The American Dilemma and How We Can Fix It

PARADOIXCALLY SPEAKING

There were probably a number of reasons that Mitt Romney lost the election – the most important being that he received fewer votes than President Obama, plain and simple.

Whether that was due to the fact that 6 million voters were so unimpressed with our choices that they “disappeared”; whether it was that Gov. Romney and the Republican party took the mid-road and failed to interest conservatives in his campaign; or whether it was a function of a well-run and well-executed campaign of demonizing the governor for his being financially successful doesn’t really matter.

I wanted to consider the third of those possibilities in this post – that Governor Romney was perceived as being unable to relate to the needs and concerns of the ordinary citizen because he is wealthy.  And therein lies a paradox.

If you look at the roster of those whom we elect to Congress (and continue to re-elect) you will find a Who’s Who of millionaires.  That doesn’t seem to deter the voters in their districts from returning them to office.  Apparently the voters don’t have the same concern when it comes to a Rep. Nancy Pelosi or Sen. Harry Reid to name just two.  But the list of millionaires in Congress includes multitudes of members affiliated with both major political parties.

While Congress boasts the lowest approval rating in U. S. history, for some reason we hate the institution but we love our own representatives and senators in it.  Of course, that line of thinking leads to our re-electing a collective assembly of people, many of whom are incompetent, self-serving, just plain corrupt and, of course, wealthy.

But let’s move to addressing the issue of the anger over Governor Romney’s accumulated wealth.  Those with a liberal agenda cite this as “prima facie” evidence of his lack of concern for the common man and an outgrowth of his lack of compassion.  He and his kind should be stripped of the income that they are receiving through their paying Federal Income Taxes at a  more “equitable” (i.e. higher) rate.  And, of course, these new found funds should be added to the public dole for those unfortunates who have not demonstrated any ability to succeed on their own.

Raising taxes on the rich is a cornerstone of the Obama plan for restoring fiscal order to our very dis-ordered financial house.  It is the major element causing the stall in negotiations as we hang at the edge of the “fiscal cliff”.   Everyone who has looked at this “solution” agrees that if we were to implement the President’s proposal, it would only raise enough revenue to chip away at 7.5% of our annual budgetary deficit.  But let’s ignore the facts and assume that this would actually eliminate the entire deficit.

If that were the case, then the salvation for our economic mess would be due solely to one group – the wealthy whom the President and the voters excoriated in the recent election.  But if we don’t allow people to become wealthy by dis-incenting people from creating successful businesses, then we will have eliminated the possibility of having any saviors whom we can fleece in the future.

We’ve already started to see an exodus of successful entrepreneurs move to other countries where they receive more favorable tax treatment.  There is no reason to expect that those who were clever enough to make fortunes are not smart enough to protect them from government encroachment and will choose to live in a more welcoming environment.

And when the last of those who are creative have gone, what then will become of those who have been trained to be dependent on the revenue they provided so that they could receive their monthly government-issued stipends?  Will they like rats, suddenly deprived of an adequate food supply, turn on their fellows and devour them?

That is the paradox that may soon be resolved.  I wonder if the answer will be one for which we are prepared.

Comments on: "PARADOIXCALLY SPEAKING" (7)

  1. “But the list of millionaires in Congress includes multitudes of members affiliated with both major political parties.”

    This is so indicative of THE BIG LIE, isn’t it?

    Well – this and the fact that several Democratic Party presidents in the past have been rich going into the presidency, and that Obama will effectively be rich when he gives up the presidency.

    We are in a very sad place . . . .

    • Thank you for your interest and taking your time to comment. I appreciate both of those.

      I think that we started to lose our way with the election of JFK in 1960. There is no doubt in my mind that his father bought that election for his son – with money that he made by violating the Constitution as a “rum-runner” during the time that Prohibition was the law of the land.

      Once a person starts down the path of moral-degradation, it’s hard to make the way back up the slope. Unfortunately, this election demonstrates that principle far too well.

  2. I think you make very valid and great points, and I do agree with you. And I find it interesting that Romney’s wealth made him unelectable while Obama’s was ignored. But I think another reason that he failed to overcome Obama is simple- his views were not different enough from the incumbent. Whether you want to argue state’s rights or not, ObamaCare was birthed from RomneyCare and they supported many of the same issues. (Though the media really does have a love affair with Obama) And when you are going against an incumbent, you can’t do it from a prospective of “elect me because I am not him” The incumbent will win that battle every time.

    • One of the benefits of incumbency is that you don’t have to battle it out in primaries. A vast amount of money was spent by the Romney camp to obtain the nomination – money that could have better been deployed in the general election. And, of course, the vilification of the primary candidates by each other didn’t help but provided a lot of ammo for Obama in the general. (Amazingly, the media seemed to cover that quite well).

      I agree with your point about differentiation totally (and am writing about it in a post called the Moderate Skunk) which reaches the same conclusion as you. Or, as President Nixon said, “The only problem with the middle of the road is that nothing grows there.”

  3. I’m sharing this all over facebook. Hope you don’t mind. It’s just so interesting!

  4. You certainly have my permission, Jenn. Thanks for the compliment. Be well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: