Friday, April 29, 2011

Shameless, Boundless Hypocrisy

Richter Should Have Made a Gall Scale
Just when it seems that the Left couldn't possibly best their own record for chutzpah, they reach down deep and go for the gold. In the latest news cycle it is being reported that "Progressives" are disrupting town hall meetings being conducted by Republicans such as Paul Ryan, the architect of a budget bill that has, among others, in a lather. is reporting on an email sent to members from MoveOn titled "payback time" in which the Liberal group encourages its members to disrupt town hall meetings while remaining "civil". What is particularly ironic is both the Republicans' reference to the action as "astroturfing", and the Left's visceral reaction to the charge.

Much of the outrage from the Left is directed at the House-passed version of Ryan's budget proposal, but the reasoning of Leftist groups is nothing short of astounding. While the Left may be sincere in their collective loathing of any attempt to reduce the role of government as nanny to all, their indignation at the astroturf label is comical in light of Nancy Pelosi's charge against the Tea Party, which has since been proven false. (No news organization has been able to pinpoint any particular group as guiding the genuine ire of ordinary Americans).

When made aware of the charges that there was a carefully orchestrated effort by her side, Lauren Weiner, a spokesman for Americans United for Change perfectly illustrated that if hypocrisy could be measured on a seismic level, Richter's scale would prove tragically inadequate. "I think that's ridiculous", she claimed, punctuating her point with "the anger is real."

The theoretical Hypocrisy Scale would have shattered on the following point made by Ms. Weiner, however. Complaining that the House of Representatives -- now controlled by Republicans -- passed the Ryan budget two weeks ago while the details were still a mystery to many people, she uttered the following:
"We think the anger is going to grow. The more they learn about it, the angrier they're going to get."
Did Ms. Weiner sleep through the week that the Democrat-controlled House rolled the American people like a mugger might a suburban father of three in an urban alley?  Did she somehow manage to miss then-Speaker Pelosi uttering the infamous "We have to pass the bill so that you can, uh, find out what is in it."? And is there any chance in this Hell in which we now reside that anyone in the media will notice this glaring hypocrisy, or that if they do, will actually mention it?

Highly unlikely would be the correct answer, but one must marvel at the brazen machinations of the Progressive operatives who now feel that they can abandon their "black ops" brand and move freely in the sunlight with impunity. The reason that evil often fails is that its proclivity is to jump the gun through over-confidence.

Independents are who got Obama elected, and it is the Indy group that has swung so dramatically away from not only Obama, but the entire Democratic agenda. The Democrats had their day in the sun. The Progressive movement had a brief share in that day and they squandered it, foolishly thinking that the fruit was ripe for picking. Now they will either pay the price at the ballot box and go away, or throw off the last cloak of civility and make their final lunge at dictatorship.

Perhaps the Left will go so far as to attempt a perverted version of a theocracy, reminiscent of Iran, with the entrenched Democrat officials serving as a sort of store-front parliament while the controlling mullahs are represented by outfits like Nothing would offer the pungent scent of hypocrisy and the bitter taste of irony any better.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Liberals' License to Lie Revoked

Time to Expose the Myth
Terrified of the coming storm of the Conservative Renaissance -- most likely in part because of the evidence exhibited in the mid-term melt down of the Democrat Party -- Liberals are preemptively rushing to the forefront of 2012 with charges of racism at the ready.

As President Barack Hussein Obama feverishly chips away at the foundation of this country, and the electorate becomes ever increasingly alarmed, the prospect of a one term presidency becomes more apparent. And Liberals are desperate to maintain power. Meanwhile, the race is on as to whether America survives the onslaught, and the outcome of that race hinges on the rhetorical success of lying Liberals.

Ed Schultz of MSNBC fame recently castigated Donald Trump over his audacity in questioning Obama's legitimacy for office and his academic achievements. Fair enough if that was as far as it went, but Schultz wasn't happy with a mere chance at the high ground; he had to punctuate the attack with the charge of racism.  True to Liberal form, when your argument is weak, bolster it with emotion and -- as is often the case with Leftists -- lies to remove all doubt.

