On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
Hand in hand with the frustration expressed by the tea partiers over a lack of fiscal responsibility is a frustration over a complete lack of ethical responsibility.
One of the things that strikes us about modern-day statism/liberalism is that it is bound by a notion that posits that…. since you are not smart or moral enough to handle your own affairs because you are susceptible to the sins of greed, dishonesty and avarice, we or people we designate who are afflicted by the very same human failings will handle your affairs for you.
Since this makes no sense whatsoever, the only thing that squares this circle…the only thing that prevents this from spiraling down a logic wormhole is: Power.
They got it – you don’t – game over.
After taking stock of what has been happening over the last several months with respect to Bailout Nation, the corruption that has been part and parcel to the same and, of course, the most ethical Congress in history, please explain how our contention regarding statism is off-base.
And when one of the political elite suggests that the tea party protests are perhaps, “unhealthy’ ask yourself: why would he say that?
Exit question: Remember the good ol’ days when political scandals involved creepy text messages and “signing” in airport men’s rooms instead of billions and billons of your tax dollars?
Posts
3 comments:
I disagree. I think that Dr. Sagan would have understood this very well. In fact, I'd bet his explanation would have sounded something like, "Quid pro quo. Billions and billions of Quids pro billions and billions of quos."
I disagree. I think that Dr. Sagan would have understood this very well. In fact, I'd bet his explanation would have sounded something like, "Quid pro quo. Billions and billions of Quids pro billions and billions of quos."
O@H, you are probably corret in the assessment that the good Dr. would've been perhaps the only mortal among us to be able to quantify these massive numbers.
Post a Comment