McCain may not be with conservatives on many social issues, but he’s definitely with us on fiscal issues. He’ll at least work hard to keep America from going broke.
Three articles across the internet today highlight the heart of this issue: the willingness of the candidates to spend money which you’ve given them in self-serving pork projects.
Buying votes with your cash.
First, from the Washington Post: Candidates Earmarks Worth Millions:
Working with her New York colleagues in nearly every case, [Sen. Hillary] Clinton [(NY)] supported almost four times as much spending on earmarked projects as her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), whose $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed.
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the likely GOP presidential nominee, was one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending.
In the Boston Herald (winner of todays Most Absolutely Annoying And Alliterative Headline: Blustering Bubba Blasts Barak for Babbling Baloney) editorial, The Race For Earmarks, the editors note that Hillary sent $342 million to her own constituents, putting her in the top ten porkers. McCain, on the other hand, was against earmarks before that was even beginning to become popular.The porkers which inhabit Washington desire power. It is not altruism which drives them, but instead a compelling desire to get as many people subscribing to their ascendancy by giving them money.
But whose money do they use? Yours.
If it were their money there would not be an issue, except for the ethical implications of graft and cronyism and what they say of the character of the individual engaging in them.
Further insight into the candidates philosophies can be seen in who they get money for:
As a campaign issue, earmarks highlight significant differences in the spending philosophies of the top three candidates. Clinton has repeatedly supported earmarks as a way to bring home money for projects, while Obama adheres to a policy of using them only to support public entities.
McCain is using his blanket opposition to earmarked spending as a regular line of attack against Clinton, even running an Internet ad mocking her $1 million request for a museum devoted to the Woodstock music festival. Obama has been criticized for using a 2006 earmark to secure money for the University of Chicago hospital where his wife worked until last year.
McCain, for his seeming contempt for many social-conservative causes, respects the citizenry enough to protect their investment in government.
It reminds me of the story of Davy Crockett, who, when a disaster struck his home state while he was a member of Congress, and his constituents begged that he send federal money to help the stricken area, said that he would not.
He stated that money spent by the government can only be used in ways which benefit ALL citizens equally.
If only more in the current crop of public
megalomaniacs servants would espouse this truism.
But the porkers currently running for the Democrat nomination do not.
The Scheming Communist Operative, Hillary, does what is best for her and only, ever, what is best for her. If this involves giving your money to someone she thinks can pave her way to power, that’s what she does.
The Idyllic Communist, Obama, only gives to “worthy causes”.
The problem is, people (you and I) are much more efficient and effective at getting money to worthy causes:
- We are better at choosing those causes which are actually worthy.
- We’re less likely to be duped in significant numbers and for substantial amounts of money than the government with its fat-handed largess.
- And it doesn’t cost as much for us to get our money to those causes which are worthy, so more money gets to them overall and less is wasted in the endless iterations of bureaucracy.
Hillary is a smart (not intelligent, just smart) and conniving operative with one goal, her own supremacy.
Obama is an intelligent and misguided idealist. He wants to solve all the world problems, but everything he claims for his plans have all been tried before, and failed. Over and over again.
The picture which comes to mind is that of Kranzy October, the Russian Revolution in “Red” October of 1917.
The idealists, mostly young Russians, many of the Jewish Russians seeking a Utopian society free of the perceived inequities of the Tzarist system followed headlong into the dismal black of Communist Russia. The smart ones saw chance of personal aggrandizement and turned coat. Spying on their idealist brethren and reporting false crimes until they were the only ones surviving. Lenin rose to power in this era not through altruism and idealism but through corruption and power-lust, scheming and buying his way to the top.
Hillary is a Lenin-type, while Obama is a type of the dead idealists.
Both are dead wrong in their goals, but each have their own reasons, methods, and paths to achieve the death of our Great Nation.
Obama is not naive, but he is not a leader.
Check his closet for skeletons.