Kerry Ladka’s dilemma
Kerry Ladka was a virtual unknown before Tuesday’s presidential debate. His question about the intelligence failure in Benghazi gave the man now occupying the White House his biggest score of the night, which ironically should have been his Waterloo.
Since Tuesday, Kerry Ladka has appeared as a guest on several news shows. The man famous for the Benghazi question is now the man being questioned. He says he is still an undecided voter, and wrestles between appreciating Barack Obama’s social positions and Mitt Romney’s business acumen.
Kerry Ladka, are you sure government can bring utopia?
While I appreciate Kerry Ladka’s noble ideas about taking care of those who need help in this country, I deviate from his ideas of using government to do that. The problem as I see it is that all these noble programs are in jeopardy if the nation’s economy is in jeopardy. History has shown that utopian ideals cannot be sustained by humanistic governments. Utopian ideals are better served by compassionate and charitable individuals. There is nothing new under the sun. Ever since Judas proposed selling an expensive bottle of perfume to give the money to the poor, ambitious opportunists have exploited compassionate humans to increase their power bases and expand their finances.
But the philosophical ideals that are obliterated in the cold light of reality are not the subject of this article. The practical applications of these competing philosophies are the focus.
Whatever you think about social services, many have proved successful, while others are rife with fraud and abuse. Below are the more familiar programs that fall into this category:
- Social Security
- Food Stamps
- Planned Parenthood
- PBS (including Big Bird)
- NPR (National Public Radio)
- Student Loans, like Pell Grants
- Welfare assistance
- Family services, including the Foster Children Program
- Head Start
- Government subsidized housing
- Public Education (for some an entitlement, for others a burden)
The argument here is not whether these programs are worth keeping on the public dole. The argument instead is whether these programs are sustainable in a failing economy.
If economy fails, social programs fail
What Kerry Ladka failed to consider, as do many fans of big government, is that if the economy fails, so do these programs. Kerry Ladka may be wrestling with the competing strong suits of Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama. But he fails to realize that all the social programs he favors are in more jeopardy under Mr. Obama than under Mr. Romney.
As Margaret Thatcher so elegantly put it,
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.
With a $16 trillion debt and a possible $20 trillion debt looming should Mr. Obama be given a second term, this country will soon run out of “other people’s money.” Running out of other people’s money means that all the programs previously listed will become history as will the Great American Experiment. After all, government doesn’t have its own money; it has our money. And, if we go broke, so does government. If Kerry Ladka and all like-minded citizens value our social programs, they will not cast their vote for the man now occupying the White House. A prosperous America is an America that can be charitable and an America that can support the programs listed. A financially bankrupt America can’t support anything – regardless of how noble or compassionate its citizens may be. When you get right down to it, a vote for the man now occupying the White House is a vote against charity, a vote against all of our social programs, and a vote against a compassionate America.
Keep America compassionate and charitable. Fire Mr. Obama.ARVE Error: need id and provider