Being on one’s own

A fundamental difference of opinion was unearthed this week with the following comment “then we’re going to have a government that tells the American people, ‘you are on your own’”. A campaigning President was appealing to fundraisers by warning those in attendance that the consequences of a failed re-election would include self-reliance ushered in by his caricatured opponents. Perhaps there’s something more in this statement, something under the surface that is profound and enlightening. That finding any wisdom in such a statement requires mental gymnastics to include a willing detachment from the English language reassures its dissemination at face value. It is what it is and means exactly what is meant by stringing those words together.

People are different. Responsible people often find different paths to self reliance. The more free-spirited types might work temporary technician or landscaping type positions to fund their wants and needs, preferring to live by their own schedule. Others might wake at the same time every morning and head to the same place for the same amount of time and develop a taste for coffee while being perfectly content in a desk job. There’s no right or wrong to either path. The free spirit needs no government intervention as they figured out on their own how to provide for their desires. And the desk worker realizes that the more government intervenes supposedly on their behalf, their employer may be more reticent to offer advancement opportunities because of increased risk and their healthcare plan may be more costly because of mandates irrelevant to them but that must be covered anyway. Both do what they have to in order to live the lifestyle they decide is best for themselves.

It used to be a definition of adulthood, being self-reliant. For almost ninety years the United States government ushered in reforms meant to create a safety-net, a way for those who couldn’t do for themselves to survive or to provide temporary relief for those finding themselves in unfortunate circumstances. Over the years the definitions of unfortunate circumstances and those who couldn’t do for themselves has broadened significantly. Political correctness has rendered it a thought crime to question the validity of benefits to those seemingly capable. Every year politicians campaign as champions of the less fortunate who seem to grow in proportion with the number of programs meant to help.

This never ending spiral illustrates a key difference between liberals and conservatives. It is nice and emotionally satisfying to provide something to someone in want or need. But, eliminating the cost for a certain group of people doesn’t make it free. Someone has to bear that cost and eliminating that cost for some will encourage more to become part of that some or to remain part of that some by hindering self reliance. Also hindered will be those forced to pay those costs by taxation. Liberals choose the simpler path of offering aid with no strings attached. Conservatives choose the more difficult path of encouraging people to become self sufficient and aim to help them achieve it. There exist the truly needy who can’t help themselves and for them we should maintain the safety net, if it were to include only them it would be much smaller than it is today. Simply put, the government should let you be on your own.

No Treats for Anyone!

I found myself confused by the news today that in many northeastern areas tonight trick-or-treating has been canceled. I’m not confused with regard to why they did it. There was some nasty winter weather in that area this past weekend and it would seem reasonable to encourage people to stay home. But, what exactly will it be like out there later today and what is the capacity of the citizens there to deal with inclement weather? It’s easy as a resident of a city with 350 or so days of sunshine a year to flinch but it’s doubtful that people in Connecticut are all that shocked and unprepared by snow in late October. The second question that comes to mind is, exactly how can trick-or-treating be canceled? Was candy ordered off the shelf of the local drugstore? Was it taken from non-procrastinators? Has it been deemed a misdemeanor to offer candy to random guests throughout the night? Is there effective manpower to ensure that no children are out soliciting treats? What about entirely contained apartment complexes? Are they disallowed for reasons of fairness even though the weather won’t affect anyone walking inside them? I know, this is silly but I can’t help myself. I just can’t help myself from imagining the machinations of such a ban. Given the recent stories of lemonade stands being taken out I don’t think we can limit ourselves imagining the overreactions of nanny-stators when it comes to an easy target. So long as they can claim their crusades being in the name of safety.

Cain Smoking

This past weekend that commercial starring Herman Cain’s campaign manager imparting his take on Cain’s candidacy while smoking became a topic of interest, propelling his campaign into GOP contender status. With righteous indignation, CBS Sunday Face the Nation anchor Bob Schieffer scolded Cain “I don’t think it serves the country well — and this is an editorial opinion here — to be showing someone smoking a cigarette.” Tom Brokaw, on NBC’s meet the press, inarticulately ruminated on the controversy; “I think that maybe 9-9-9 stands for, ‘you get nine months to live with lung cancer, nine months to live with emphysema, nine months to live with coronary-artery disease.’ I can’t imagine why they thought that was an effective image,”

Smoking, whatever it is and whatever its ill effects, remains a completely legal, heavily regulated and inordinately taxed product. The President, up until recently, was a smoker, but as a democrat is considered a victim because of his own choice. Mark Block, Cain’s campaign manager, is a smoker and it is completely subjective as to whether or not him smoking in the ad glamorized the act. Both Schieffer and Brokaw work for large media conglomerates with entertainment divisions that produce hours of countless scenes per year including smokers, many produced in a way to enhance the stature of a character by that action. If Schieffer and Brokaw are so offended by smoking, a logical path could include agitating for tobacco to be banned and to openly protest their employers. Neither does either.