Likewise, Whoopi Goldberg said yesterday on  The View , that she was "playing the damn [race] card now". Howard Dean continues to portray the Republican Party as a racist institution, and Democrats in general use the notion like a leash to retain the minority voting base. In fact, the Joseph Goebbels-like propagation of the right wing racism myth has effortlessly made the Tea Party an automatic target of the Left's ire, and the only way to refute the charge is to have a member of a minority actually attend a rally.

One such person is Carmen Guillermo of Amercan Thinker, who recently wrote of her personal revelation in an article titled  My Journey to Conservatism. Guillermo, of Mexican descent, is a reformed Liberal who shook off the chains of misinformation; a woman once certain that Conservatives hated black people, brown people, yellow people, and generally anyone who wasn't white. She learned the truth first hand by visiting a local Tea Party rally, and became enlightened in the process, now wondering how she could have been so wrong. I wonder the same thing.

The Democrat Party was formed with White supremacy as its philosophy, while the Republican Party was devoted to the abolition of slavery. It was Republicans who fought valiantly to ultimately overcome the Democrats repeated filibusters to adopt the 14th Amendment and 15th Amendment, which sought to give Blacks the rights to due process and to vote.

In fact, in the mid 1800's, the Democrats identified themselves as "the white man's party" and criticized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated". Ironically, the south was controlled by Democrats who fought to maintain slavery, and they used every tactic imaginable to retain power. According to a PBS series titled  The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow* : 

Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats "redeemed" state after state -- sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.
It seems some things never change. The Democrats are not only still cheating, they are still slave owners. The only difference between then and now is that the slaves do not realize that they are captives because these days the Democrats use the velvet shackles of false compassion. It is only when these minorities manage to wander off the plantation and personally witness the splendor they have been convinced does not exist that they are freed.

Just ask Carmen Guillermo.


Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, April 24, 2011

A Not-So-Brave New World

The New American Mascot
Sorry, fearsome bald eagle, you're now just another bird hovering perilously above the parameters of our endangered species list. Your services are no longer required in the representation of American strength, and we may just have no further need of your image at all since our official image now seems better represented by the Cowardly Lion from The Wizard of Oz.

Our very system of justice seems to have been turned on its ear, rejecting the basic freedom of speech Americans have enjoyed for several centuries. Worse than that, it seems that speech once viewed as unthinkable has been supported and even encouraged while reason has been outlawed by the courts and its citizen jury pool. Our own neighbors have been co-opted as cowards.

This collective cowering is the direct result of the insane violence exhibited by Muslims who simply have no tolerance for criticism, even as we are implored to show...tolerance for others beliefs. So it is that Florida pastor Terry Jones recently found himself imprisoned for simply planning to protest outside a Michigan mosque. While Jones' burning of the Qur'an last month could reasonably be called stupid and unproductive, his right as an American to do so should have been vigorously defended.

But Jones was roundly and universally condemned for his actions, and recently found himself and his associate pastor, Wayne Sapp, incarcerated for refusing to post a one dollar bond. One might argue that the law is the law, and that refusal to post bond will certainly result in jail time. The point here, however, is that Jones and Sapp should never have been in the position of having to post bond in the first place.

It seems that demonstrations and protests were all well and good when it was only the Left who engaged in those activities. Now that Conservatives have finally awakened and are exercising their right to protest, suddenly it has become "dangerous or provocative" and something which must be stopped, even though there is nothing illegal about it. Why isn't Code Pink forbidden to protest at military recruiting centers in Berkeley, California for example? Perhaps it is because there is no fear that military members will riot, burning and looting the town.

Bagram Air Force Base, Afghanistan
It is the same with Christians who see their symbols mocked, mistreated and maligned, yet there are no riots. In 2008 a church in the United States raised money and sent a shipment of bibles to Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan. Worried that the Holy books might be distributed amongst the general population, our military burned them for fear of angering local Muslims. Notice the complete absence of concern that Christians would be angered at having their Holy book burned.

All of this begs the question: Is the simple path to Shar'ia law in the United States violence unless implemented? If our citizens and our courts need to jail people simply for protesting out of fear that Muslims here will become violent, what is stopping Muslims from rioting unless we all adopt their laws and way of life?

Years ago it was common for people to post a "beware of dog" sign in their yards. It was designed to keep people from entering the yard uninvited. It was a successful deterrent until someone had the bright idea -- after getting bit -- that the owner's sign was an admission that the dog was dangerous, thereby directing the blame at the owner rather than the trespasser.

