Liberals LOVE bait and switch tactics. They debate one thing and when you disagree with them, they pretend they were talking about something else. You oppose making the Catholic Church give people free contraception so they can use it at the Daytonna Beach wet t-shirt contest and whore-off and they claim you really oppose letting people get medical treatment. You oppose abortion and they claim you want to force a woman whose life is in danger to have the baby. You want to balance the budget and they claim you’re actually on some kind of jihad against the free puppies for orphans program.
It’s always something.
…..Which brings us to their new favorite argument for government presented by Katrina vanden Heuvel.
It’s BS. As Congressman Barney Frank recently said, “I’ve never seen a tax cut put out a fire. I’ve never seen a tax cut build a bridge.”
Americans benefit every day from government—from consumer protection to roads and bridges to food and safety regulation—even people who claim to hate an “activist government” are some of the prime beneficiaries of the safety net at a moment when there are still over four unemployed workers for every available job and nearly one in six Americans lives in poverty.
But the GOP has wagered its future on ruthlessly and relentlessly attacking government—it isn’t about to let reality get in the way of its crusade.
Republican presidential candidates are tripping all over one another trying to prove who will take the biggest axe to government the quickest. So Mitt Romney labels regulations “the invisible boot of government to bring us all down” and argues that “we need to get the federal government out of education.” Rick Santorum fearmongers about “the narcotic of government dependency,” and Gingrich plays to old myths and racial stereotypes as he spreads lies about food stamps—one of the bright spots of the safety net in terms of responding to the needs of the Great Recession.
Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy is spot on in writing of Republican presidential plans to abolish the Environmental Protection Agency and FEMA, “So what happens when disaster strikes? Who comes to the rescue—the local church, the Rotary Club? Who ensures that our food is safe, the air and water clean?”
Understanding that government has always been fundamental to the success of individuals, businesses, communities and this nation is becoming a key issue in the 2012 election. Even if it must also be reclaimed from Super PACs, lobbyists, and Washington insiders, the problem isn’t “Big Government,” it’s Big Money capturing government.
No one has homed in on the need to reset the narrative on government more effectively than Elizabeth Warren who laid out her cogent argument simply and powerfully in a gritty video clip that went viral: “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. You built a factory? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”
What vanden Heuvel is touting here are the most basic functions of government, you know, the things we were doing 80 years ago, when the entire government took up 5% of the GDP. First off, the fact that the government is now pushing up near 25% of our GDP and the Left is still touting the same benefits we could get at 1/5 the cost should tell you a lot. But, of course, that’s the bait and switch. You want roads and a fire department, buddy? Well then, you must also be okay with the EPA declaring your backyard to be a swampland if it rains, Bridges to Nowhere, and trillion dollar stimulus programs that don’t work.
What Elizabeth Warren and Katrina vanden Heuvel are engaging in there is crazy cat lady thinking.
It’s thinking that says what’s the difference between having 2 cats and having 80? Why, if you oppose having all those animals, you must hate cats or something! Don’t you think it’s cute when the cats play with a ball of string? Don’t you want your house kept free of mice? Your prejudice and hatred of cats is astonishing and horrible! Then, of course, six months later, the crazy cat ladies have cat feces up to their ankles, half the cats are sick, and the city’s about to condemn their house as a public nuisance and they still don’t seem to understand the problem.
Having 2 cats is, for many people, preferable to having no cats just as having a republic is preferable to having anarchy. But, if you turn into a crazy cat lady and end up with way, way, way too many cats just as we have way, way, way too much government, a positive can turn into a nightmare. The single biggest problem the crazy cat lady has is her cats and the single biggest problem America has today is its own government.