A Sham Exposed

The libertarian, Republican neo-conservative philosophy of "every man for himself" has been exposed for the sham that it is by the hurricane. This neocon administration was unable and unwilling to deal with the aftermath (and also the prevention) of the damage done by the
hurricane because their philosophy is anti-collectivism. The rebuilding of the levees was abandoned under the Bush administration. Everyone consulted knew that money was needed to
reinforce them. People were left for days in horrid conditions because of the incompetence and indifference (I think contempt) of the Bush administration. Even conservative columnist William Kristol admitted that the Clinton administration would have done a better job:

William Kristol, the conservative publisher of The Weekly Standard, said of Mr. Bush: "I do think people think he could have showed stronger leadership." But Mr. Kristol expressed doubt that the
hurricane would have much lasting effect on the president's personal and political fortunes, because "people are capable of saying, 'The president kind of screwed this one up, but I still basically agree with him.'"

Mr. Kristol added, "I think the Clinton administration would have done a better job in handling Hurricane Katrina, but I'm also glad Bush is president and not a Democrat. "

[Courtesy of Shakespeare's Sister originally from the NY Times]

This nonsense of "why should MY MONEY pay for YOUR misfortunes?" is an awful way to live, and it can't work. Isn't it obvious that YOUR MONEY has no meaning and no value in a vacuum? The society that enables and ensures the value of YOUR MONEY comprises the entire
population. You want to go back to feudalism where rich land owners have serfs and their own army? I sure as hell don't. The idea that a progressive tax system with higher taxes on the rich is unfair and punitive is ludicrous. The rich make the rules and control the economy, and without a government collecting taxes and regulating them, they will act out of their own selfish interests to the rest of the population's peril. When someone like me dares voice this opinion, we are called "socialists" and "communists" which is a straw-man argument. Under the tax-structure of the Clinton years, the rich prospered. Their class didn't change. Indeed, they got richer. I myself love the idea that I live in a country where I have the opportunity to make more money if I work hard and am creative, and I believe that if I'm able to do that, then I owe some of that money back to the society that made it possible.

I for one am glad the "liberal media" (what a stupid joke - go to England and watch their news to see what a "liberal media" really is) finally found some integrity and reported what actually happened, which was, it took 5 or 6 days to show up in New Orleans and help the people who couldn't just hop into their Lexus SUV's and drive to Vegas and check into a Hilton. Does anyone actually believe that if it was West Palm Beach instead of New Orleans it would have taken 5 days for the government to go help the people who either refused or couldn't leave?

The fact is, the only way the USA can remain strong and prosper is through a progressive tax system that funds a government that can supply services that can improve all of our lives. Yes, the government wastes some of the money. Yes some in the government are corrupt. But the alternative, which is just let businesses do what they want is exponentially worse. If there is no government to stop them from polluting, they pollute. If there is no government to prevent them from treating their employees like dirt, they will. If there is no government regulating competition, then all there will be is Wal-Mart and Microsoft. And don't give me that old tired argument
that the market will take care of itself. If company A can sell its goods cheaper than company B by dumping toxic waste into a poor neighborhood instead of paying to properly deal with it, company B cannot compete so they will have to do the same thing to survive. The idea that people will buy from company B and pay the higher price because Company A pollutes is nothing but a fairytale, and people who choose to argue otherwise are being disingenuous at best.

I have little hope that the die-hard conservatives will
ever change. Go listen to Neal Boortz if he is syndicated in
your area. If not you can find him at www.boortz.com. His
libertarian philosophy is nothing more than a rationale for rich
people to exploit the rest of us.