Whether Boomer pundits such as Gail Collins like it or not, someday, we're going to have to get serious in political circles.
No more talking nonsense, like dogs strapped to the roofs of cars, and wives strapped to hospital beds served with divorce papers. That's for those who want to divert our focus.
Serious financial choices are ahead -- some that might seem to pit young against old, native-born against immigrants, "old money" against newly earned.
Like it or not,
we're going to have to talk entitlements -- all government entitlements, those going to the old and young, the rich and the struggling, the upper-classes and the lower.
I say like it or not, because some are determined to inject race into the talk, and therefore, think they can dominate discussion. Nope. One day, we'll have to face the numbers and realize: demographically and financially, the budget needs a-fixin'.
We can play games, you know, as in selective editing...
But personally? I like what I'm hearing.
I too am not concerned about the very poor. The government need not take on a bigger charity care role. Those on monthly government checks might have a lower quality of life, but nobody's starving. If anything, they're getting overfed with factory food, thanks to free food stamp programs that encourage empty caloric consumption.
Not all.
Plenty of people on food stamps budget wisely. And again, please don't talk about race, but numbers. If more and more people are to access our disability rolls, and need financial help to feed their families, that needs to be addressed.
As does the coming troubles of aging Boomers. If our current entitlement guarantees are kept, we will paying for their health bills, and their retirement needs, out of the pockets of taxpayers to come.
Can we talk about that?
Again, the "safety net" programs for the very poor are already in place. Not much, but survival level. But in years to come?
How can we continue growing an entitlement class -- and again, I point you to those aging demographic numbers and upper-middle-class entitlements via government promises and tax shelters. Let the special interests squawk about race all they like -- this really isn't about black people or brown people or poor white trash.
It's about the numbers.
Don't you see that?
President Obama promised he'd start a national conversation on race, to move us forward past our discomforts, to help some "get over" and recognize their role with no special conditions attached. Honest competition.
Truth be told? I'm not much worried about the upper-middle-class black offspring either. With special programs like affirmative action, much like "equal" outcomes guaranteed for special-education and disabled children in our school districts, they've got plenty of non-profit and government-grant-supported programs advocating for their special needs. Plus, special protection legislation that you'd don't dare cross, lest you be charged with "hate crime" enhancers, big lawsuits, and accusations of not caring about the lowliest in our society.
We can quibble about whether or not the offspring of middle-class black folk heading off to colleges really need special financial enhancements, or special admissions policies to "help offset their cultural disadvantages". But let's not, now...
Let's talk about the middle-class working people above the poverty line, who don't rely long-term on government programs and help to pay their bills. Somebody needs to lead this economy, to open up more opportunities for honest competition. So that meritorious ideas and honest efforts, and most importantly -- RESULTS -- are rewarded, and not condemned, overly taxed, or criticized for positive performance.
Let's face it:
Mitt Romney is a "clean" candidate. No Clinton/Schwarzenegger/Kennedy/Gingrich multiple-sexual extra curriculars will be found. I'd guarantee that.
And though the media is trying their darndest,
there's no blatant racial discrimination or special-interest backroom deals that will come to light, casting questions about the man's character. (Extreme pet lovers, who've never seen a dog ride in the open back of a pickup, aside...)
Mostly, there's a history of success in business, playing by the established rules. There's a track record not only of hard work, but of RESULTS, in governing and organization leadership.
(Aside: might I remind you of those of us who pointed out this was definitely lacking in the resume of young, junior senator, candidate Obama? Results have borne us out: he seemed to have lacked the will to take the reins, and instead was "talked into" some pretty poor domestic policies that clearly are not what the economy currently needs...)
Honestly, if you listen, enough of the Democrat pundits tell you they're cheering for Gingrich, hurling their racial/poor accusations at the party as a whole, denigrating the discourse deliberately. I don't think it's gonna stick on candidate Romney though.
You may say he's unlikeable. That he's not from a "warmer" culture, like yours perhaps. But you really have to have some solid evidence if you're trying to spin the man into Mr. Evil, instead of wealthy Grandpa and Latter Day Saint.
Collins' pitch today was weak.
We all know, in this 24-hour media day, what was missing in the ...
The only people who will be convinced by her appeal to emotion are those already solidly in the pro-Obama camp, who have convinced themselves to look past all his job performance faults, because ... gawd forbid we elect a competent Republican to the job.
I don't know.
I'm clearly a political independent by now. I listen, I read, I think about what I see, who needs help, and who is more likely to prove a positive investment in the America of tomorrow.
We can take care of the needs of the very poor, sure. And the elderly -- rich and poor, and the various family configurations out there who need the government to step in and play Papa (or Mama) because some man or woman isn't able to meet their own family's financial needs.
But this surely isn't where we expect the productivity that will lift other societal boats, and produce a positive return on our rate of investment. No, this is government as charity. Give sure, but don't expect ever to be "paid back".
Romney is right not too worry too much about those whose basic needs are met already by government programs. He's right to call for more fiscal discipline, and an end to perverse incentives that take no account of the growing demands placed on middle-class pocketbooks.
The rise in the price of gas; daily commodities like milk, eggs and butter; the low interest rates, that do nothing to encourage long-term savings and investment, over immediate consumption...
Some will tell you the recession is over, good times are back again, and time to stop thinking so cautiously, to spend and buy our way back into happiness -- nevermind the growing government programs and individual economic freedoms and choices that are being curtailed as the government demands more and more into our private lives to pay for their promises.
I'd like to have an honest conversation about our immigration policy first, way before we extend any additional government healthcare programs. If you have undocumented, unprotected lower-class workers, you can expect poor labor conditions and further need for emergency treatment care. For their soon-to-be born children, and their own health needs. Would you be so callous to call them "free riders"?
You know, the people -- were they recognized American citizens not falling into the ranks of the "very poor" -- who would be called to contribute to private insurance company profits under the Individual Mandate? If the fix doesn't truly address the problem, and then there's that federal Constitutionality thing as well, why not promise to reverse course while there's still time?
Substance-wise, I like what Mr. Romney is saying. I think a lot of us out here, who don't fall into some minority special-interest category, do. I'm not so sure that pandering to the worser angels of our nature will do the trick, Ms. Collins.
I'm not sure, exactly, what price the country will pay if it did. I assure though though, it's not going to be a positive gain, only a cheap short-term victory, trying to divide us up like this.
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