Isn't the notion equally applicable here, then? We acknowledge openly that Muslims are dangerous and must be treated with kid gloves. Here, in our own home we must tread lightly for fear of angering a volatile portion of our population. Yet we lack the courage to place the onus squarely where it belongs precisely because we already know the potential consequences.

Likewise, along the Mexican border, our government warns it's own citizens to "avoid certain areas" because they have been overrun by Mexican drug cartels. Rather than stand up and expel these unlawful intruders, we are advised to cede portions of our country because it may be too dangerous to enter them. Once the most powerful nation on Earth that no one dared attack through force, America is now being defeated incrementally, both territorially and ideologically. And our politicians don't seem to care.

Former Symbol of America
So I am sorry, Mr. Eagle. You served us well for as long as we'd have you, but it now seems that courage has been replaced by obsequiousness. I am forced to wonder why we even bothered to save you.

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, April 16, 2011

Why Did the Turtle Cross the Road?

How much would you pay to save him?
Perhaps the most obvious answer to the title question would be, "because he hadn't yet received taxpayer money to safely traverse it underneath".

As our country grapples with a severe debt, the in-your-face debate revolves around the question of where to cut spending. Politicians and pundits hand-wring while claiming to understand the angst of the American people in general, and the Tea Party in particular, pretending to understand that concern but not quite grasping the concept.

The Liberal reaction to our demands of less spending is to demagogue and vilify. "Why do you hate children?" and "Why do you want to kill seniors?" are common taunts, when any sane person realizes that they are ridiculous accusations. Yet, the easily shamed are quickly tamed, and acquiesce to the demands of more spending without question. And they are so easily fooled.

For example, it is common for politicians to claim a reduced increase in spending is a "cut". It doesn't matter to the average Joe - who garners all of his knowledge from thirty second sound bites on television - that spending of his hard earned taxes is still going up. If it involves a "cause" he's been conditioned to endorse, he'll only "know" that the bad guys "slashed" funding for it.

One must wonder if that same person would feel like he's getting a bargain if he had to pay more for a product he frequently purchases if the price increase was suddenly 50% less than the purveyor intended. For example, let's say that "Joe" buys a widget every week, and it's always been a dollar. One day he walks in and it's three dollars, but the store is having a half-off sale. Will he realize that since last week, the price tripled, or will he be happy that with the "sale", he's only paying 50% more?

Likewise, when talk of eliminating actual spending amounts to a paltry "few million" dollars, politicians dismiss the notion as meaningless, a drop in the bucket. But leave a bucket under a dripping gutter and see how fast it fills up. The leak responsible for that drip needs to be repaired, just as tax dollars spent on turtle tunnels and the like need to stop immediately. If someone has that much passion for the plight of turtles, they can raise the money on their own and dig the damn tunnels by hand. (The money would be needed for permits to dig on federal property, after all).

Earmarks, the "pet projects" of Congress people, continue for the very reason that politicians dismiss their impact on the overall debt and deficit. Each to its own, they seem insignificant, but add drops to that bucket that soon overflows. And they are wasteful, albeit very nice gestures for a genuine philanthropist. To steer precious public funding (confiscated earnings) toward them must end.

A little spending here, a little there...
Case in point: in 2007, amid debates in Congress over desperately needed infrastructure repairs on highways and bridges that were crumbling, Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California secured $550,000 of transportation money to build a boat in Los Angeles that would never sail. In fact, it would never touch water. Known as "Noah's Ark",  it was part of a project called the Skirball Cultural Center, a private charity in Los Angeles. The charity's director, Uri Herscher, reportedly went to Waxman, and Waxman directed the funds in the form of an earmark.

No big deal, Waxman later countered, it was small change. “The amount of money that the Skirball got for this project was very, very small. It was $550,000," Waxman said. True, but Waxman is only one of 435 members of the House, and it is unknown how many other "small" projects like this he "gave" to through the unknowing generosity of the American taxpayer.

With all of that in mind, let's examine the actuality of the $38 billion in FY2011 spending cuts that Speaker Boehner is touting today. Shortly after the vote, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculated the true savings at $350 million, with an "m". That's right, million...small change in the eyes of Congress when it refers to spending rather than cutting.

