Authored by William Robert Barber
A significant percentage of citizens do not trust politicians or the government they manage. The Democratic politicians are astonished by such a revelation and the Republican elected, visibly, some, well, one or two with remorseful eyes, acknowledges the knowing of why.
Unions dismiss such revelations of governmental distrust as Tea Party radicalism; those in the Economic Development Sector consider those that distrust government nothing less than the ignorant striving to grasps through simplification a very complex relationship. While all governments that feed and grow off of other people’s money, regardless of form, will ultimately mismanage the funds. Mismanagement of funds, process, and budget is a definition of government. In essence government is in function innately incompetent, bureaucratically encumbered and to some degree administratively corrupt.
There is only one thing worse than government and that is to have no government at all. Government is essential. Therefore, it is a sublime duty of every citizen and officeholder of this democratic-republic to rise above the fray of the ordinary, base, and behavioral common to actively participate in the process of governing. The object is to insure a continuance of striving to manage the least dysfunctional and corrupt government possible.
That said, the reasons for distrust (by the citizenry) are numerous, documented, and blatantly obvious. It would come as no particular surprise to any voter that a politician once elected is able to dodge, disavow, or contradict any previous promise to the electorate. Whether the matter in question was a notarized written statement or a witnessed oral agreement; politicians, once in office, have little hesitation to knowingly deceive, contradict, and perjure themselves. We citizens must act decisively to disallow political corruption and cronyism; such hypocrisy will destroy the republic.
Remember when TARP (a Republican creation) was to purchase toxic bank assets? Well, lo and behold, that never happened. After the funds were allotted leadership decided to just give cash to banks whether they required or asked; the idea was to give to all so no one bank could be singled out as weak or failing. This particular give away occurred only after the foreign banks in the billions of dollars were paid-off by U.S. taxpayers. It is as if treasury had been paid a surety premium by these banks just in case they had made a bad market bet. Of course these foreign banks did not have the foresight to insure against such a catastrophic loss; but they got paid out as if they had. This pay off was under a Republican flag.
I recall the auto workers union bailout; yes, not the auto bailout of Chrysler or General Motors but the United Auto Workers and associated beneficial union bailout. All actuated by executive order; definitively, the final settlement was not founded by adhering to the bankruptcy laws of the land. Naturally, and of course, the unions came out on top while the bond/equity holders were stymied into silence while the power of the federal government nullified their heretofore common contractual lawful rights.
Well, that period of Obama governess is rain water washed into the sea. Now this very same administration finding it impossible to run on their accomplishment is campaigning for the 2012 election by propagating half-truths, lies, misdirecting rational, and in effect libeling the conservative members of congress while scurrilously slandering the wealthy and the financially productive. The just-like-Obama cadres of progressive enthusiasts are flagrantly prosecuting the wealthy and financially productive Americans as if they were Midas. For Midas everything he touched turned into gold. In the world of risking capital making net taxpaying money is hard. Most enterprises fail and the majority of those that stay-in business do so by managing negative cash flow.
The law professor, who has never earned a dime in the private sector, is insisting on forcing the American people to accept his perception of America. He is doing so by all means imaginative or inclined.
The progressives declare that those with more need to share their wealth with those who have less. Obama and brethren call it an obligation of fairness. This proposed obligation of fairness is to be satisfied by a tax on those that have more. Obama declares that because wealth was earned by the grace of Americanism those who have gained more must share their earnings with those that have gained less.
Fair share President Obama! Please define. What exactly is a fair share? Is it fair that certainly half of the so called stimulus monies were spent on State and city municipalities? Another way of giving cash-taxpayer funds to Obama’s favorite charity: Public and private unions.
I guess this particular blog could go on, and on, I believe everyone understands my perspective…