financial powerhouse.
BT
November 7th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Candidate “B” would most likely be a democrat since the demo’s “solution” to any problem is to throw money at it.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Having tried to initiate change and promptly had my head handed to me, I came to appreciate this insight from Machiavelli:
There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all who profit by the new order. This lukewarmness arises partly from fear of their adversaries, who have law in their favor, and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not believe in anything new until they have had an actual experience of it.
Machiavelli
To expand an effort is to embrace hope however futile, to abolish an effort is to be forced to face the reality that death comes to all eventually. Never underestimate the lengths to which a man will go to deny his own mortality.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
The only thing most men will defend with their last drop of blood is their ignorance.