President Obama is “the Best Food-Stamp President in American History”

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 21st, 2012

Week in Review

Newt Gingrich called President Obama “the best food-stamp president in American history.”  Because, Gingrich said, President Obama has spent more on food stamps than any other president.  Supporters of the president have attacked Gingrich’s comments.  Calling them untrue.  And racist.  So is Newt Gingrich a lying racist?  Or is President Obama the “the best food-stamp president in American history?”  All we can do is look at the numbers (see Report: Welfare government’s single largest budget item in FY 2011 at approx. $1.03 trillion by Caroline May posted 10/18/2012 on The Daily Caller).

The government spent approximately $1.03 trillion on 83 means-tested federal welfare programs in fiscal year 2011 alone — a price tag that makes welfare that year the government’s largest expenditure, according to new data released by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee…

The data excludes spending on Social Security, Medicare, means-tested health care for veterans without service-connected disabilities, and the means-tested veterans pension program…

CRS reports that food assistance programs — the third largest welfare category behind health and cash assistance — experienced the greatest increase in spending, with 71 percent more spending in 2011 than in 2008. The agency explained that this spending increase was largely due to the growth in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps.

Well, apparently President Obama is “the best food-stamp president in American history.”  At least, based on his 71% increase in food assistance programs spending.  Where most of the increase in spending came from food stamps.  So it would appear that Newt Gingrich is not a lying racist.

Total 2011 defense spending (military defense, veterans, foreign military aid and foreign economic aid) was $964.8 billion according to us government spending.  Or $0.9648 trillion.  Which is less than $1.03 trillion in spending on means-tested federal welfare programs.  Now here’s an interesting side note.  The Constitution calls for defense spending.  While it doesn’t call for any welfare spending.  So this is quite the deviation from our Founding.  And one the Founding Fathers would probably not approve of.  As you can enrich some defense contractors with that defense spending.  But you can’t buy a lot of votes with it.  Not like the votes you can buy by giving people lots and lots of free stuff.   And $1.03 trillion can buy a lot of stuff.

When you have an economic record that is an abject failure you can’t run on your record.  Because most people are not better off after 4 years of President Obama.  Unless, of course, they got some of that $1.03 trillion in additional federal spending.  Which is about all a failed presidency can hope for.  Grateful benefits recipients.  As long as there are enough of them.  And when you increase some federal spending by $1.03 trillion there just may be enough of them.

One final note.  We’ve had trillion dollar deficits in each of President Obama’s 4 years in office.  Deficits that we had to finance by borrowing from China.  Excessive spending and borrowing that caused the first credit downgrade in US history.  All, it would appear, to create more grateful benefits recipients to help with the president’s reelection.  Because his 4 years in office have been an abject failure.  With his only success being the expansion of the welfare state.  Leading to the aforementioned credit downgrade.  And a bleak future of a new normal.  High unemployment.  Low GDP growth.  High taxes.  Stagflation.  And Malaise.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The NASA Old Guard Supporting Mitt Romney to Reverse Obama’s NASA Disarray

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 28th, 2012

Week in Review

NASA doesn’t like President Obama.  For it was on his watch that they retired the Space Shuttle program.  And now have to rely on the Russians to ferry American astronauts to the International Space Station.  Pretty sad for it was NASA that put a man on the moon.  No one else has.  And now the American space program has been reduced to hitchhiking rides on old Russian rocket systems that were used during the glory days of NASA (see Last man on the Moon backs Mitt Romney’s race to White House orbit by Jacqui Goddard posted 1/28/2012 on The Telegraph).

In an open letter endorsing Mr Romney’s candidacy, veterans including Apollo 17 moonwalker Gene Cernan, first space shuttle pilot Bob Crippen and former head of Nasa Mike Griffin, feted him as the only contender capable of reversing the “disarray” wreaked on Nasa by President Obama.

Their boost comes after several days of campaigning by the Republican hopefuls on Florida’s Space Coast, a region that thrived during Nasa’s glory days but which is now facing economic gloom following the retirement of the space shuttle last year and confusion over what will succeed it.

On Friday, Mr Romney admitted to a crowd at Cape Canaveral – home to Nasa’s Kennedy Space Centre – that if elected, he would assemble expertise to help chart a new course for the space programme. Mr Gingrich said that he already had one in mind: colonizing the Moon by the end of his second term as president.

Obama is making no friends in the space community.  Despite his quest for jobs of the future.  And if any jobs would qualify as jobs of the future they would have to be space jobs.  But there’s a problem with these jobs.  They’re not unionized enough.  And don’t send a lot of campaign money to Democrat coffers.  Hence Obama’s lack of interest in NASA.

