Choosing Sides

With the first of the nation's primaries looming, we find ourselves, as one electorate, faced with a choice regarding the economic direction of our country. For three years now, we have seen President Obama and the Democrats spend our nation into the abyss to an even greater extent than did the Bush administration. Just when you thought that our spending problem could get no worse, Obama - with the people's blessing – has managed to kick it into warp drive a la Captain Kirk. With our nation's debt having eclipsed the fifteen trillion dollar mark, we could use Buzz Lightyear's tag-line and say, "To infinity and beyond!"

Last summer, a giddy Obama foisted upon us a Congressional "Super Committee" that was commissioned to suggest ways whereby we might somehow extricate ourselves from debt's hammerlock. Almost as if by design, after several months of grandstanding by politicians, the Super Committee proved to a cynical electorate that they really were not so "super" after all. Quite the contrary. In fact, they failed miserably. Now we are firmly entrenched into the Christmas season and no one is talking about the Super Committee's failure any longer. Washington is now hung up - "gridlocked", if you will - over the debate to extend the Social Security tax (euphemistically known as the "payroll tax") holiday. With Social Security already well on its way to insolvency, why are we even debating whether or not we should be funding it? If Washington was truly concerned about helping everyday folks, they would propose a total INCOME tax holiday. Then again, only half of Americans pay income taxes so is it any wonder that this is not being discussed? Another part of the debate involves yet another extension of unemployment payments. For exactly how long do politicians intend to allow people to collect unemployment "benefits" before they are forced to get out and actually find a job? Heaven forbid we should cut their government-funded umbilical cord. My gosh - how would they ever be able to participate in Occupy Wall Street anarchy if they had to get up and go to work every day?

---

The elections of 2012 will prove, ultimately, to be a performance evaluation of the president as his bosses - the voters - will decide to keep him for another term or to give him his pink slip. The voters, like the bosses of a corporation, will need to decide where they stand with regard to the judging of his job performance. Voters that do not care how much debt our nation accumulates - more accurately, they could be described as voters that cannot differentiate between a trillion and a million - will pull the lever for Obama, just as they did in 2008. Likewise, anyone that is a beneficiary of the Democrats' generosity with taxpayers' money will vote to keep Obama in the White House. On the other hand, voters who see the fifteen trillion dollar debt (a debt that is increasing by over a billion dollars per day) as a fiscal train wreck, are anxious for a change in direction and most will, no doubt, cast a ballot for the "anti-Obama", whomever he or she turns out to be. Aside from the purely ignorant (we can almost excuse them), there is another division among the electorate: This is the delineation between the "givers", or the producers, and the "takers", the beneficiaries of the producers' generosity. As noted above, only half of the country actually pays personal income taxes. These are the people that get up and go to work every day to support, not just themselves and their families, but the other half of the country that, for whatever reason, does NOT get up and go to work. If you are a hardworking citizen and you are sick and tired of seeing your tax dollars squandered on seemingly-limitless array of liberal policies (one word comes to mind: "Solyndra") and entitlements, you are, in all likelihood, going to vote Republican. If, on the other hand, you are the recipient of a check every month from the producers (OK - it's actually a check from the government), you will, no doubt, vote for more of the same and you will re-elect Obama. There really is no middle ground. The concept of being a political independent is no longer valid. Anyone who falls back on the excuse, "I don't take a stance; I'm an independent," is not being honest. To be certain, one can be registered with no party affiliation. A great many people are (including the author of this article). But, in terms of philosophy, the concept of political independence is a fallacy perpetuated by the news media. One stands either for more spending or one is in the corner of restraint. So there you have it, folks. It is as simple as black and white; as basic as the concept of physics known as action and reaction. The sides have been chosen. It is now a matter of seeing which team wins.