I am tired of the political blogging. If you can watch this president at this time--torture defending, war hawking, crony hiring, etc.--and still see him as a good Christian or even good President, then I don't know what to say.
But on the way home, I listened to NPR, and heard this story on the National parks and their effort to attract private donations. Some congressman said that it needed to happen. After all, the government couldn't afford it, so the private sector would have to be recruited.
Reminds me of what we have been saying all along. Cut taxes, expand the debt and then shrug about some government expenditure. "Environmental cleanup? Love to, but we don't have any money." "National parks as national legacy? Love to, but see we spent all this money on Halliburton and invading Iraq--to say nothing of the tax breaks for the hard working people at Enron. Can't afford it, sorry. Have to sell Old Faithful to Shell Oil."
The Republicans really, really suck.
1 comment:
I think you are partially right. The drive toward privatization and toward public-private partnerships, is the product of an often implicit debate about the proper role of government, particularly the federal government.
Philosophically, this can be an interesting discussion touching on such key themes as the balance between individual freedom and social responsibility. That's a worthwhile discussion, but bit highbrow for a lot of folks. There are only a few normal people who enjoy discussing such abstractions. Everyday people understand being broke, though, so that's an effective means to get the message out.
Rhetorically, this causes confusuion between cause and effect. Taxes have been slashed to reflect dominant Republican ideals of small government, but this is usually pitched to the public as sorry, we can't afford that. Whether this is sleight of hand or effective communication is a different question altogether.
Post a Comment