Who is to blame for the debt?

If you listen to conservatives and Tea Party members, you will hear that the last ten years—with the last two in particular—has seen Congressmen and the last two Presidents as a primary cause for the unprecedented debt we face. Liberals will tell you that the debt was caused solely by one of the two presidents, and that it is caused by the amount of defense spending and an insufficient amount of taxes from corporations and high income earners.

Talk of a national debt is a fairly recent phenomenon to most of us. Pundits used it to weaken the Reagan administration, Ross Perot used it to give rise to a run for president, and the 1994 Republicans used it as a counterpoint to the Democrats in their Contract with America to take back Congress. I’m sure that some sessions of Congress and some Presidents ran up some debt in the bottom line Congressional Budget Office numbers that each session turned out, but none of the national conversations these politicians had with the American people could’ve predicted 14 trillion dollars.

If one were to listen to modern-day liberals on this issue, they would hear the new cause for the national debt: Welfare. Liberals are sneaky. They poll words and phrases. They know that welfare is an unpopular word. It’s their word though. It’s their institution. They brought welfare to this nation through FDR’s New Deal. They took what 1930’s liberals thought was a great way to help this country out of the depression, and they put a red wig on it and bastardized it. They climbed all over one another to captilize on its excesses, and they called anyone who opposed their efforts a racist. They created a three headed monster that allowed people like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich to demonize it so successfully that Bill Clinton was forced to sign a reform of it if he wanted to get re-elected in 1996. Liberals now know that welfare is such a bad word that they are attempting to trial balloon it as a description of not taxing people more.

When liberals speak of cutbacks in spending, they talk about cutbacks in defense and spending through the tax code. The latter is a new term that most Americans haven’t heard until the Democrats were unsuccessful in raising taxes on the higher income earners in January of 2011. (Spending through the tax code was a term Obama used to describe the spending that must occur in Washington to allow people to keep more of their money.)

It’s humorous, at times, to watch liberals—in the depths of their despair—wriggle through the lexicon to come up with something palatable to the American public. Their search involves code words, sound bites, and words they deem understandable for the American public. Words, bites, and codes that they hope will eventually allow them to continue spending the country into oblivion.

They’re now telling us, as Michael Moore told the rioting vandals of Wisconsin, “We’re not broke!” Moore did not complete the sentence as far as I know. He did not tell people that we can tax more people. He did not say it’s us against them people. We need to take more of their money and give more of it to us (the us being bused in protestors and professional protestors). He did not say, “Those people still have plenty of money we can loot and steal.” He also did not say anything about his battle with the Weinstein Brothers over the 2.7 more million he feels they owe him after getting a reported 30 million from them. I add this with no desire to demonize Moore for the money he makes, only to state that as an avowed communist he could do a great deal to level the gap between the rich and the poor. He, and his Hollywood pals, could do a great deal to curb the budget crisis in Wisconsin, at least in the short term, but he decided to preach to us that his idealized, theoretical vision is the course for Wisconsin and America to take.

Here we enter the crux of the matter. Conservatives and Tea Party members are trying to convince the American public that we don’t need increased taxes. They’re trying to say that the reason that the federal government—and the state run legislatures—has little to no money has little to do with the fact that we haven’t given enough of our hard earned money to the government. The reason, they say, is that the representatives of these institutions have spent too much money trying to keep their various donors happy. They’re trying to say that we need to get back to the idea that the Founders had when they created this little experiment called America. They’re trying to say that the greatest prosperity the world has ever known was created on the backs, and from the sweat and turmoil, of individual Americans. They’re trying to say that the prosperity this country has enjoyed has nothing to do with a quote like the one from Larry King: “If the American government is so bad, why is this the greatest country in the world?” They’re trying to tell people who have heard this ill-informed quotation that American prosperity has been built on the limits set on the American government through The Constitution. More taxation is not the answer to paying off our debt, for it will do nothing to curb the spending of those in Congress and the various states. It will also inhibit greater individual liberty and the subsequent prosperity of this country.

This central idea is difficult, if not impossible, to defeat in the minds of the freedom loving American public, so liberals have decided to attempt to kill the messenger. For a generation now, liberals have been attempting to defame and destroy the Founding Fathers by calling them slave owners and other things to defame them. While slavery was a horrible institution, many Founding Fathers found it deplorable. The quotes are all out there. Go find them. Now that Tea Party members have gained nationwide exposure for beliefs that mirror most of the beliefs of the Founding Fathers’, liberals have attempted to defame and destroy the members of the Tea Party. They know that the ideas are probably too ingrained in this current lot of people not yet properly indoctrinated through modern public school catechism, so they attempt to defame and destroy the individuals saying it. The liberals’ goal has been to get America to return to an idealized vision of Europe in which most people lived in peace and harmony just above and just below the poverty line. Anyone not yet properly indoctrinated into the current public school ideology knows that the French lived in peace and harmony just above and just below the poverty line before their revolution.

What is pleasing to the ear and heart is not always pleasing to the brain, but most who listen and cherish the liberal lexicon don’t use their brain. They’re usually trying to flap their feet and fly at the first few words of the idealized vision of liberalism. When the Clintons spoke of an end of the free ride, for example, most liberals were flapping their feet with glee. What the Clintons meant, of course was that the ‘free ride’ would be over for those who work their fingers to bone. They were saying that those people would now be required to give more money to irresponsible government officials to spend. They meant that those people were now going to face more confiscation of their profits for the good of the government official. The end of their ‘free ride’ would not apply to those who were being granted a free ride. It did not apply to those who weren’t working, in other words, their free ride would remain intact, until the Clintons came to realize that their re-election hung in the balance. For those people, now nearing 33% of the American public, liberals never put out a call for the ride to stop. They’re not free loaders, in the liberal lexicon, they’re a constituency base. Their dependency is not castigated in anyway, it’s appreciated, and it will continue to be rewarded. “So remember boys and girls fill out your forms, don’t watch Fox News, and vote Democrat in 2012 and beyond,” the liberal politician says attempting to flap his feet for flight.

We’ve reached a point/counterpoint argument in our nation’s history. One side says that we can spend our way out of the dilemma we now face. The other side has successfully thwarted the idea of further taxing high income earning individuals and corporations, federally and in some states that face burgeoning government union payrolls and pensions, and the result is that politicians are running out of money to give a free ride to those that will support them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s