As the primary season is now in full-swing, we’re seeing candidates promise more and more stuff to more and more people; Romney won Michigan in part by claiming he’ll save their jobs, fix the economy and cure cancer (OK, the last one is a joke). McCain, meanwhile, gave the answer some jobs aren’t coming back, but we’ll invest and create new jobs. Guess which message is more popular? Romney’s of course. But we should not elect a president because he tells us what we want to hear, we need to elect a president who tells the truth (That’s why we’ve eliminated Romney from consideration — what exactly does he believe? Do you get pro-choice Romney, or pro-life Romney? And so on. He lacks stability in policy and doesn’t appear to have any conviction to his positions, saying anything for votes. But we digress).
If you’ve followed the auto industry you know they’re in trouble. McCain is likely right — some jobs won’t be back. But through education and new technology different jobs will emerge — it’s not hopeless, but the return to the old days where the big three dominated is unlikely. Yet Romney won because he told people what they wanted to hear (not necessarily the truth).
We expect Democrats to always have the biggest giveaways, and they never disappoint. It’s been the Republicans who have been for fiscal responsibility. But that ship has sailed, never to return.
What we need is a candidate who will tell it like it is, not what’s popular. As Michelle Malkin says:
I need a man. A man who can say “No.” A man who rejects Big Nanny government. A man who thinks being president doesn’t mean playing Santa Claus. A man who won’t panic in the face of economic pain. A man who won’t succumb to media-driven sob stories.
A man who can look voters, the media, and the Chicken Littles in Congress in the eye and say the three words no one wants to hear in Washington: Suck. It. Up.
The Michigan primary put economics at the top of the political radar screen, and the Democrat presidential candidates have been doling out spending proposals, stimulus packages, housing market rescues, and other election-year-goodie pledges like Pez candy dispensers gone haywire. Which leading GOP candidate represents fiscal accountability and limited government? Who will take the side of responsible homeowners and responsible borrowers livid at bipartisan bailout plans for a minority of Americans who bought more house than they should have and took out unwise mortgages they knew they couldn’t repay?
At last week’s FoxNews debate, the He-Men of the GOP field went all mealy-mouthed when asked about the signs of recession. Mitt Romney asserted our need to “stop the housing crisis.” Does he mean the government should insulate borrowers and lenders from culpability? Continue to artificially prop up housing prices? If so, why? If not, then what?
With all this giveaway, we should remember the words written long ago:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. [Author Unknown for sure, it’s been attributed to several people]
Romney’s Michigan win is a classic I-promise-the-most-so-vote-for-me tactic. And it worked. If he’s the great businessman and savior he claims, he should know reckless fiscal policy is always bad. But of course, he’ll leave that for someone else to clean up later — they always do. Let’s hope voters in South Carolina don’t fall for snake oil.
Giveaways are popular with the voters, but poor fiscal policy only causes more problems later on. We’ve given up hope for the Democrats and fiscal responsibility, but the Republicans are a big disappointment.
Oops, the TV’s on and it’s time for the next contestant on The Great American Giveaway …