WE CAN'T GET ENOUGH OF WHAT WE DON'T WANT
By Mary Starrett
March 7, 2009
Hand it to Obama, he sure gives a good speech. The silver tongued devil has an approval rating of 62% at the very same time 80% of those polled think things are going “badly” for the country.
It doesn’t make a bit of sense.
Neither does the recent poll that shows close to 60% believe government is the problem. Did this same 60% vote last time for incumbents or Washington insiders like Obama or McCain who agreed on issues more often than not? It would appear so. Why do American voters talk one way and vote another? We simply cannot get enough of that which we do not want. But, why?
We’re cowed into behaving as if we have no choice but to vote for those already in power. We’re convinced that we have to vote for incumbents 95% of the time even if we’re fuming over their voting records.
While Obama’s subjects are widely praising him after each speech, investors are registering their disapproval every time he opens his mouth.
The stock market tanked each time Obama stepped up to the mic to talk about his plans to “fix” the economy.
The day after the election the Dow dipped 5%. After the January 9th speech on why we must borrow and tax our way into debt via the $800 billion debt scheme called “Stimulus’, the stock market went down almost 2 %. Inauguration day saw a 4% drop and the day the market opened after the biggest check in history was signed, it tanked almost 4%.
By now you’ve read about the absurd spending in the ‘Stimulus’ package, you know about the tattoo-removal program, the dog parks in California and the Texas convention center.
One hefty pork product contained therein will dole out $7.2 billion to large telecommunications companies to provide internet broadband to rural areas.
That’s right. In addition to what you pay to have internet access you will be footing the bill so your friends in the country who are “underserved” can also get online faster.
Thing is, the big corporations have lobbied to keep the little ISP’s from getting a piece of the pork. So, instead of a tiny co-op getting grant money to expand broadband into an area with no access, Verizon lobbied a provision into the plan to make sure no “sole proprietors” are eligible! It’s business as usual in Washington where Obama has also paid back big labor and the teacher’s unions.
Broadband for those in the country is a good and worthwhile idea. I would especially like it because I live where only satellite internet gets me online-barring snow on the dish which sits perched on a corner of my roof. On those days if I can get out of my driveway I go to the library. A ‘hardship’ I do not expect my city neighbors to ameliorate because I chose to live on heavily forested moutaintop.
Like dog parks and convention centers, the Constitution does not permit our government to take money from one group to provide for another. It does not allow for domestic federal aid. We are being asked to assume the risk that those who live rurally should assume for themselves.
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
When Hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana, Americans were asked to assume the risk (again) for those who chose to live below sea level in a city sunk between a lake and the ocean. That socialization of risk has become so accepted that we’re no longer questioning it. If people want to contribute to flood-torn areas they should be all means do so, but money for flood victims or those with no high speed internet access is not, as Congressman Davy Crockett heard a constituent tell him- “Not yours to give.”
� 2009 Mary Starrett - All Rights Reserved