America’s Politics: They Should Not Be about “Who Blinks First”
Jul 18th, 2011 | 4 responses
Has the Cold War suddenly re-emerged?
Are we facing another Cuban missile crisis?
Is war looming between North and South Korea?
Is a nuclear standoff between Iran and Israel imminent?
And, who will blink first?
The media is full of such questions and topics. Just Google “Who will blink first?” and you will get almost one hundred such headlines or topics for the past 24 hours, more than 800 for the past week and a whopping 15,300 “results” for the past month.
But guess what, most of these “results” are not referring to any looming international crisis, or to any clear and present danger or threat to the security of the United States of America.
The majority of such articles are referring to what should be an important debate among Americans: A discussion about the common financial and economic wellbeing of all Americans. A serious, civil and informed deliberation by our elected officials on what very well could determine the financial and economic security of our country.
Sadly, instead of seeing headlines such as “Republicans and Democrats working together to resolve the U.S. debt crisis,” or “Leaders of both Parties working hard on a consensus agreement to the debt ceiling issue,” we read the following:
Debt Politics: Who Will Blink First?
On Spending Showdown– Who Will Blink First? – The two parties careen towards each other in the ultimate game of political chicken.
Who Will Be the First to Blink?
Who will blink first on debt ceiling: GOP or Dems?
Debt Stalemate –Who budges first
Countdown to Debt Ceiling Deadline-Who Will Blink First
Who will blink first in debt ceiling fight— Boehner and the GOP? or Obama?
Obama Warns Cantor As Debt Talks Stall: ‘Don’t Call My Bluff’
Who’s gonna blink first in this game of chicken? GOP/Dem?
Who will blink first on debt stand-off, Obama or the Republicans?
Obama’s McConnell meeting: Will someone blink first?
President Obama Or Speaker John Boehner, Who Gives In?
You get the trend. It is not about getting our financial house in order. It is not about resolving a critical issue that will affect every American for generations to come. It is not about the very future of our country.
No, it is all about “playing chicken,” about a third-rate nation’s cockfight, about “my way or the highway,” about calling each other’s bluff, about another gunfight at an O.K. Corral we call Washington D.C.—it is all about who “blinks first.”
Come on, so-called representatives of the people; come on so-called leadership of our country. The stakes are too big. You—America— can and must do better than that.
4 Responses to “America’s Politics: They Should Not Be about “Who Blinks First””
Let the debt ceiling limit “Armageddon date” expire.
You don’t have to default on bonds, just come up with 40 cents on the spending dollar. The president can cut where he wants. If it were me, I’d say take it out of the military and completely eliminate the department of commerce to start with. I wouldn’t cut a single social program in open defiance! As Commander and Chief, I’d order immediate discharges for half the military and immediate mothballing of the entire U.S. Navy except for the submarine fleet. I’d shut down the FAA, dept. of Ag, and the dept of whatever else it takes. I might not get re-elected but I guarantee you I’d balance the budget! I’d then say; “the heck with congress, I declare myself an independent”, if you want me I’ll be on vacation somewhere until the end of my term. Take up with the next guy.
No doubt the media Herd on the radio and television is saying “blink.”
* * *
Education time: The President cannot cut anywhere he or she may want. Some appropriations and I believe spending, too, is “mandatory,” explicitly required by law. Yes, those ought to be included in spending cuts (let entitlement beneficiaries realize there is a problem in Washington, and they have no right to presume any kind of “guarantee” or “promise” of entitlements), and as the greatest expenses (the liberals’ military bogeyman is distinctly secondary), of course some cuts at least should include these.
He wouldn’t do that, though. No entitlement (vote-buying) cuts.
(An intelligent president would cut entitlements notably among the total reductions in spending, and an ethical president wouldn’t do it to cause senior-bloc alarm in order to manipulate public opinion, the way Obama or other Dems would, but because they’re the biggest expenses, so cuts there make a great deal of sense. Any public-opinion angle correctly would be to demonstrate how enormous, gargantuan these programs and their costs already are, while soon to grow fearfully when Baby Boomers retire.)
Note that the correct lesson Allen is describing is that Washington is spending far too much, not (the lie) that the problem is insufficient taxes (“revenues” in today’s evasive language).
Yeah DLS-
Spending to much on Defense. I’d get a big piece of that “peace dividend”.
Oh and I’d expire the Bush tax cuts for the rich that should have expired at the beginning of the year.
The argument has never been that government is spending to much, that’s a given, but rather where and when to cut. Of course, the Republicans simply want to strip the weak and elderly of any means for survival in favor of people whom blow more money in a day for crap that most people make in a lifetime.