Which is worse…Obama fundraising for Alex Giannoulias this week in Chicago or the Senate passing another $26 billion bailout for the states. In one case you have Obama supporting the corrupt Chicago political system that he was raised in (change?), and in the other you have the irresponsible and flawed economic philosophy of the liberal brand still being pushed onto the American people from Washington. I know it is a tough call.
Since we all know of Obama’s shady connections, I will give that one a pass today and concentrate on the economic side. (because to be honest, if you do not see a problem with the people Obama associates with by now, you probably will never overcome that denial). Outside of this really being a bailout of government unions, the logic behind what the Senate did last night and what Pelosi says she will call the House back to do is certainly flawed. Suppose you are a parent and you have a child that just simply cannot control its spending. You care so you continue to send extra money to this child, but the problem still persists. At some point you have to ask yourself. Are you really helping or are you simply feeding the problem? It may seem harsh, but for the future long term benefit of your child it would be best to not send them that check. Force them to spend within their budget and set aside their own money for emergencies. Force them to become self sufficient and not dependent upon you.
It is a simple concept. One of common sense some would say and it is a perfect analogy to what we are seeing today with the federal government…aside from the obvious fact that in this case the parent cannot control its spending either. This is a concept that liberals do not seem to grasp and I am not sure why. Perhaps they know that a dependent population means a broad voting base. Perhaps they simply have no faith in the people to support themselves and those in need. Perhaps they think that an elite bureaucratic class knows best. (That is a progressive ideal by the way…check out quotes by Charles Merriam or his profile on Wikipedia) Whatever their reason for doing it, it is a flawed philosophy.
And as I alluded to with the title of the post, education seems to have no bearing. Joe Biden was recently quoted as saying the reason the stimulus is not working is that it was too small. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz has said the same. Christina Romer, (Chairwoman of Pres. Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers) who is now resigning her post, was very outspoken that the stimulus was not big enough. It is interesting that if you read some of the comments on the article from the Berkley types, they are actually promoting Paul Krugman as her replacement. The same Krugman who is still defends FDR’s economic policies despite all the evidence to the contrary. The fallacy of government stimulus to spur economic growth has been proven time and time again but not according to these academic elites. Proof once again that education does not equal intelligence or wisdom.
Comments on this entry are closed.