Cain's "sexual harassment"?

[rosebud]

Yes.

Perfect answer for a politician.

[bae]

Perfect answer for a politician.

Nope. It was pithy, accurate, and complete. And didn't fall prey to "the tyranny of the 'or'".

[rosebud]

There’s a good opinion piece on this in today’s Wall Street Journal . Scrape off the class envy and libertarian rhetoric, and its at base a conflict of visions. I think Grover Norquist does the country a service in the way he helps highlight the stark philosophical difference between the two parties. The democrats believe they can keep the Entitlement State rolling with some fine-tuning and additional tax revenues. The republicans seem to think the current path is unsustainable no matter how high taxes go. It’s hard to see much room for compromise at this point. They’ll just have to let the voters resolve it. Failing that, the financial markets eventually will.

You don't know much about Grover Norquest do you?

He is on record as saying that he would like to "drown government in the bathtub." All his will is bent towards that goal.

And one way to do that is to virtually eliminate taxes. No money, no government. No government, more money in our pockets, more FREEDOM, right?


Here essentially is the Grover Norquist economic vision for America:

1. Minimal government, minimal taxes. The government/society exists first and foremost to protect the individual's right to accumulate and maintain wealth. We "Simplify" the tax system. That means either a flat tax on everyone or a national sales tax. It's fairer and eliminates the bureaucracy of the IRS.

What should federal government provide?

1. Military protection (this might encompass CIA, border protection, anti-terrorist stuff).
2. Infrastructure for copyright and patent protection.
3. Maintenance of interstate waterways or whatever constituted "interstate commerce" 200 years ago.
4. Diplomatic services for US interests internationally

Everything else should be abolished, privatized or pushed back to the individual. No more DOE, EPA, DOA, FTC, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, farm subsidies, etc.


Local level:

1. Criminal Justice System (cops, courts, prisons)
2. Fire protection (but only if you pay the voluntary fee)
3. Whatever else local governments agree to provide, which should be nothing because rich people don't really the government to provide public schools, sanitation, parks, universities, medical care, libraries, buses, road maintenance, recreational programs etc. Of course all these services can be privatized and/or provided per user fees as well.


The moral reasoning behind this vision the transfer of wealth in any way is communist and tantamount to slavery. Rich folks shouldn't have to work hard to pay anything for poor folks, that's involuntary servitude since their labor goes towards the benefit of other people. Just like in the bad old days. So, high taxes = slavery for the rich.

This outlines what constitutes "Freedom" under that vision. Rich folks don't have to pay a lot of taxes. Everybody pays the same percentage of their income, and no redistribution of wealth occurs in any way.

2. The second part of that vision, of "Freedom"

The free market of course. If the market shakes off the burden of government intrusion, it will blossom into it's full economic potential and provide for everyone. We don't need any regulations because the market will magically resolve any problems or issues.

The only thing you need to succeed then is your own hard work. Anyone can be a millionaire! The freedom for any individual to become a millionaire and keep virtually all the money is the most important economic paradigm of this country.

So, if you don't prosper, you haven't worked hard enough or availed yourself of the proper opportunities provided by the free market.

Charity will fill in the gaps, and charity is okay because it is voluntary. Just remember, the government is not a philanthropic organization! So, that is why we have to cut government to the bone! (Credit to Michele Bachmann for that one).


With Grover Norquist's help, God willing, we will all soon be FREE!


The moral vision of the people who don't agree with Grover Norquist is basically this: social compact. We join together to take care of each other. This vision is not centered on wealth protection, it is centered on the welfare of human beings. It is essentially utilitarian. Society should work to maximize everybody's happiness, help to reduce everybody's suffering. This does NOT mean society can guarantee happiness or that nobody suffers, only that resources go towards that end. So, if there's a whole bunch of folks who are suffering in society and only a few who are prospering, society is not serving its function. The practical aspects of government's role in this must change as conditions conditions change. The need is not for bloated bureaucracies, but government programs that address the problems and aspirations of the majority of people.

This is the moral imperative for higher taxes on the wealthy.

So, you see, it really does come down to this: A society based on the primacy of property, which ultimately tends to favor those who have property, or a society based on the primacy of meeting at least the basic needs of human beings.

[jp1]

There’s a good opinion piece on this in today’s Wall Street Journal . Scrape off the class envy and libertarian rhetoric, and its at base a conflict of visions. I think Grover Norquist does the country a service in the way he helps highlight the stark philosophical difference between the two parties. The democrats believe they can keep the Entitlement State rolling with some fine-tuning and additional tax revenues. The republicans seem to think the current path is unsustainable no matter how high taxes go. It’s hard to see much room for compromise at this point. They’ll just have to let the voters resolve it. Failing that, the financial markets eventually will.

If only the republicans showed any interest in cutting the amount of government spending outside of this country maintaining our empire, one of the largest budget items in the federal budget, I'd at least have some interest in what they might have to say. Until that time, though, their talk is just a bunch of hot air. We certainly didn't see any budget cuts happen during the last republican administration. The only republican who actually wants to cut the federal budget is Ron Paul.