Interesting that my buddy Chris is willing to link to Fox News, since it’s such an unreliable source. 😉 I’m not sure why he wants to classify Fox News as part of the MSM, except that a lot more people watch FNC for their news than MSLSD or CNN. But ok…Fox News is now part of the hypocritical double standard where the MSM doesn’t call Iraq and Afghanistan socialistic enterprises, but it criticizes Obama for wanting to spend US taxpayer dollars on solving global poverty. One of these should be under the umbrella of necessary foreign policy, and one of them should not be. We disagree on whether the US role in rebuilding Iraq is a good investment in a positive outcome for Iraq or whether it’s just government wasting our money on useless nation-building — and thus no more useful than Obama’s efforts to finance the end of world poverty.
I’m not missing any such point. If the MSM sees a difference between our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and what Obama is proposing with the Global Poverty Act, it’s probably because there is one. If your intention is to shoot a specific messenger, you might want to get a more accurate gun. If Barack is being misrepresented, that’s not my fault. That’s not the fault of the MSM or Fox News. That’s his campaign’s fault. But I’m getting off of the subject here…
I called the bailouts socialism, while acknowledging my lack of expertise on the subject of the financial markets. You can choose to see this as a cop-out, or as an excuse for me not to be too hard on President Bush. That’s your opinion, and you are welcome to it. You can spin all you want to, but even you do not know what Barack Obama will do once he’s President. He could decide to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus the war funding would continue.
But let’s say you’re right — that we suddenly have all the Iraq and Afghanistan money to play with.
Let’s talk about what the priorities of the federal government should be, and what the mandate of the federal government should be under a Democrat or a Republican administration. First and foremost, the President’s responsibility is to protect American citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic. That’s priority one no matter who wins the election. Then there’s the building of domestic infrastructure and allocating resources to regulatory agencies ensuring safety of consumer goods, etc. There are some agencies that need to exist, and quite a few that don’t need to exist. I believe that the federal government has far more apples to juggle than it has the ability or resources to handle effectively, so its focus should be much more narrow than it is right now. In addition to that, bailing out all these private industries has taken a big chunk out of the government checkbook, giving us even more debt to put on the books, and to pass along to the citizenry.
Given the state of our economy, is it responsible to expand government spending, whether on domestic programs or on additional foreign aid? No, and both John McCain and Barack Obama should adjust to this reality and agree to freezes and / or reductions in government spending. Will they? I doubt it. Every political party likes to give away more and more government money to attempt to buy the vote of the taxpayer.
That’s why, while I’m sympathetic to the argument of shared sacrifice during a time of war, I think the federal government should have to spend less on non-essential wishlist items while they are taking more of my money. Not so unreasonable in my view. Coming under the non-essential wishlist item category would be the Global Poverty Act. We all have an individual moral obligation to help our fellow man and to share our good fortune with those in need. The federal government should be somewhat amoral when it comes to initiatives like this. Charity works best in the private sector — where the donations are voluntary, not taken out of our paychecks by force. It’s not the government’s responsibility to make sure every child in the world, or even in this country, gets 3 square meals a day. It’s not the responsibility of the feds to ensure every American health care or a job. Barack Obama wants to continue to move this country toward increased dependence on the provision of Washington bureaucrats and the feds. He also has an alarming desire to please the UN by adopting their Millenium Development Goals into his Global Poverty Act. Call that whatever you want to call it, but I call it a step in the wrong direction.
And for the record, I never said that the Global Poverty Act had been passed. 🙂