Nominated for Best New Political Blog of 2009

Weblogawards.Org

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Governor Paterson Battles Progressives in New York

There are moments in life that are just memorable like your first love, your wedding day or baby’s first step. Those things are indelibly etched into your brain because they are so very, very rare. Yesterday the New York Times published a story about New York Governor David Paterson lambasting the State legislature because they are spending New York into ruin. Wow!

Actually, this represents three very, very rare occasions. The first is seeing a career tax and spend Democrat actually facing the reality of a fiscal nightmare instead of trying to spend his way out of it; the second is that he laid the blame at the feet of other tax and spend Democrats instead of blaming Bush, Reagan or some new age planetary alignment and the third, the New York Times actually reported the story as news instead of lacing it with their usual brand of liberal spin. Weird huh?

New York is facing a fiscal crisis that took decades to create and is anticipating a seven billion shortfall for the coming year. Last year, New York barely escaped catastrophe, in part by federal stimulus aid, and yet state officials increased total spending by nearly nine percent, even as the economy continued to stall and State tax revenues plummeted. New York is the home to some of the highest taxes in the nation and that has cost them dearly. Businesses are relocating to areas where they are welcome instead of penalized and there has been a continuing exodus of the affluent as tax rates climb higher; a trend that began years ago because the State and City view New York taxpayers as an inexhaustible source of ready cash.

Paterson could adopt the usual liberal stance, throwing his hands in the air and reminding everyone that he inherited this mess from his predecessor. In fact, in his case it would be easy to do since he replaced a Governor that resigned in disgrace over a prostitution scandal. Even though Paterson is blind, he has displayed better vision in recent months than many of his associates at the State capitol. Hey, maybe he’s been “born again” and will be the next convert to the Republican Party but I doubt it. It’s just like the old saying that there are no atheists on a battlefield, if financial balance were miraculously restored to New York tomorrow; I would bet that he would start signing blank checks again.

Paterson is not popular but with a State budget in crisis, no governor would be. First, Paterson decried the need to bring State spending under control and urged the legislature to cut taxes or risk losing their biggest taxpayers to other states. Then he bucked pressure from the White House urging him not to run for reelection as the White House strategists claimed that it would be easier to retain Democratic control of the State with a new candidate running than it would be to try to get an incumbent reelected in the anti-incumbent climate of 2010. Now Paterson is taking the fight directly to the legislature and this time there were no niceties. There was no fluff or flourish as Paterson laid it on the line. He blamed the State’s financial crisis squarely where it belongs, with the legislature that writes the spending bills. The same legislature that refused to consider budget cuts when the piggy bank was found to be empty, and in fact, increased State spending while they “passed the hat around” in Washington hoping some sympathetic Senator would drop some loose change in it.

Washington apparently possesses the same fiscal common sense that the New York legislature does. As the national debt approached twelve trillion dollars, one would expect that the Federal government would have spent nights and weekends trying to find ways to reduce the weight of the Federal budget so we could begin to pay down our debt. That is what the American people must do when they are faced with a financial crisis. But no, our government nearly tripled the Federal budget, adding a record one point seven trillion dollars to the national debt in just one year. Instead of trying to reduce the debt, they spent their nights and weekends crafting a brand new entitlement bill under the guise of healthcare reform that will cost the American taxpayer an additional two point seven trillion dollars over ten years and that is only if the Medicare cuts in the legislation actually take place - which is something that Congress has never done no matter how many times they pledged that they would.

Thanks to the Socialist programs created under Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”, we now have a mandatory spending burden of over two point two trillion dollars before we even get to discretionary spending for things like national defense and just turning the lights on in the capitol building. In fact, the largest portion under mandatory spending is for Social Security which now costs more than defense spending. Now before the seniors start yelling I know that you’ve paid into Social Security all of your life and that money is yours; well at least it used to be. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The first time this nation needed “healthcare reform” marked the 1965 birth of Medicare and Medicaid under Lyndon Johnson. By 1968, both of those programs had swollen exponentially and vastly surpassed CBO estimates. As the threat of insolvency loomed on the horizon, the Federal Government emptied the cash out of the Social Security trust fund to save the “Great Society” and stuffed Social Security with IOU’s. Social Security was then made a part of the Federal budget with the thought that they will fix the problem later.

Well later never came and this new “fix” of healthcare reform can only guarantee that Medicare and Medicaid will survive until 2019 even though we are preparing to gut our entire healthcare system and the economic vitality of American business to pay for it. Only one thing is certain. Just as Governor Paterson warns New York, if we cannot restore balance to the government, this nation will cease to exist as we know it. President Bush tried to privatize Social Security during his administration and was castrated for it. Why?

If the Federal government had left Social Security alone back in 1968 it would have plenty of money to meet its obligations. It was a government run retirement plan and under a fiduciary, would have generated the same gains that private retirement plans enjoy; growing through a diverse portfolio of investments. To re-privatize Social Security would mean that the U.S. government would have to repay the IOU’s with interest and that would break the hearts of Progressive Democrats. If people were allowed to pay directly into their Social Security accounts again instead of into the general treasury, where would Progressives get the money they need to fund all of those really important projects like the Napa Valley wine train in Nancy Pelosi’s district, Marijuana and Malt liquor journals or my favorite, politically correct puppet shows in Minnesota? No I am not kidding, these were all pet projects hidden in the stimulus bill.

Congress is spending like they are on a drunken binge and now that we have a professor of “Saul Alinsky Theory” for a President; his twisted view of “social justice” has all but eliminated the need to even discuss fiscal responsibility. There are only two differences between New York and Washington right now. The first is that New York cannot print its own money and the second is that there is no one in Washington trying to stop this runaway train before it runs out of track. The Republican Congressmen can say what they want about the Obama administration but where were they when Bush was on his spending spree? Republicans lost control of Congress for the same reasons that Democrats are in trouble now. America has had enough and we will have no more. If the anti-incumbent fervor can maintain direction and focus, we may be looking at the first major overhaul of Congress and the direction of the nation since the United States Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.

What can we do with more than five-hundred unemployed members of Congress? While I would love to see every one of them living in cardboard boxes under a highway overpass; I suppose the humane thing to do is to put them in rehab and enroll them in a twelve step program for shopaholics before they go home and do to their families what they did to America.

Paul

No comments:

Post a Comment