{"id":23407,"date":"2013-11-03T22:44:35","date_gmt":"2013-11-04T03:44:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=23407"},"modified":"2013-11-03T22:45:41","modified_gmt":"2013-11-04T03:45:41","slug":"the-daily-gouge-monday-november-4th-2013","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedailygouge.com\/?p=23407","title":{"rendered":"The Daily Gouge, Monday, November 4th, 2013"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s Monday, November 4th, 2013…but before we begin, we note yet another break with tradition, courtesy of an Administration incapable of running a fast-food restaurant.\u00a0 As The Washington Times<\/em> notes…<\/strong><\/p>\n

Obama diss: President snubs historic Gettysburg 150th anniversary ceremony<\/span><\/h1>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"obama-the-anti-lincoln-battaile-politics-1352962098\"<\/a><\/p>\n

It may be little more than a blip on Washington\u2019s radar screen, but President Obama\u2019s decision to be a no-show at an upcoming ceremony to mark the 150th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln\u2019s Gettysburg Address has touched off a firestorm in Pennsylvania.<\/p>\n

Local newspapers Thursday excoriated the president, a noted admirer of the 16th president, for skipping the historic occasion…<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

…<\/strong>Twenty-four presidents have visited Gettysburg since the summer of 1863, when the town gained its notoriety after the bloody three-day battle that turned the tide of the Civil War. President Kennedy was invited to speak at the 1963 ceremony marking the 100th anniversary of the speech, but opted to travel to Dallas instead, where he was fatally shot a few days later<\/span><\/em>.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

We understand the Gettysburg locals are angry because they see dollar bills floating out the window…those they still have left after paying those dramatically-higher health insurance premiums…but the President isn’t bound by any convention to attend the ceremony.\u00a0 What inquiring minds want to know is…<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"abrahameobama\"<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

…whether instead he’s headed for Dallas<\/em><\/span>?!?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Now, here’s The Gouge!<\/strong><\/p>\n

First up, in the “With Friends Like These…!?!” segment, we were struck by the opening of a recent column by Rich Galen, a “Republican strategist” (i.e., cable news talking head) and former press secretary for Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich:<\/strong><\/p>\n

I am not cheering as I write this column. The Presidency of Barack Obama is spiraling downward largely because of Obamacare and it is not clear to me that Mr. Obama can avoid a Presidential face plant.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Earlier this week Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius testified before a House committee about the ongoing disaster that is the Obamacare website. She didn’t know who was responsible or what went wrong any more than she could have pulled out a stack of code three feet high and walked the Committee Members through it line-by-line.<\/p>\n

Republicans were ugly to her<\/span>.<\/strong><\/em><\/span> Democrats tried to find some way to defend her. They were both wrong.<\/p>\n

“Republicans were ugly to her”; and this is a problem…how?\u00a0 Is Galen serious?\u00a0 This entire Administration, indeed, the vast majority of the entire Democratic Party, continually lie to our faces as they move forward with their plan to subvert the Constitution and reconstruct the Republic, and Galen wants the House GOP to…what…offer them s’mores and sing a couple of verses of Kumbaya?!?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Had Galen been around during the Nuremberg Tribunals, he’d surely have chastised the U.S. contingent for their disrespectful treatment of Herman Goering.<\/strong><\/p>\n

We’re in a war<\/em><\/span>, folks; make no<\/em><\/span> mistake about it!\u00a0 And the other side will do and say anything<\/em>…ANY<\/span><\/em>thing…to win.\u00a0 And the Rich Galens of the world want the GOP to go along to get along, effectively reducing only the speed<\/em><\/span> at which America’s hurtling towards the looming fiscal cliff, without effecting the inevitability the disaster in the slightest.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a related item, courtesy of\u00a0<\/strong>NRO<\/em>, Andrew McCarthy sounds a warning regarding…<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Republican Embrace of the Welfare State<\/span><\/a> <\/span><\/h1>\n

The establishment GOP has accepted progressivism\u2019s central premise. <\/span><\/a><\/h3>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Kraut<\/a><\/p>\n

