I was reading Douglas E. Schoen and Patrick H. Caddell’s piece concluding that Obama should announce that he is not running for reelection in 2012. I was certainly hoping that the establishment media had finally come to the realization the rest of the country did a year ago that Obama’s policies are exactly what is not needed. But, my hopes were dashed relatively quickly into the article.
Their initial postulate was that Obama should announce his resignation to “seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made.” While that sounds good, the underlying question is: what decisions will he be making? The underlying premise is that we all agree with what has been done during Obama’s 2 years in office. I reject this premise as do the majority of the people who voted on November 2nd.
They continue spouting this desire to end the red state/blue state. However, do you expect them to change their opinions? No. Compromise is a one way street to these people. You either have their views or you’re dividing the country.
News Flash. The country has always been divided. Ever hear of the Civil War? If you go back in U.S. history, you can find numerous examples of how divided the U.S. electorate was. What is new is the ability of those with dissenting views to get their views heard and published. It is this new era of political free speech that has those in the ruling class and establishment media moaning and complaining about the division of the country.
I do agree with Caddell and Schoen on the need for cuts in spending, both domestic and military. However, being in business for the last 27 years, I really don’t need help in figuring out where to start cutting. First, cut the pensions and post-retirement healtcare benefits of all non-military government employees to be equivalent of U.S. multi-nationals. Second, eliminate 1/2 of the administrative positions currently in place to implement policy. This really means to make legislation without having to go through congress. Third, repeal the 17th amendment.
As a summary, the author’s believe that gridlock is bad and that the government can solve the economic problems facing the nation. There is nothing in the article hinting thatĀ perhaps it was the government’sĀ policies that got us into this mess to begin with.
How dilutional are they?
You must be logged in to post a comment.