I know that we are all supposed to think that Speaker Boehner is an idiot, the naif that got rolled by President Obama in the fiscal cliff deal.
But I am trying to look between the lines. Take Stephen Moore's the "Education of John Boehner" in the Wall Street Journal today.
Boehner thinks we have a "spending problem." But the president does not. He thinks we have a "health-care problem."
Boehner agreed with the president about the health-care problem. Said he to the president: "Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with ObamaCare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem."
But that is the sticking point. I'll bet the president thinks that ObamaCare is going to solve the health-care problem, with all its administrative bells and whistles. And so do all his liberal friends.
It doesn't matter whether they are right or not. They have to believe that. Otherwise they would be getting ready to do a bipartisan deal with the Republicans and cut spending.
And that points up the basic delusion that liberals have about government. They think of themselves as disinterested experts and ethicists making considered public choices about governance. That's what that Seidman chappie thinks when he rags on the constitution as an evil product of slave-owning white property owners.
But the liberals are wrong. Starting with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrats have been running a national patronage machine. They are buying votes and political power with government spending programs. And they will continue to do so until the money runs out.
And by the way, the appetite for free health care is limitless, Mr. President, and your ObamaCare will become a bottomless pit of special interest giveaways and vote-buying.
The Democrats are riding the whirlwind. Their power is based on delivering more and more benefits to their voters. But we all know how grateful gift recipients are. For about one minute. Then they want more.
So the Democrats must keep offering more, or go out of business. They cannot say: gee, it looks like we are going to have to cut those benefits in the future, 'cos there ain't no more money. What do you mean no more money? They have justified all that spending in moral terms: helping mothers with disabled kids, fighting inequality, etc. How can you compromise on a moral agenda?
Both sides in the political arena call themselves rational and sensible and the other guys mean and delusional. That's the way that playground fights go. And so's your father.
But the Democrats won't agree to spending cuts until they have sent their supporters over the cliff. It's not because they are evil, but because their supporters won't agree to spending cuts until they are lying in red ruin, like a herd of buffalo at the bottom of a Plains Indian buffalo cliff jump. There's one up in Alberta, thoughtfully called Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump.
But by then, President Obama will be long gone. I expect President Rubio will be to blame.
But I am trying to look between the lines. Take Stephen Moore's the "Education of John Boehner" in the Wall Street Journal today.
Boehner thinks we have a "spending problem." But the president does not. He thinks we have a "health-care problem."
Boehner agreed with the president about the health-care problem. Said he to the president: "Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with ObamaCare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem."
But that is the sticking point. I'll bet the president thinks that ObamaCare is going to solve the health-care problem, with all its administrative bells and whistles. And so do all his liberal friends.
It doesn't matter whether they are right or not. They have to believe that. Otherwise they would be getting ready to do a bipartisan deal with the Republicans and cut spending.
And that points up the basic delusion that liberals have about government. They think of themselves as disinterested experts and ethicists making considered public choices about governance. That's what that Seidman chappie thinks when he rags on the constitution as an evil product of slave-owning white property owners.
But the liberals are wrong. Starting with Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrats have been running a national patronage machine. They are buying votes and political power with government spending programs. And they will continue to do so until the money runs out.
And by the way, the appetite for free health care is limitless, Mr. President, and your ObamaCare will become a bottomless pit of special interest giveaways and vote-buying.
The Democrats are riding the whirlwind. Their power is based on delivering more and more benefits to their voters. But we all know how grateful gift recipients are. For about one minute. Then they want more.
So the Democrats must keep offering more, or go out of business. They cannot say: gee, it looks like we are going to have to cut those benefits in the future, 'cos there ain't no more money. What do you mean no more money? They have justified all that spending in moral terms: helping mothers with disabled kids, fighting inequality, etc. How can you compromise on a moral agenda?
Both sides in the political arena call themselves rational and sensible and the other guys mean and delusional. That's the way that playground fights go. And so's your father.
But the Democrats won't agree to spending cuts until they have sent their supporters over the cliff. It's not because they are evil, but because their supporters won't agree to spending cuts until they are lying in red ruin, like a herd of buffalo at the bottom of a Plains Indian buffalo cliff jump. There's one up in Alberta, thoughtfully called Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump.
But by then, President Obama will be long gone. I expect President Rubio will be to blame.
No comments:
Post a Comment