|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Straight Talk
George Bush almost had me for awhile there. I like the guy. I really do. But just when I start to think that he might be going in the right direction, he pulls something like he did in the latest Republican debate. To be fair, Dubya wasn’t the only mealy-mouthed equivocator in the face of liberal "compassion".
To set the scene: Tim Russert – the Dr. Evil of debate questioners – posed the following question (roughly): There are millions and millions of Africans suffering from AIDS. There is approximately a $300 Million surplus in Washington. If you were President, would you use that surplus to help those suffering Africans?
It was the perfect question for entrapping Republicans, playing the compassion, race and homophobia cards simultaneously. There was no way a Republican candidate concerned about media and elite opinion could answer it without seeming a fool. And fools they were. Not a one gave an answer that didn’t dribble and stammer and drool all over the lectern. But Bush beat the bunch, vaguely repeating "The American people are a compassionate people…." over and over while scrambling for a way to change the subject.
Why is this hard? This answer could have been answered correctly, straight, and to the eminent delight of the audience. Here is how:
" Mr. Russert: Absolutely not, for several reasons.
"First, unlike the current resident of the White House, I do not believe that any surplus we are fortunate enough to build is there to be used at the whim of the President. The surplus represents an overpayment of taxes by the American people, and the President is the steward of those funds until they can be safely returned to the people. It is the height of arrogance to suggest that any President, or Congress, has any right to "spend" the surplus as they see fit. I will not. The American people have proven themselves to be the most generous people in the world. I trust the people of this country to rise to the need and spend their charity dollars as they see fit, not as Washington sees fit.
"Second, Millions of people are dying all over the world every day from thousands of unjust causes. Why choose this disease to fight and fund at the expense of other, more curable, pestilences? Is it better that children starve in Sudan than die of AIDS in Uganda? Or die of leukemia in Iowa? In a world of infinite misery, a $300 million surplus could be spent a million ways. The wisdom of millions of people each deciding their priorities will almost certainly result in a smarter, more compassion allocation of funds than the will the herd instinct of Washington insiders.
"Third, this is a classic example of liberal wishful thinking. For the past thirty years we have heard a steady drumbeat from our left-leaning friends that the solutions to our problems lay in throwing more money at the. For 30 years we have thrown money into Welfare, only to see "poverty" and illegitimacy increase, and the American family destroyed. For thirty years we have thrown immense amounts of money into the jaws of the education bureaucracy, only to see test scores drop like a paralyzed falcon. If history holds true, spending this money to help those with AIDS in Africa will almost certainly result in misery for untold millions. That is because questions like this are not about producing real results for flesh and blood people, they are about showing off your good intentions. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and that is not a road I care to follow."