I’ve seen enough of Chris Matthews, here and there, to realize his views and opinions have absolutely nothing in common with mine. Which is why I didn’t see his recent interview with the incumbent. However, this morning I saw a short item by Chris Stirewalt on Fox News on-line, that reconfirmed my decision entirely.
According to Mr. Stirewalt, “The way forward, the president said, was to end divided government. ‘In our history, usually when we’ve made big progress on issues, it actually has been when one party controlled the government for a period of time,’ he said. ‘The big strides we made in the New Deal, the big strides we made with the Great Society – those were times when you had a big majority.”
Now, I can certainly understand the incumbent's position, whereas his approach to governance is to impose his thinking and beliefs on everyone, without opposition. Nonetheless, for entrepreneurial types, free-marketeers and independent thinkers, the New Deal and the the Great Society were horrendous intrusions on liberty and individuality.
But, at the moment, and throughout his time in office to date, although Republican’s control the House, every item on the incumbent's agenda has been enacted to his design and liking. Therefore, even though he hasn’t the absolute control he desires, the results are the same as if he did.
Consequently, since he brought up the premise that ending divided government is best, and he’s actually been in that circumstance throughout his term of service to date, what have the results been?
The economy’s yet to really recover after five years, foreign policy’s been relegated to other nations, job quality’s declined for many, while working hours keep shrinking. Education ratings are now “26th in math — trailing nations such as the Slovakia, Portugal and Russia. Performance dropped to 21st in science (from 17th in 2009) and slipped to 17th in reading (from 14th in 2009),” according to the results of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Then there were a few other noteworthy items, such as the totally botched terrorist attack covered up in Benghazi, the Fast and Furious gun-running scheme gone bad, the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups, the EPA’s investment in non-existent climate-change and Solyndra’s bankruptcy among many others, the Census Bureau manipulation of jobs numbers, and of course the horrendous health care tax train wreck.
So, I guess the question to be considered is, if all the preceding damage can be accomplished without complete control by one party, how bad could things really get if unilateral governance ever happened? And even worse, what if that party were headed by those in office now?
Thai's it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment