19 March 2013 –
Odds ‘N Ends
Bill Maher is the comedian host of HBO’s “Real
Time”. His liberal screed against the
conservative right has played well on cable TV, but, just this week he also has
shown that when the fiscal hammer of liberalism hits him personally, he can
speak with a surprisingly conservative tone.
In a discussion with Rachel Maddow about the current fiscal crisis, ad
tedium, Mr. Maher countered Ms. Maddow’s attack on Republicans and
conservatives with the following:
“Here in California – I just wanted to say – liberals,
you could actually lose me. It’s
outrageous what we’re paying – over 50 percent.
I’m willing to pay my share, but yeah, I mean, it’s ridiculous.”
Mr. Maher. You are
willing to pay YOUR fair share of taxes?
Is that the fair share YOU decide is enough or the fair share President
Obama decides is never really enough for rich people to pay? I think you just answered that question. Welcome to individual accountability, personal
responsibility, and limited government as the model for society. Maybe there is a fiscal conservative in you
after all. Maybe you will now see why
property rights were among the primary rights that the Constitution was written
to defend. After these principles sink
in, maybe you will see that a fiscal conservative knows that a profligate
welfare/entitlement/nanny state erodes the moral fiber of the nation. Moral rights and wrongs are as much a part of
fiscal conservatism as they are a part of social conservatism. You may soon find that moral and fiscal
conservatism cannot be separated, no matter how many politicians and panderers
try to tease them apart for their own purposes.
Is it too soon to welcome you to the righteous fight, Mr.
Maher? Indeed, you could lose your show
on HBO and have to move to Fox News if you continue to make such outbursts as
you did the other day. Can you be as
funny as a conservative as you can be ridiculous as a liberal?
____
It looks like most Americans actually
don’t want all the harsh gun control bills that liberal politicians are trying
to pass through the Senate. Senator
Feinstein (D-CA) said that her controversial assault weapons ban will not be a
part of a Democratic gun control bill in the Senate next month. Her Democratic leaders felt that her desire
to ban 157 different models of weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines
would cause the overall bill to be defeated.
Her bill will have to be a separate bill.
Apparently, there are
Democratic senators up for reelection in 2014 in states where the Second
Amendment is considered important. These
senators would lose the election if they were asked to vote for such a
restrictive bill as the one Senator Feinstein proposed. It is obvious from all polls and voting
trends that most Americans do not want severe restrictions on their right to
own firearms. Even Senate Majority
Leader, Senator Reid sees that. Too bad
Senator Reid doesn’t understand why people feel that way, even in his home
state of Nevada.
There is one good, unintended consequence of sequestration. Local community services and programs that
used to be funded by the federal government are now the funding responsibility
of the local governments. I endorse
putting as many responsibilities for society on the lowest level of government
as possible; and, this tightening of the federal purse strings is forcing local
governments to face the serious questions of what they want to pay for, what
they must pay for, and what they can do without. Should property taxes go up so that previously
federal-funded health and social services can continue? On what popular services should local
government now impose fees in order to keep them going? Which programs are critical and which ones
are not? Many community leaders are
struggling with these questions. Gee
whiz, that sounds like what local government should be doing anyway. Federally imposed and funded programs destroy
the cohesion and local accountability of communities. Such money makes leaders lazy and not
responsible for the well-being of their citizenry. As painful as the sequestration of funds may
be in the short-term, it can only be good to put local decision-making back in
the hands of local citizens.
No comments:
Post a Comment