Senate filibuster reflects larger issue of Who We Are.
Give ’em some credit here because this one took guts. Senate Republicans filibustered a bill (for the third time) that would have extended unemployment benefits beyond 99 weeks. Their reasoning is that at some point, the government faucet must be shut off. Although a little late, they’re absolutely right. The debt and deficits being run up by Democrats must stop before this country enters the death spiral that is making its way through Europe. As the Democrats continue to cry about “hurting those most in need,” someone needed to be the adult, and the Republicans (finally) took the reins.
The unemployment benefits reflect a larger issue that, I believe, is coming to a head: Who are we? People can legitimately argue about things like whether this nation was founded on Christian principles or whether the writers of the Constitution would consider internet porn to be “protected speech.” What cannot be legitimately argued, however, is the fact that this nation was founded on the principle of individual self-determination. That is, the idea that we, as individuals, have the right to make our own breaks. Self-determination does not mean we each have the right to have a car, or a house, or health insurance. It simply means, at least in America, that we all get the inherently equal opportunity to seek those things, if we so choose. If you win, great; if you lose, you can try again. The government’s job is to set the boundaries and get out of the way.
At some point, largely due to the influence of liberalism, that all changed. Now, we don’t argue about whether the government should be providing unemployment benefits, but how much and for how long. We no longer discuss whether anyone actually “deserves” a house, but instead, how much government aid they should receive to get/stay in one. Many of this nation’s citizens not only believe they’re entitled to food, clothing, and shelter, but also the latest cell phone, plasma t.v., and shiny car. And if they can’t afford them, then the government should provide them (or take from those who have them). After all, that’s “fair.”
There are entire classes of people in this country who are supported by the federal government from the cradle to the grave. And I’m not talking about those who are disabled and literally can’t work. I’m talking about able-bodied persons who can work, but don’t. This is drastically different than only a few decades ago. My grandparents, for example, realized that, if they didn’t work, they didn’t eat. That wasn’t an opinion, it was a fact of life. Today, working for food is closer to an option.
Barack Obama’s policies aren’t just childish, they’re drastically accelerating a change in what America fundamentally is. Everyone now has a right to healthcare, whether they can afford it or not. Executives who make too much money should have their salaries cut. Those who got in over their head with the house they bought will be bailed out with what amounts to subsidies. What used to be America has become a nanny state; and while this used to simply be annoying, it’s now becoming disastrous.
While many argue about the cause of the economic collapse, there is no questioning the fact that the liberal ideal of a house for every person who wants one started it. Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act, and its various amendments, which compelled banks to give loans to those who couldn’t afford to pay them back certainly had a hand in it. Who gets the blame though? Irresponsible home owners? Of course not. 100% of the guilt was heaped upon Wall Street.
How about the cost of illegal immigration? There is no question that one of the largest contributors to rising health care costs are the illegal immigrants who use emergency rooms as their primary care providers. Should we hold them accountable for being here illegally? Liberals don’t think so. Instead they simply blame the greedy insurance companies for high costs, or farmers for employing the illegals.
Our economy is stuck, with unemployment remaining just south of 10%. What does Obama do about it? He “stimulates” the economy by spending money we don’t have, and sends the overwhelming majority of it to other government employees. Does he cut taxes, which have a much better track record of stimulating growth? Of course not. To make matters worse, his spending will only lead to the eventual raising of taxes on practically everyone that pays them (which, as it turns out, isn’t all that many).
I’ve never been part of the “love it or leave it” crowd. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But at some point, we need to make a choice. America is one thing, and it is not another. Despite its current appearance, this country has never been about taking money from person A and giving it to person B in the name of fairness. It isn’t about bailing anyone or anything out as a result of bad choices. And it isn’t about punishing success because some have only experienced failure. If we, as a people, want to keep it that way, then a certain percentage of the population should be shown the door.