Instead, both infantilize a Presidential candidate because they disagree with that candidate’s political philosophy. They hide behind a socially acceptable monster that allows them to feign a contemplative opinion while their true aim is to demean Herman Cain. Yes, Shieffer has his own cancer history to fall back on, which makes it worse because he is using that personal history as another cudgel in an attack on Cain. Going out of proportion and making much out of little is just another illustration of liberal media bias.

Evicting Hippies

I wonder if the “(Un)occupy” Albuquerque, counterpart to Occupy Wall Street, movement protestors got a shower in following their eviction from the University of New Mexico on their way to whatever place they move on to next? Not that it matters much. Certainly the indeterminate group has the right to protest whatever it is that they feel like within the law. This, by the way, was why they were evicted from Yale Park on the UNM campus; because they were impeding students, attracting vagrants and diverting UNM police from their real, actual jobs. How annoying must an anti-capitalist, otherwise vague protest movement be to be kicked out by a state university? It must have been startling. But I digress. Freedom of expression cuts both ways and it is inconceivable that I could ever support drivel such as the following:

"This isn't about roasting marshmallows and running an encampment, the reason people are here, the reason people are frustrated, the reason you're watching television is that 99 percent of the county is frustrated that we don't have a democracy that works for us,"

This “99 percent” presumption illustrates precisely why this movement agitates me. I am not a 1 percenter, but I disagree with everything these hippies stand for and they certainly do not represent 99% of the population. Most of these people don’t even understand what it is that they claim to be protesting and every time they speak demonstrate extreme ignorance. Our country is a representative democracy and over the last 90 years the government has expanded its power in attempt to “solve” the problems being protested; only making them worse and demanding more and more. The kind of democracy these “(Un)occupiers” want is mob rule, akin to the aberration of the French Revolution. But like most anarchists, these moochers are hardly the types that could actually do anything so they protest for handouts and for someone else to be responsible for them. Good on the UNM administration for their successful hippy disposal effort.

Student Loan Relief

Possibly responding to an “unofficial” demand the Occupy Wall Street crowd and in an attempt to play University Santa, the President has begun his promise to sidestep the Legislative branch of the federal government by invoking executive orders to change the business of college student loans. Again. Last time the President invoked changes to increase the number of direct loans issued by the Department of Education in order to sidestep banks and providing taxpayer dollars to absorb risks. This time the goal is to reduce monthly student-loan payments, consolidation of existing loans into direct loans (with interest reductions), increased loan balance and payment communication (how much is needed?) and offering loan forgiveness after twenty years. All of this, the President promised, won’t cost taxpayers anything.

Certainly it can be argued that the expansion of student loans can be considered a good, in parallel with a college education being considered a good. Problem is, when government gets involved in a formerly private enterprise and absorbs the risk, it has no incentive to properly guard an investment made on behalf of but unaccountable to taxpayers. By making access easier and shifting responsibility from students to imaginary demon bankers for not knowing how much they were borrowing, not understanding that what they were doing was getting a loan, that loans have to be paid back, not understanding that college costs money or some other known that college students are apparently too dim to comprehend it is logical to conclude that irresponsible behavior that leads to such misunderstandings will only increase. College students are supposed to be adults and it does no good to delay responsibility.

Worst yet was the President’s claim that these “reforms” will not cost taxpayers anything. Interest is the cost of borrowing money, lowering rates costs the entity making the loan. Loan “forgiveness” is just a word for default without consequence costing the entity making the loan. By taking over the student loan business by direct loan the President has established the government as the entity making the loan. And the government has no money unless it confiscates it from earners by way of taxation. How anyone could believe that an incredibly risky venture that includes many prospects for loss won’t actually cost the investor is confounding.