Most of the cuts the CBO projects are from monies that were previously allocated but unspent, and relegated to remain that way. And the total savings do not take place in the remaining six months, but rather in the next five years, stretching out to 2016. FY2012 is only six months away. If Boehner and his members can't do better in the next round of budget negotiations, we are in serious trouble, and so is the Republican party.

I feel like the proverbial turtle crossing the road. Why do I do it? To get to the Tea Party.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, April 11, 2011

The Cain Mutiny

The "Moses" of our Time?
If there is one unalterable truth in America, it would be that Blacks are expected - no, commanded - to vote for Democrats. To violate that edict would be viewed as a form of sacrilege amongst ones peers, and criminal in the eyes of the elite hierarchy.

While Barack Obama was not the first Black candidate for president of the United States, he was certainly the first to garner the support he needed beyond the demographic guaranteed under conventional expectancy. Obama enjoyed the support of an entire segment of the population too elated to realize that they were mere tools, combined with a media campaign designed by those who aided in the sale of Black integrity.

For the past half century, alleged saviors have presented themselves - through nothing more than self proclamation - to lead Blacks out of "bondage", only to keep them penned in for the harvest of their  continued reliance. The promises continue to spew forth, the masses continue to hope, and nothing ever changes. The worst part of it all is, nothing was ever designed to change.

How odd it is, then, that the Tea Party movement, branded by the Liberal elites as a "racist organization", may ultimately prove to be instrumental in the long-awaited freedom for all from the scourge of racism, and the stranglehold the Left has had on the dialogue surrounding that tender subject. Democrats brandish the term like a weapon in order to bludgeon their foes who have a better solution; actual liberty.

Since an overwhelming majority of Blacks are Christian, it is perplexing that they are more politically aligned with the Godless Left. That is certainly not a call to an evangelical type of ideology, but a more practical application of a rather generic mindset of moral behavior. Those of us who believe in God in even the most peripheral sense are more apt to lean right. And while it must be excused for the populace to choose Obama as the first Black president based on simple opportunity and probability, it is now time to admit the mistake.

I have argued that Barack Obama may have "spoiled the soil" for subsequent Black candidates, and that assessment may hold true yet. But there is a potential candidate who may have the ability to overcome that problem, and his name is Herman Cain.

Herman Cain is a very successful businessman who made his way in life from humble beginnings. He forged his own success while shunning the life of too many of his peers who chose to believe the lie that they were being held back by a White majority afraid of the possibility of future competition. They were being held back, alright, but by the very people who claimed to want to help. Liberals were afraid of losing a dependent constituency. Conservatives saw potential for future partners.

With 2012 looming, and Barack Obama already threatening to inflict four more years of him on us, those old fallacies are still waiting as arrows in the Democrats' quivers. If a White candidate runs against him (and that particular field seems pretty anemic at the moment), it will be child's play to let those arrows fly, and our electorate will more than likely lap up those lies like kittens do milk.

Herman Cain and Americans for Prosperity
There is a benefit to the precedent that is Barack Obama, however; he bucked tradition by being the most unknown, most inexperienced candidate to ever assume office. Herman Cain is not a politician, but is very well known in the business world, and has a proven track record. He is a problem solver with little patience for mere finger-pointing. And he is fiercely devoted to the very same principals that made the Tea Party possible. He's also a card-carrying member, if there is such a thing. Those "racist Tea Partiers" embrace him.

Which leads us to the title of this exercise. Why The Cain Mutiny? That answer is rather simple; if Herman Cain can garner enough traction and actually secure the Republican nomination in 2012, he could conceivably draw Black Americans away from their captors into the fold of those with whom they privately agree but have been conditioned to loath. What if Herman Cain can win the nomination, free the Black portion of our electorate from the shackles they've willingly worn all these years, and set our listing ship of State aright? Wouldn't that heal many old wounds?

As a parting notation to any readers who may harbor ill will towards Blacks for archaic reasons, I beseech you to think. This will happen, despite your hatred. It may not be Herman Cain, but it is inevitable that it will happen. If you love America as much as your myriad tattoos suggest, make that time now. Herman Cains don't come along very often, no matter what color they may be. There is time before the election. I would suggest a suspension of hostilities in favor of a protracted examination of this man. And it would help to have a unified base going in, should Cain win the field.

