TheAgitator.com
Rhetorical Question
Sunday, March 28th, 2004Speaking of the prescription drug debacle, Glen Whitman raises an excellent point.
If the bill just barely passed when the pricetag was $400 billion, and it’s now known that the bill will cost $550 billion, it’s pretty clear that the more expensive version would never have passed.
(The lower figure was disingenuously thrown out the White House, which knew the bill would never pass if the real numbers were known, and thus threatened to fire in-house analysts if they dared to tell the public the truth.)
So why doesn’t Congress simply revoke the bill?
We all know the answer. They’re cowards. And no one wants to enter the 2004 election having just revoked a (useless, wastefull and ultimately unworkable) handout to seniors.
Yeah, but don’t you see how poofy Kerry’s hair is?
As an old man (I dislike “senior citizen”) I, and most old folks I know, agree that this so-called plan is nothing more than a political vote-and-money-driven fiasco that has already cost more than it will ever be worth to anyone other than the unbelievably greedy drug companies that made it happen. Congress should kill it now, but that would reveal what fools they were and continue to be.
Any individual congressman who wants to run against this bill should feel free to do so.
The fact that few if any will; more or less demonstrates the reasonableness of Congress’s failure to repudiate it.
Perhaps some of them are cowards, but they are in the game. “Brave Libertarians, are for the most part not.
This by the way is as good a time as any to mention MY favorite amendment to the constitution; which would exclude anyone from the right to vote that received ANY kind of government check except a tax refund check. That would include benefits checks as well as salary.
Rocketman,
What about military? do they have any say who their commander and cheat should be?
Rocketman — while his bias is obvious, Devin does have a point.
Your point is well taken, too — though I would change the criteria to something both simpler and wider, to encompass even more of the people you are concerned about.
It’s simple — no representation without taxation.
Maybe “without taxation” should be expanded to mean that, if you get more back from the gov. in benefits (or the Earned Income credit — but not Soc. Sec. or Medicare) than you pay in income taxes, you are disqualified from voting, because your ability to evaluate the cost of government is compromised.
And, I’d consider expanding this disqualification to corporate officers who accept corporate welfare in excess of the taxes their corporations pay.
Of course, all this adds to the already-Byzantine tax code. Maybe we should just adopt The Fair Tax instead — it puts the cost of goverment in front of everyone, every day, in a way they will not ignore.
Devin – no way. It is a voluntary force and if one doesn’t like the rules, well then off to the private sector one goes.
Rocketman is right – the incentive and bias towards a large, well fed gov’t body would be greatly reduced if such a policy were put in place.
Rich, you know as well as I do that the Fair Tax has about as much a chance of acceptance as the flat tax …. that is, about as much a chance as a Libertarian does of becoming President.
Heh…7, now 8 comments on a Rhetorical Question.
heh,heh