HAYS, Kan. - My, oh my, oh my. Are the talking heads ever having a gabfest over President Barack Obama's proposed new budget. But I look at it this way. It took President George W. Bush eight years to tax-cut and spend us into this giant hole we're in, and it'll take the current President eight years to tax and save us out of it. And he won't win any popularity contests in the process.
Yesterday, Diane Sawyer reported on ABC's evening news that two out of three Americans polled do not want to see planned US space missions to Mars and the moon abandoned in order to save money. They may be right; they may be wrong. But I want to ask that vocal majority the same question I wanted to ask the majority that supported the invasion of Iraq seven years ago. Would you want your taxes to rise in order to pay for this?
Speaking of wars and such, I remember how broad and deep was the public's early support for the war in Iraq. I could hardly enter a restaurant anywhere in Hays without overhearing loud enthusiastic conversations about how we were going to "get Saddam." Then before the actual decision to invade was reached, I attended a modest anti-war demonstration held on the courthouse lawn in Hays. A Vietnam war veteran spoke against the planned war, and so did the father of a son then in the military. Later a woman who had driven several miles to be present got up to speak during the open-mike session. She, too, had a son in the military, and she basically scolded the gathering for not supporting the troops. Heck, I was there precisely TO support them. I didn't want their lives and good health risked on such a reckless, unneeded venture.
Anyway, these days I find myself wondering about something. Why is it so easy to whip up public enthusiasm for wrecking human lives and so hard to obtain it for repairing them? I mean, why of all things did it take a health care bill to rile up all the deficit hawks? Where were they when the cost of war in Iraq eventually reached a billion dollars a month?
"Why is it so easy to whip up public enthusiasm for wrecking human lives and so hard to obtain it for repairing them?"
You don't suppose the disparate representation of wealthy family representatives in the field to topple Saddam had any bearing do you? They weren't being required to furnish the man power or the money. And, there is money to be made for investors in the production of war machinery and supplies.
You don't suppose it's because the wealthy had far less to gain with health care reform than the poor folks? Reality tells them that eventually someone has to pay and when there is no significant reason to think their investments would benefit directly from health care reform, why should they borrow money and make their children pay later with the inheritance they were leaving them.
Greed and lack of compassion is quite evident.