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, April 8, 2011

Voter Apathy and the American Psyche

When Contests Are Close
I've never been a teacher, even in the layman's sense. I'm just not good at teaching someone else what I know, mainly because I don't fully understand exactly how I know what I know either, and even when I do, I'm simply not capable of conveying that process to another. Consider that my brain is a stingy sponge only able to communicate with the outside world in code, or analogy, as is usually the case.

Today's analogy involves two diametric worlds that may be difficult to wed on the surface, as one is considered cerebral and the other emotional. Politics and entertainment don't usually inhabit the same stage unless you're at a Dixie Chix concert or a celebrity funeral. I propose a rare attempt at education that breaks that barrier.

The tenth season of American Idol aired moments before this writing, and tonight was the night of the week that one more cog left the wheel, one more contestant suffered the will of the Idol voters. Granted that the electorate for this show dwarfs that of the political world, it must be noted that the mindset of the voters are in the formative stage. Since there is no voting age limit for American Idol, it stands to reason that ten-year-old kids are developing a voting habit that may meet up with the technology available when they reach political voting age.

Regardless of the speculation of what may be possible a decade from now, the notion of apathy from over confidence is being nurtured in the process of shows like American Idol. It was in evidence tonight, as Pia - inarguably the best vocal talent in the competition by far - was voted off the show by the voting viewers. The ensuing collective shock was palpable as the pronouncement was made, and the aftermath was furious on reporting venues of all flavor.

It may be an exaggerated analogy, but I must compare the reaction of Pia's exit to the stunned populace of America upon learning of JFK's assassination. If nothing else it is the entertainment equivalent to an historic event that actually mattered. But it is the lesson that can be learned that we must take away from this. Apathy trumps genuine concern.

We saw it in 2000, when the networks called Florida for George W. Bush, and many of the panhandle voters headed to the polls veered towards home thinking it was all over. Even though they were in the next time zone for poll closings, by the time they heard that the state was still up for grabs, it was too late to trudge back out to vote, so they stayed home and digested their dinners and settled in to watch their favorite sitcoms.

We were then subjected to the ludicrous vaudeville of the 2000 election decision and all its glorious theatrics played out for weeks and weeks. Similarly, Idol voters all assumed that Pia was so safe, she didn't need their vote. And now she's free to sign with the agent or recording company of her choice. Pia will be just fine, and I pine not for her. I simply lament the psyche of the alleged adults in America of voting age, and truly fear the next generation of voters who have cut their teeth in the process from social networking shows and websites.

The moral here is simple; if it matters so much to you that you will spend more than a day complaining about the result, then make the time to cast your vote whether you believe it will affect the outcome or not.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Daddy's Big Shoes

As Barack Sulks
By now, we must all have grown weary of the trend in television commercials that portray children as the cool brains behind the family at the expense of Mom and Dad. Oh come on, you've seen them...youngster strapped into the car seat in the back of the vehicle, hawking products that Mom up there (driver's seat) is too dense to appreciate.

It seems that denigrating the wisdom of age has become fashionable, and the inherent restraint of that wisdom archaic. It's almost like advocating for Junior to spend at will upon finding his parents' checkbook full of signed, blank checks. While the thought of adults actually pre-signing blank checks - which can easily fall into the wrong hands - is unconscionable, the temptation on Junior's part is equally understandable, albeit impossible to condone. Yet we have basically done that very thing with President Obama.

The country elected a man directly from the U.S. Senate, a rarity in and of itself, and did so rather convincingly. The fact that he had not even completed a full year in the Senate before deciding to run for the White House seemed not to matter to an electorate decidedly ill informed. There was "history" to be made, after all, and as is usually the case in any rush to make the record books, this bid for the books may rank higher than Obama's youth at taking office, but only in the bad-results category.

Obama may have been the fifth youngest president to inhabit the White House - falling behind only Grant, Clinton, Kennedy and Teddy Roosevelt - but his qualifications for leadership pale in comparison to those of these four younger men. Grant was a United States Army General, Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas for eight years, Kennedy commanded two torpedo boats in the South Pacific in World War II  before serving 13 years in the Senate, as well as six years in the House, and Teddy Roosevelt was the Police Commissioner of New York City, Governor of New York, and Vice President under William McKinley.

Big Shoes to Fill
Barack Hussein Obama was a community organizer, Illinois State Senator, and briefly a U.S. Senator. He's never commanded combat troops, he's never run a state budget, he's never been in a position to actually run anything or decide anything. In fact, it might be safe to say, the only thing Obama has ever commanded is attention.

