In response to The Community Organizer In Chief Appalls Again:
They say there’s no crying in baseball, but there’s nothing except crying in “community organizing.” It’s just an endless series of complaints, Americans pitted against each other savage combat, with the Community-Organizer-In-Chief constantly pledging to “fight” until some recalcitrant group of Americans has been clubbed into submission.
It’s not healthy that we’ve become so comfortable with that language of politicians “fighting” on our behalf, when they are invariably talking about making us fight each other. The people who want freedom from Big Government are apt to get visits from the NSA, FBI, and IRS if they talk about “fighting” to keep government from taking away what they own. Working within the system to effect change is “anarchy” if the change you’re looking for involves more freedom, but the Community-Organizer-In-Chief gets to violate any laws he wants. Nobody seems too concerned about those laws requiring a federal budget, either.
That situation is much closer to “anarchy” than anything Harry Reid is nattering about. Anarchy is a land of warlords holding their turf through force, taking what they have the power to take. I notice the warlords of Congress are none too eager to give up the special ObamaCare subsidies they took for themselves.
Republicans are supposed to be terrified of shutdown politics blowing up in their faces. But what happens if a shutdown rolls on long enough to make people realize that the “anarchy” of living under a government that only spends as much as Ronald Reagan’s did is not so bad after all? What happens if people start wondering why the federal government employs 800,000 “non-essential” people? It occurred to me this morning that the amount of money that would go unspent during an enduring “shutdown” is pretty close to the amount of money the federal government borrows each year. Permanent “shutdown” equals balanced budget? Tell me more!
The community organizer style of government is all about making demands. But government really ought to be defined by how much money we choose to supply it with. Instead of carefully allocating money from the public purse, and being honest with us about the taxation needed to fund a particular agenda, the modern super-State spends wild amounts of borrowed cash, then demands we pay up later. If we hesitate to raise the credit card limits, we’re insulted by the likes of Barack Obama as deadbeats trying to slip out the back door of a restaurant without settling our dinner bill.
Well, I’m already anticipating Obama’s next angry demand for a debt-ceiling hike and higher taxes to pay the bills we already racked up… and I say let’s not rack them up, starting with this ObamaCare debacle. We need to stop letting the community organizers promise the sun, moon, and stars to their favorite constituents. Cut, cap, and balance. Lock them down, cap taxes and spending, do away with madcap deficit spending, flatten out the tax burden, and let’s see what Dependency Group A says when told they’ll have to give up some loot to finance benefits for Dependency Group B.
But of course, planning for Obama’s next debt-ceiling performance during the current debt-ceiling crisis makes me an “extremist,” right?