Posts
Seeing clearly in the fog of war is difficult enough. Seeing clearly in the fog of Washington politics is nearly impossible.
Today Victor Davis Hanson cuts through the blather, to articulate a very important point, one that is too often ignored.
In his words: “The agenda of the poorer and lower-middle classes is championed mostly by an affluent elite located on the two coasts, who find power and influence in representing 'the people,' and are themselves either affluent enough, or enjoy enough top government salaries and subsidies, to be largely exempt from any hardship that would result from their own advocacy of much higher taxes and larger government expenditures.
“Lost entirely in all these disputes over taxes, relative affluence, and government entitlements is any serious examination of whether federal payouts themselves consistently alleviate poverty or accomplish what they are intended for, or whether, in the age of high-technology, dirt-cheap imported manufactured goods and huge government subsidies, the notion of being poor itself should be redefined. The point is not whether the hundreds of billions invested in, say, a Head Start actually improved school performance, but, implicitly, whether thousands of constituents were employed in its administration, and, explicitly, whether its advocates felt a sense of transcendent caring in such public magnanimity (often not so easily evidenced by the fact of where they otherwise live or send their children to school).”
Big government means big Democratic constituency. It makes no real difference whether the program produces the desired results. If it doesn’t that can only mean that we haven’t spend enough on it.
Today Victor Davis Hanson cuts through the blather, to articulate a very important point, one that is too often ignored.
In his words: “The agenda of the poorer and lower-middle classes is championed mostly by an affluent elite located on the two coasts, who find power and influence in representing 'the people,' and are themselves either affluent enough, or enjoy enough top government salaries and subsidies, to be largely exempt from any hardship that would result from their own advocacy of much higher taxes and larger government expenditures.
“Lost entirely in all these disputes over taxes, relative affluence, and government entitlements is any serious examination of whether federal payouts themselves consistently alleviate poverty or accomplish what they are intended for, or whether, in the age of high-technology, dirt-cheap imported manufactured goods and huge government subsidies, the notion of being poor itself should be redefined. The point is not whether the hundreds of billions invested in, say, a Head Start actually improved school performance, but, implicitly, whether thousands of constituents were employed in its administration, and, explicitly, whether its advocates felt a sense of transcendent caring in such public magnanimity (often not so easily evidenced by the fact of where they otherwise live or send their children to school).”
Big government means big Democratic constituency. It makes no real difference whether the program produces the desired results. If it doesn’t that can only mean that we haven’t spend enough on it.
2 comments:
When the actual desired result is a legion of devoted, knee-jerk Democrat voters, then I say that they ARE achieving the desired result. Push just a few more voters into the realm of the non-taxpaying, and we will have the Democrats in power until the end of the United States of America (which will come sooner than later.)
That is the game plan... it has worked up to a point, but, it didn't work in 2010... and let's hope and pray that it does not work in 2012.
Post a Comment