This is the man who is calling on the 112th session of Congress to "act like grownups". Democrats can try as they might to blame our current fiscal mess on the previous administration, but the numbers don't lie. Bush 43, despite the challenges that strained our nation in his two terms, enjoyed a comparatively robust economy until the Democrats regained both chambers of Congress.

Obama's election during his own parties control of Congress is analogous to a young boy finding those signed checks while being egged on by the neighborhood teens seeking a good time. And now that Mom and Dad have decided to put a halt to it, the "kid" says they should grow up?

Speaker Boehner is leading the Republican charge to hold fast for deep budget cuts. With the prospect of a government "shutdown" looming on Friday, Obama says that this is no "time for trying to score political points and maneuvering… Not on this.” Considering that a government shutdown is largely symbolic - police will still patrol, traffic lights will still function, etc. - and 86% of the people favor a shutdown over a compromise on spending cuts, now is the perfect time for political points.

Now is the perfect time to stop the insane spending of our government, and return to fiscal sanity.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, April 4, 2011

Here Come Those Demagogue Tears Again

Democrats' Road to Ruin
As this Friday looms as the deadline for the 2011 budget stopgap, and as both parties in Congress seek to avoid a government shutdown, the gauntlets are being thrown down by both sides of the debate.

Republican Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) is the chairman of the House Budget Committee, and he has presented a plan to reduce the federal deficit by $4 trillion in the next decade. Democrats, predictably, are already in full demagogue mode, claiming that the Republicans care more about "Big Oil" than they do about our seniors.

It's ironic that the alleged "party of the people" is comprised of the very same people who rammed Obamacare down our throats based on a cost-saving premise of letting the elderly "expire" rather than receive "unnecessary" care. Oh, they denied the existence of what Sarah Palin called "death panels", but even the most cursory examination of the models for this bill - from Europe and Canada - reveal the truth that there is a Logan's Run criteria in the administration of government health care.

No matter. As the Republicans now try to place a tourniquet on our hemorrhaging economy, Democrats are busy finding ways to convince the electorate that we must keep spending, and spending fast. And they will pull out every fallacy known to Man to accomplish that goal. Or every trick.

While Republicans like Paul Ryan maneuver to reign in the out of control spending of the previous session of Congress, the perpetrators of our plight continue in their finger-pointing endeavors, claiming through a dutiful mouthpiece media that they are trying to mop up after their predecessors. Worse yet is that the clarion call is still the misnomer that the "rich" and the corporations fail to pay their fair share of taxes. Democrats don't see a spending problem...they see a revenue problem. Think of the alcoholic blaming the liquor store for running out of booze.

Now, just as the Democrats have hidden behind other causes they have never actually helped - see minorities and poverty - they continue to use seniors as a sort of human shield, claiming to champion them while merely exploiting them. Their rhetoric may sound fine for the consumption of the gullible and politically impatient, but it still remains false. Nevertheless, the ground still runs uphill for Republicans, who have been successfully portrayed as the party of the uncaring.

For the vast majority of seniors out there who have actually raised families and dealt with the challenges of a balanced budget, I would simply ask for some common sense here. One parent is always more liberal where the children are concerned. They need things, but not always because they are actual sustenance, but because of social mores at the school that they attend. In other words, "need" is not the correct description, whereas desire would be more apt. And yet one parent always advocates for the alleged needs of the children regardless of the strain on the family finances. (Mikey really needs those new $200 Nikes!)

Sound familiar, America?

Phony Democratic Compassion

Ryan's plan doesn't actually cut funding from Medicare, as the Democrats claim, but rather reduces the acceleration of increases. Of course, to Democrats, that's considered a cut, and that's how it will be portrayed on the evening news and by Liberal commentators (pardon the redundancy). And if the Republicans succeed, it is inevitable that Liberal organizations will aid the Democrats in demonizing them, with commercials showing grandma being pushed down the stairs in her wheelchair, or a variation of the Gingrich "wither on the vine" lie.

Meanwhile, the majority of American taxpayers want the spending reined in, and are prepared for a little pain to precede the gain. We may have to swim through a torrent of demagogue tears to get there, though.

Sphere: Related Content