Mitch Daniels Did Not Impress Me

Posted on | January 26, 2012 | 16 Comments

by Smitty

While I liked Mitch Daniel’s SOTU response, I fall off the wagon here, via Ron Radosh, emphasis mine:

The truth, as Daniels went on, is that Republicans “alone have passed bills to reduce borrowing, reform entitlements, and encourage new job creation, only to be shot down time and time again by the President and his Democratic Senate allies.” He and we stand for a pro-jobs, pro-growth economic policy, the kind that the blue-collar working-class (that the Democrats have abandoned) understand and will support. If we fail to do this, he concludes accurately, “there will never be enough public revenue to pay for our safety net, national security, or whatever size government we decide to have.”

Look, the simple fact that ‘there will never be enough public revenue to pay for our safety net’ is the only real point here.

Sure, you can’t just throw everyone relying upon entitlements under the bus either. I get that. But Daniels, and the Ryan plan, seem about as easy-cheesy as anything Bernanke is up to. These entitlements are non-hunting dogs, my fellow Americans. How about some bold leadership that, you know, briefly admits that these entitlements are not federal tasks, not affordable, and doomed to perpetual crisis. After such a moment of clarity, how about some ideas to re-distribute the power to manage destiny back to the citizens, over time, so as not to seem quite as radical.

Truth telling is a radical proposition, I know, but, if America is exceptional, it should act that way.

via Insty

Category: Uncategorized

Comments

16 Responses to “Mitch Daniels Did Not Impress Me”

A Stephens
January 26th, 2012 @ 1:56 pm

When the first words out of his mouth is to throw us under the bus as “extreme”, and then lectures on “respecting” the presidency, it’s clear to me that he is just another obtuse Republican insider wannabe who 1) doesn’t get it -or us, and 2) considers it more important to pander to progressive media than to simply lay out the facts, sans qualifiers. Screw that.
ThePaganTemple
January 26th, 2012 @ 1:58 pm

An interesting post here, Smitty. Somebody should encourage Mitt to adopt your position. I suggest he do it at tonight’s debate. You know, the one they’re going to be having tonight in Florida.
richard mcenroe
January 26th, 2012 @ 2:08 pm

given that the housing market in Florida has imploded and immigration is a major issue in the Hispanic community, look for the subjects to be school bullying, moonbases and abortion.

Oh, and Newt will pimp for amnesty.
Charles
January 26th, 2012 @ 2:15 pm

Won’t Ron Paul have that covered?
Charles
January 26th, 2012 @ 2:17 pm

Won’t Ron Paul have that covered?
ThePaganTemple
January 26th, 2012 @ 2:37 pm

Which is why I won’t vote for him if he is nominated. I’m sick of these kinds of bastards flying the GOP banner, and worse, being promoted by the GOP leadership. Newt I’ll vote for. Or Santorum. Even Paul if it comes right down to it. Romney, my ass either stays home or I pull the lever for Obama. I’ve fucking had it.
ThePaganTemple
January 26th, 2012 @ 2:39 pm

Yeah, but since Romney is determined to “act” more conservative than Newt, he could always steal Ron’s thunder. I can’t think of a better place for him to triple down on the uber-conservatism vis a vis Social Security than in state where the largest bloc of voters is seniors, can you? I mean if he wants to prove to us his conservatism isn’t really an act.
ThePaganTemple
January 26th, 2012 @ 2:47 pm

I doubt that immigration is a major issue in the Cuban community, and as for the Puerto Ricans, they are mostly democrats, so there’s no reason for immigration to take precedence over such important issues as school bullying, or the explosion in the alligator population. Newt’s also smart to press for a permanent moon base. Imagine how many jobs that would create in Florida, and not just in NASA. That would create beaucoups private sector jobs. Sorry, I’m in the tank for the Newtster, if for no other reason than I would have zero problem voting for him in the general. That’s something I can’t say regarding Mitt.
Manicmonkeymojo
January 26th, 2012 @ 2:51 pm

The nation and it’s destiny are controlled by a group of soft-headed, namby-pamby mopes that don’t like to make hard decisions. In other words, the independent voter. Once the decision has been made that Congressmen (or your state legislators) can spend money on anything that they want (The Commerce Clause: There’s Nothing It Can’t Do ™), the only question that remains is how do they get 50.01% of the population to go along with the confiscation of the property of the remaining 49.99% of the population.

Social Security & Medicare/caid will never be solvent in the sense that assets and income equal or exceed liabilities. The pointy-headed brigade will point out the fact that Congress has the power to tax, so these two programs aren’t massively underfunded because the yearly GDP of the U.S. is (roughly) 15-16 trillion dollars, more than enough to pay for all of the country’s oldsters retirements.

Great, but what happens the next year after the Great Liquidation occurs? Does anyone other than a Marxist believe that the productive members of society will continue to work hard to pay for the squalid existence of other people? We know what happens in Marxist societies: those that have political pull always win and live well, while those that don’t have pull worry that what they say will be misconstrued, sending them into gulag.