Please keep in mind what follows is only a snippet from McCarthy’s full commentary, which can viewed through the links above and below; the entire offering is well worth your time.<\/strong><\/p>\n

…Conservatives, including most of those who were against the New Deal, are not opposed to social welfare for the truly needy. We believe, however, in the constitutional framework, which reserves the promotion of social welfare to the states and the people.<\/span> Social-welfare policy is not<\/em><\/span> one of what Madison described as \u201cthe few and defined\u201d powers delegated to the central government.<\/span> It is, instead, a paradigmatic power of the sovereign states<\/em><\/span> because, as Madison elaborated, it \u201cconcern[s] the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.\u201d<\/strong><\/span> The Constitution thus enables Congress to tax and spend for the general<\/em><\/span> welfare \u2014 on public goods, related to Congress\u2019s carefully enumerated Article I powers, that benefit all Americans<\/em><\/span>; not on redistributionist schemes that fleece some citizens for the benefit of others<\/em><\/span>. <\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

This is not just sound constitutional federalism, it is good policy. Private charity is reliably based on need; it will target the people whose straits are truly dire. Government, to the contrary, is a poor delivery system for social welfare because redistributions of wealth determined by politicians using the compulsory force of law are inevitably made based on political considerations<\/em> \u2014 buying votes<\/em><\/span> \u2014 rather than need<\/span>.<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

If welfare policy is made at the state level, there are important disciplines in the equation that can prevent the programs from bankrupting the state and unduly punishing productivity. Economic conditions vary widely in a nation of our size, so welfare programs are best designed and run at the local level, by elected officials directly accountable to the people who live with the consequences \u2014 officials who can easily alter the programs if conditions change.<\/strong><\/span> States know they are in competition with each other, and if wealth redistribution is too onerous in one state, people and businesses can move to others.<\/strong><\/span> States and localities also may not print money<\/em><\/span>, and they have incentives (and often constitutional requirements) to balance their budgets that do not exist at the federal level.<\/strong> <\/span>At the state level, there can be a sensible balancing of \u201cinternal order, improvement, and prosperity.\u201d<\/p>\n

This is not so at the federal level, as the last 80 years have affirmed. Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are not<\/em><\/span>, as Krauthammer contends, \u201cgreat achievements of liberalism<\/em><\/span>.\u201d<\/span> They are prosperity killers<\/em><\/span> \u2014 and inevitably so<\/em><\/span>.<\/strong><\/span> In part, this is because they have little if anything to do with what Krauthammer describes as the \u201cconsensual idea\u201d that \u201cyou rescue the elderly and don\u2019t allow the elderly to enter into destitution.\u201d If that were the idea that we all agreed on \u2014 and assuming for argument\u2019s sake that we similarly agreed that destitution was a concern of the central government \u2014 we would establish a transparent welfare program. That is, we would define what \u201cdestitute\u201d is and enact a tax commensurate with what was necessary to provide reasonable relief \u2014 structured in a manner that gave people incentives to avoid or escape destitution.<\/p>\n

The New Deal and its Great Society successor programs, by contrast, are frauds designed to create permanent dependency on government<\/em><\/span> (and fealty to the party of government<\/em><\/span>).<\/strong> <\/span>They pretend to be insurance programs, not for the destitute but for all Americans, who pay \u201ccontributions\u201d and \u201cpremiums\u201d into \u201ctrust funds\u201d and derive an \u201centitlement\u201d to \u201cbenefits.\u201d By loading everyone onto the gravy train, even if that meant the poor and middle class would subsidize the rich and near rich, progressives hoped to ensure that no one would object to the arrangement \u2014 people would just expect to get theirs in due course…<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

http:\/\/nationalreview.com\/article\/362259\/republican-embrace-welfare-state-andrew-c-mccarthy\/page\/0\/1<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

In other words, the McCain\/McConnell\/Boehner wing of the party isn’t concerned with changing the outcome, only delaying the eventual ETA.<\/strong><\/p>\n