Saturday, February 05, 2011

Reminding We . . .

Utica's new congressman took the opportunity a week ago to mark his first month in office with an editorial in the Observer Dispatch - Guest view: Our nation is ‘at the tipping point’.

Predictably, he is being hit in the "comments" section of the article on-line for his vote to repeal Obamacare because, for some, the idea of another federal entitlement is just fine. However, the whole point of last November's election result was the fact that the majority of voters do not approve of more government involvement in their lives and the out-of-control spending that Obamacare would bring. Voting for Republicans was the only way for many voters to voice their displeasure with their government's direction . . . not that the voters actually supported the things that many Republicans were proposing to do.
What we cannot do is tax, borrow, and spend our way into prosperity. Government spending is a drain on real consumption and investment. Your money is best left in your hands; the government is not entitled to your money simply because the government makes poor decisions and its costs go up.
The congressman's view that money is best left in private hands -- that more money going to the government winds up being lost in poor decisions -- is right on the mark.

He is correct when he says . . .
" . . . I also believe we are at a tipping point in this country . . ."
However, he also says . . .
"We are deluding ourselves if we believe that we are somehow entitled to a higher standard of living than the rest of the world. We must make better choices and aggressively prepare our children to compete in the new global economy. We can do that through putting an increased emphasis on education."

Are "we" delusional? Do "we" believe we are entitled to a higher standard of living than the rest of the world? Have "we" made poor choices? Do "we" need to be more aggressive? Do "we" need the federal government to educate us?

Just whom is this "we"?

While there will always be those in our society, rich and poor alike, who have a sense of "entitlement," that is not the traditional American view. This country was founded by "rugged individualists." Our society expected "self-reliance," not government reliance . . . and certainly not government being used to further private interests. We expected our government to protect us, but to otherwise leave us alone. Our society's value of the individual was crystalized in our Constitution's acknowledgement that we have individual freedoms which come from God, that we are the source of the government's power, and that the power we gave to government was limited to certain enumerated things that individuals cannot do for themselves, but which are necessary to protect our individual freedoms -- such as provide for the national defense and regulate commerce.

If we developed a higher standard of living than most of the rest of the world, it is because we, as individuals, had the ability to earn it. How? We had the freedom to do it! Our freedoms allowed and encouraged us to work harder, be more productive, and be more innovative. Our government did not mollycoddle us with a lot of entitlements which reduce productivity in other countries (e.g, the short work weeks, early retirements, and month long vacation shut-downs common in Europe).  Our government did its part, however, by protecting our freedoms from those who would destroy them, whether they be foreign or domestic, and whether by force or by economic means.

If our national standard of living seems threatened, perhaps it is because the national government has failed to do the limited job we gave it to do. Perhaps it has failed to properly regulate interstate commerce by allowing some companies to become "to big to fail" . . . or to become so large that their economic power rivals that of government with the capability of crushing individual efforts. Perhaps it has failed to properly regulate foreign commerce, placing economic theory and a "global" perspective above preserving an environment where individual citizens can find productive activities to engage themselves in. Perhaps it has spent too much and become too indebted to foreign interests which do not share our value of individual freedoms, thereby placing our freedoms at risk through economic means. Perhaps the federal government has become too involved in things it was never intended to be involved in . . . such as education, using federal tax money to turn our schools into social service centers, create student "rights" that undermine parental rights, control large blocks of voters with grant-funded jobs, and promote a national "agenda" above the individual.

The "we" that brought our nation to its "tipping point" are those who have been designated as our policy makers, whether they are in the legislative, executive or judicial branches of government.  . . . "We the People" just need to remind them of that.

9 comments:

RPP said...

Your final point is right on target. The Hanna response for better education is lame and superficial. What are his ideas and solutions? And, how will he legislate them? He also continues to fail the issue that is most important to American prosperity both historically and currently; that of affordable energy. Is he for or against us developing our oil and natural gas resources and is he in favor of nuclear energy?

Anonymous said...

Hanna shows that he is a typical Republican with his remark about standard of living. What Hanna believes in is a higher standard of living for people like himself, while the hell with everyone else. And I find it interesting that Hanna wants to repeal Obamacare, while he himself enjoys free health care as a member of Congress, which is Govt. provided. For the elite, of course. Hanna should opt out of his taxpayer provided free health care, then he can run his mouth about Obamacare all he wants to.

RPP said...

Comments about typical Republicans have grown tiresome,at best. Obama care is bad legislation for everyone. By attempting to defy the law of supply and demand, it will drive up cost and lessen service for everyone. I'm not sure if Hanna contributes to his plan or not but to suggest that he somehow doesn't have the right to, in effect, represent his district and nation on this issue is foolish. It is his job for which he is being paid, including his fringe benefits. Class warfare rhetoric is petty and misleading.

Anonymous said...

Hanna is wealthy & can well afford to pay for his own health care. But no, he'd rather feed at the public trough while at the same time lambasting Obama's plan which provides the same health care coverage for the average citizen that he enjoys for free. The difference is that millions can't afford health care, but Hanna can, but gets a free ride at the public's expense. Pathetic.

Anonymous said...

I didn't say that Hanna couldn't represent his district. What I'm saying is that Hanna is getting free health care provided by his constituents thru tax revenue, while attempting to deny those very same taxpayers the same coverage that he's getting. To me that's blatent hypocricy any way you look at it. What's good for Hanna should be good for everyone else. And that goes for the rest of the Washington elitists.

Anonymous said...

Even if one accepts the premise that Hanna gets free health care, which is not certain, the arguement is pointless on a number of fronts. First,whatever Congressmen receive compensation prescribed by laws they themselves pass. They are elected by us. The solution to rectify Congressional pay is left to us based on our power to elect our representatives. Obamcare is a separeate issue and should be weighed on its own merits, or in actuallity,its detriments. Second, health care benefit packages are part of many employee/ employer arrangements. If my company pays half of my health care expense am I a hypocrate if I don't favor soemone paying for half of my neighbor's health care expenses? We pay a President a certain pay level an d fringes. Should each of us receive the same?

Anonymous said...

Hanna's & other Congressman's health care may be part of his benefit package, but they can opt out. Instead, he's letting the taxpayers foot the bill. This is typical of the aristocratic attitude in Washington, where politicians don't lead by example, but instead have an entitelemnt attitude taking full advantsge of the perks while moaning about social programs. Millions of people don't have health care while Hanna & his co-horts are getting a free pass.

Anonymous said...

Miilons of people also do not have trucks. Should Hanna surrender his because he gets mileage reimbursement as he travels the district?

Strikeslip said...

I think those trying to make an issue out of Mr. Hanna's personal health care choices -- trying to make him out to be some sort of hypocrite -- reflects poorly on the commenters. These are obviously cheap partisan shots that do not advance the conversation about what to do about health care.

My personal opinion is that I want the Feds completely out of it . . . and want them out of a lot of other aspects of my life. I know Mr. Hanna does not share that view and would like to bring about healthcare reform in a different way. That's OK with me.

It would be nice if people would be forced to leave their party labels on the Capitol steps and debate about specifics instead of trying to spin every little move or gesture into a "gotcha" opportunity. We would be a lot further ahead ... and might even solve some problems . . . like how are we going to pay for all our government programs?