I thought the following was exceptionally accurate. <\/p>\n
From ex-liberal Roger Simon<\/a>:<\/p>\n President Obama\u2019s been taking a lot of flak lately for not having a plan. First it was about Libya, but now \u2014 even more importantly because, as we know, all politics is local (until it\u2019s not) \u2014 about the budget.<\/p>\n The latest White House porte-parole<\/a> Jay Carney has consequently been taking all kinds of in-coming himself about \u201cwhere\u2019s the President\u2019s budget plan,\u201d \u201cwhy doesn\u2019t he have a plan,\u201d etc.<\/p>\n Well, the reason for the latter is simple: because he can\u2019t. The minute the president evinces a budget plan, the game is up. No liberal budget will stand up to scrutiny. There is no money left for deficit spending in our aging society. The welfare state is kaput. It\u2019s gone \u2014 probably for generations to come.<\/p>\n Of course, there\u2019s always that canard about taxing the rich. That will save things. But the truth is even if you tax the rich at 100%, it barely sets back our entitlement crisis a year or two, while virtually bankrupting the few job creators who remain.<\/p>\n So no wonder Obama doesn\u2019t have a plan. What would it be?<\/p>\n Rich Miniter put a fine point on it in a recent article for Forbes, \u201cWhy the Democratic Party is Doomed<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n The Democratic Party, as we have known it for the past 70 years, is now in its last days.<\/p>\n Yes, the House Republicans may raise the debt ceiling for a mix of spending cuts and revenue raisers. Yes, Barack Obama may win the 2012 presidential contest. Yes, bureaucrats and judges will continue to impose new and costly regulations on the economy.<\/p>\n But it doesn\u2019t matter. The long-term trends are almost all bad news for the left wing of the party.<\/p>\n This week\u2019s fight over raising the federal debt limit exposes a key weakness in the warfare-welfare state that has bestowed power onto the Democratic Party: Without an ever-growing share of the economy, it dies.<\/i><\/p>\n Miniter\u2019s right. As an ex-lib, it almost makes me feel sorry for liberals. But I\u2019m not because too many of them are still playing ostrich. One lib friend just sent me an email \u2014 I\u2019m still somehow on her list \u2014 trumpeting a 1954 (!) quote from Eisenhower<\/a>: \u201cShould any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history.\u201d<\/p>\n I guess the implication here is that\u2019s what Republicans are trying to do, when, especially in the case of Social Security, they are the only ones making a serious effort to save it (see Paul Ryan). But liberals must preserve their delusions \u2014 and actually not read the small print, in Ryan\u2019s proposal or anybody else\u2019s. After all, they are people with no plans. Why should anybody else have them?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n (Link<\/a>)<\/p>\n Whether people recognize it or not is beside the point: the welfare state<\/a> is doomed by definition because in order to have the wealth to redistribute, one must first have someone producing<\/i> that wealth, which (in turn) requires capital — as in capitalism<\/a> — and that pool will pretty quickly dry up, especially when you vilify and punish<\/a> the producers. I thought the following was exceptionally accurate. From ex-liberal Roger Simon: President Obama\u2019s been taking a lot of flak lately for not having a plan. First it was about Libya, but now \u2014 even more importantly because, as we know, all politics is local (until it\u2019s not) \u2014 about the budget. The latest White House … <\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/br><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"