Two posts at other sites

I wrote these two posts at Tim Panogos’ site because I posted my “de-fence” of Obama’s cabinet page to his site. And then the commentary flew, with harping and such. Beats me why logic is subject to harping and such. But be that as it may, I responded in the only way I know how — with logic and a passion to rid this land of career politicians and the revolving door and the utter nonsense called politics today. It cannot be good for the country, as I explained to the folks at Tim’s site.

By the way, as I look at the list of Bush appointees mentioned, I’d say yes, definitely career politicians, and you are right: part of the problem. But how are more of the same a good thing? If career politicians are the problem why go with more? Is there not one person in our nation who was involved in the things which, say, the departments of commerce, labor, and energy do, but on a major scale, such as running a good sized, but not national, corporation? Are all we left with are lawyers and those who spend their lives seeking power? The funny thing is, over here on sites like this, I complain about Democrats, and over at The American Spectator, etc, I complain about Republicans. And at American Thinker they are preaching to a somewhat offbeat choir. Beats me where I fit in this mess. But one thing for sure and that is that business as usual cannot continue. I agree with you that Bush deficits were bad. So how can I agree with you that Obama deficits are good? Aren’t deficits deficits? If Bush cronyism is bad, then why not Obama’s? If the convoluted tax structure is bad then, then how can making it more convoluted be good? Even on health care — if every currently existing system is either teetering in insolvency to some degree or is beset by fraud and waste, as ever career politician says, shouldn’t they be eliminated, or cleaned up? If you want a public option, why not just do away with every single existing Medicare Medicaid, VA, CHIP, etc, etc, and replace it with a Health for America — one tax, one plan, one method. No, instead, we are keeping that which exists and grafting a whole new octopus on top. And this is good? Does questioning the existing mean I’m defending it? No. Definitely no. But if the word “reform” is to mean anything then get rid of what we have today and start with a brand new One Plan. But if “reform” is merely adding to the morass than count me out. And if it is because career politicians, Republican or Democrat, want to keep their beds feathered with the current system and just make it more convoluted how on earth can this be helping any poor person? Any middle class person? You? Or me? Anyone, for that matter. If health care is to be, say, $1000 a month per person, then tax that and make a One Plan. But to riddle the system with near endless additional rules seems not to be a good idea. But that is the choice we face, put before us by career politicians who merely have the ascendancy now, and in one or two cycles it will be the Republican career politicians. To the victor may go the spoils, but it is you and I, the vast majority of the country, who are losing out. So if I criticize Obama’s team, rest assured that I want nothing to do with the Republican team either.
# 2
on November 28, 2009 at 12:54 am

Glad to see so many are thinking. When I criticized my fellow blogger Tim’s defense of the cabinet it was not because I know anything of Bush’s cabinet appointee’s credentials, or any of the 430 some odd cabinet secretaries who served in the time of the president’s they served under who are represented in the chart. Tim’s post did not talk about Bush appointees, and I’d be glad to make similar criticisms if warranted if that was the topic of discussion. But I did not make a defense, nay, not even a mention of Bush’s cabinet. Truth be told, I’m a throw them all out guy: baby and bath water when it comes to politicians. Start new. We have 300 million people with enough heads on our shoulders to figure out our governance without professional career politicians who have obviously mucked it up. And you must think it’s mucked up, or you wouldn’t be so involved in the discussion. A few less lawyers and professionals might do the country a world of good.
However, Tim’s post was to defend Obama’s appointees. To defend their resumes. To defend their “private” sector experience. Tim says himself that he has conflict about whether some activities are really truly “private.” It is true that many of these people “started” something — no doubt about it. But starting law careers, lobbying firms, non-profits and other well intentioned do gooding things is not experience in the “private” sector as commonly understood. Perhaps a lawyer comes closest. But none of these people ran a factory, ran a retail store, ran a warehouse, ran a restaurant, ran a dry cleaners, and any other private sector enterprise that did not have a direct relationship to government and politics for its survival. And government and politics, whether as a lawyer, lobbyist or academic is not private sector by any means. For the record I’d say that if a Bush appointee was of a similar background than he or she too had no private sector experience and thus is suspect as a professional and career politician, which is not good for a free republic. Further, Tim, for more than a few, in his defense of their private sector bonafides mentions the work histories of their parents. Which of you, my fellow commenters, ever put your father’s or mother’s job on your resume? Or where you went as a child? If that is your defense of your “private” sector experience –what you dad did — well, I’m flummoxed, I admit defeat, it is inarguable.
I also have absolutely no way to judge if the AEI or JP Morgan did the right comparison, or how they weighted their study, or if they were wrong in any way. I even have no way of knowing if they were at a bar and had a spare cocktail napkin. I even wrote that I don’t know those things. And so I’ll even stipulate that the graph is a complete and utter bit of nonsense. Chuck the chart. I didn’t even refer to the chart other than as a starting point of Tim’s defense of the resumes of Obama’s appointees. Stick to what I said: I just go by what Tim’s defense offers. And what he offers is thin indeed, and does not qualify any of these people to be in the position they are in except that they are professional politicians. If you all can’t see that, then, too, I admit defeat, for your faith is inarguable.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: