Stark Raving Deficits
I don't give my regional, rodeo-clown representative, Pete Stark, a hard time as often as I should for the dismal job he does, but today I had to dash off a quick note, since his office is constantly sending out news items on his latest boondoggles: his latest is more public spending to subsidize employer leave, which earned him this response from me:Dear Mr. Stark: with regard to HR 1723: You've got to be kidding. In "These tough economic times", as you yourself referred to them, the last thing we need is further bankruptcy of our bloated public sector.
That seven dollars a month for the employee AND employer you cited as the approximate cost - and we all know what tends to happen to such "initial" estimates - would be better left in the hands of employers and employees alike. Not all of us favor the process of transferring power to the government for everything that sounds desirable; making laws that demand certain results is an inappropriate use of public policy.
As you and your colleagues scramble to spend ever more public money, you are merely adding to already-absurd deficits - which you also denounced under Bush, but apparently praise under Obama.
Please stop throwing other people's money on this pyre.
Sincerely,Registered and regular voter
How are those campaign pledges coming along?
What were the reasons for the serial hatred of George W. Bush? Few of the charges against him held up under scrutiny, and still fewer can now be found that haven't been brazenly embraced by Barack Obama himself, as we shall see:-Embrace of war over "Diplomacy"-Shredding the constitution-Wrecking the economyIf you voted for Obama in the heat of the moment, thinking, "Eh, let's try some change", this instinct can be understood - but if you were of the die-hard Obama supporter contingent, fully believing that this man actually knew what to do to "Fix" America and unite us as a nation, then you were a total sucker.To wit: True to form, Obama now plays down the Iraq war while upping the ante on the Afghanistan war, the "Ball" that we supposedly "Took our eye off". As for Bush's gleeful stomping on the bill of rights, Obama has simply renamed the "Enemy Combatants" at Guantanamo, and has maintained the authority to detain such folks - whatever flavor-of-the-week labeling they're slapped with - in addition to reserving his prerogative for renditions, and most of the other stuff that the Civil Liberties watchdogs were foaming at the mouth over during Bush's time.Beyond that, Obama's campaign blasted McCain for the notion of removing tax-free status of medical insurance, but now allows that it's not such a bad idea, after all.Irresponsible spending? Obama blamed Bush with this one, in line with fiscal conservatives, but now triples down with his trillions-plus budget boondoggle. Awhile ago he blamed Bush for using fear as a way of enacting his personal agenda, but his chief of staff publicly boasts of "Never letting a crisis go to waste" - cynical even in the best of times, one can only imagine the deafening outcry had Bush uttered such a thing."No Earmarks" - remember that one? Gone, crushed under the weight of the thousands of these very same once-derided items that are now present in his monstrous budget.Cabinet appointments? Don't make me laugh - after swearing that not a single man, woman, or child in the U.S. of A. was qualified to head the treasury save for the now-acceptably tax-dodging Geithner, whose subsequent Kerry-esque "We have a plan" nonsense spooked the markets even more than they were already, we've seen withdrawal upon withdrawal (who knew so many otherwise-qualified top Democrats were also tax cheats? Is it possible that they themselves don't like paying all those taxes they keep insisting are patriotic for the rest of us to swallow?), Boatloads of lobbyists (where we told before that there would be - how many? Oh,right: None!), and total roadkill where we heard, only a month or so ago, boasts of "The smoothest presidential transition in history" - oh, and also "The most ethical administration in history" - though in fairness, no one gets elected without making this nakedly fatuous pitch.It's understandable to root for your guy in partisan politics, but the bipolar hatred of Bush juxtaposed against the worshipful rhetoric directed towards Obama is a new low in hypocrisy. If any political activity is accessible as long as the perpetrator is a Democrat, then fine, but let's admit it as such; stop pretending that an action taken by Bush is by definition bad, while the same action taken by Obama is "Prudent" or "Necessary" or the result of a "Tough Decision" or any other such euphemism employed to cover up your double standards.So now that the scorecard has evened up, which is it? Is Obama in fact the healer-in-chief you thought you were getting, or is he just another politician?