Simple math isn’t very difficult: 1 plus 1 will always equal 2. Nothing in this world can make 1 plus 1 equal 3, which is what would be required to fund both SS and Medicare/caid in the future. At some point, depending upon population growth, the funding mechanism for SS and Medicare/caid will be a 1 to 1 proposition, with every retiree being supported by one younger person. That’s bad enough. But what happens when the ratio is 1 to 2 (followed by 1 to 3, 4, 5, etc.), with 2 (3, 4, 5, etc.) retirees being supported by one younger person? The costs associated with funding each of these retirees will still be the same, but the amount of money being earned by the younger person is likely to remain the same. The question that the independent voter doesn’t want to confront (mainly because it’s so confrontational) is: when does this forced charity become chattel slavery?

Neither Romney nor Gingrich seem to believe that taking from Peter to pay Paul is inherently a bad thing, just that the way it’s being done now is so wasteful and cumbersome. Both appear to believe that he can fix all of the problems associated with the welfare state through hard work and smarts. The problem, you see, isn’t that the welfare state is intrinsically unsustainable, just that the right people aren’t in charge (see, e.g., Romney’s assertion that RomneyCare wasn’t so bad when he was in charge, but just look at what that jerk Patrick did when he came to power).

So long as we accept that 50.01% can steal from 49.99%, the problem is intractable.
Adjoran
January 26th, 2012 @ 3:00 pm

How much of the vote do you expect we’d get with such talk? About enough to give the Democrats the White House AND the Congress, I’d expect. Maybe you’re fine with the country being destroyed as long as you can feel you held strong to your principles. Maybe you’d be fine with WYB growing up under the loving tutelage of the People’s Liberation Army. You could whisper tales of the Constitution to him until he’s old enough to denounce you.

You want to get rid of entitlements altogether? Unless you want to be the freak on the corner with the “REPENT – THE END IS NEAR” sign, you’ll have to take control of the education system for 40 years to reverse the damage. It’s not enough to just take down the Education Department – 95% or more of your teachers out there have already been indoctrinated, 100% of the textbooks are leftist PC.

So you would not just have to dismantle it, it would take doing remedial work of the sort we agree the feds shouldn’t be doing. See the dilemma?

If quoting the Founders or carrying the 10th Amendment around in your pocket helped, we’d have won years ago. Voting for a “constitutionalist” like Howard Phillips just helps elect more leftists.

We didn’t get into this mess overnight: it’s taken 100 years of steady drip, drip, drip, like erosion of the Grand Canyon. If you think it will be reversed in less than several decades, you are just fantasizing.

We can engage in meaningless gestures and allow things to get worse rapidly, hoping to win the Revolution quickly enough to dissuade an invasion, or we can opt for the best incremental improvement now and search for the next, and maybe our great-grandchildren will reap what we sow, even as we now reap the fruits of our own forebears.
Adjoran
January 26th, 2012 @ 3:05 pm

Newt today is saying “the elites” foreclosed on Florida homeowners to make Mitt rich, or something.

Also, he’s admitted he LIED in the CNN debate and never “offered witnesses” to ABC to refute his ex’s claims, because there are no witnesses. But, hey, it brought down the house with indignation and he won the debate so who cares about a little embellishment, eh?
AngelaTC
January 26th, 2012 @ 3:18 pm

The biggest reason Paul doesn’t get the elderly GOP vote is because they don’t want anybody to touch their entitlements, not because they are living under their beds in fear from the threat-of-the-month club.
Pathfinder's wife
January 26th, 2012 @ 4:18 pm

Ah…to heck with it; this seems to be we (as in the majority of Americans) want.
http://the-styx.posterous.com/96355321

Yeah, I’m going a-whoring — but I gave you a little something in return (would link, but still trying to completely figure that one out).
Quartermaster
January 26th, 2012 @ 8:28 pm

The choice we are facing is end entitlements in an orderly fashion, or reality will end them for us in the most painful way possible. They can not be sustained, and they will end.

In the end, Smitty, those depending on entitlements will be thrown under the bus. It’s not matter of if it will be done, but when it will be done, and how much pain it will extract in the process.

Frankly, I seriously doubt we have the time to unwind things in a manner that will not extract maximum pain from all of us.
Bob Belvedere
January 27th, 2012 @ 8:36 am

It’s interesting that, when it comes to debating skills, some people compare Newt to Churchill.

Newt is a very good debater if you think the standard is being able to put on a good performance regardless of whether what you say is true.

WSC was a very good debater if you think the standard is being able to put on a good performance and tell the truth.

Also, Newt’s humor is sarcastic, whereas Winston, even with his most cutting remarks [ex: ‘boneless wonder’] was witty.
Bob Belvedere
January 27th, 2012 @ 8:42 am

John Derbyshire is right: We Are Doomed.

So is Mark Steyn.

Perhaps Bob Tyrell’s next book should be: The Great American Crack-Up?