Interestingly, the old guard of NASA is endorsing Mitt Romney.  Who will establish a blue ribbon panel to figure out what to do with NASA.  While Newt Gingrich is proposing Apollo – Phase II, the return to the moon.  This would be a boon to the space community.  Which is what you’d think the old guard would want.  Unless they don’t believe the taxpayers would never support such a bold and expensive program like that.  Or they think it was just expedient politics before the Florida primary.  Or they just don’t believe Newt Gingrich can win in the general election.  And they want someone who appears to be more moderate.  And can reach across the aisle.  Like John McCain.  Who lost in 2008 to Barack Obama.  Which just goes to show you how well moderates fair against Democrat ‘moderates’ (Obama ran as a moderate but gave us Obamacare).

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Barney Frank can’t win Reelection because of Redistricting so he Retires

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 3rd, 2011

Week in Review

Barney Frank shared something with Nancy Pelosi.  They had congressional districts that were so full of liberals that neither ever had to campaign for reelection.   Which says a lot considering barely 20% of the populace is liberal.  So you know they had some favorable district lines.  But, alas, for poor Barney the slam dunk is over.  The new district lines adds so many conservatives that it almost is representative of the population.  Which is approximately 40% conservative, 20% liberal and about 40% moderate and independents.  And without a stacked deck, there is no way Barney Frank can win an election (see Barney Frank, Top Liberal, Won’t Seek Re-election by ABBY GOODNOUGH posted 11/28/2011 on The New York Times).

Earlier in the day, Mr. Frank announced at a news conference that he had decided to retire at the end of next year after his Massachusetts district was recently redrawn and it became clear that he would have to fight harder than he wanted for re-election.

Even before this redistricting things were already looking down for Frank.  The architect of the subprime mortgage crisis (he and Chris Dodd were responsible for the Congressional oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) had to fight last election.  For one of the first times in his life.  And he didn’t like it.  This time around would have been worse.  And he knew it.  He’d lose.  So he decided not to run.  For it’s one thing not having majority power.  Which is no fun.  But it’s a whole other thing to have to fight and scratch your way to the minority power.  Go through all of that for what?  Just to have someone tell you can’t do whatever the hell you want?  No sir.  This congressman will just take his toys and go home.

Now, Mr. Frank said, the notion that wrangling between Democrats and Republicans is “a competition between people of good will with different views on public policy” has vanished. For that, he blames Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and current Republican presidential candidate with whom he has a tense history.

“Newt’s the single biggest factor in bringing about this change,” Mr. Frank said. “He got to Congress in ’78 and said, ‘We the Republicans are not going to be able to take over unless we demonize the Democrats.’ ”

You see, this is why no one likes Barney Frank.  He’s such an arrogant liar.  Demonize Democrats?  Who was that taking Newt Gingrich out of context, saying that he wanted to take seniors’ Medicare away so they could whither on the vine and die?  That was the Democrats.  Demonizing Newt Gingrich.  And the Republicans.

Bipartisan is a one-way street for Democrats.  When they’re in power there’s no need for bipartisan cooperation.  Because they’ll rule as they please despite any Republican opposition.  Because they won.  And elections have consequences.  But once they fall from majority power how they cry that Republicans aren’t playing nice.  By not letting the Democrats still set the agenda.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #46: “Liberals say ‘do as I say not as I do’ because they can’t point to anything worthwhile they’ve done.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 30th, 2010

The High Compliance Costs of The American with Disabilities Act of 1990

I have a friend who worked at a company that was renovating one of their buildings.  He was in a foul mood one day.  The renovation included a high-end sales and marketing center.  Some place to impress clients.  Included in the renovation was a media room for multimedia presentations.  It was a competitive business; they were looking to woo some clients away from their competitors.  And to keep their current client base from straying to the competition.

It was an existing building.  Space was tight.  They were trying to do a lot in a small footprint.  And they did.  I saw it one day before the work was completed.  Wow.  It was gorgeous.  Especially the media room.  It looked like something you saw in a 5-star hotel.  They built the control room for the media room on a raised platform.  Equipment racks would sit on the floor.  And the cabling would leave the racks through the raised floor and out into a floor duct wiring system.  The walls and ceiling were some nice architectural finishes.  There was no drop ceiling.  No place to conceal wiring but in the walls.  And in the floor.

Well, there was a problem.  The American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was relatively new.  This architectural firm complied with the new law in almost every place.  Drinking fountains were wheelchair accessible.  There were ramps to get up the curb so wheelchairs could enter the building.  And various other compliances.  The building complied.  Everywhere.  Everywhere, that is, but one area.  The control booth for the media room.  On the raised floor.  There was a step to enter this room.  And no space to add a ramp.  They fought the building inspectors.  The various authorities having jurisdiction.  But to no avail.  The spiffy new sales and marketing center would not be as designed.  They had to redesign it.  Rebuild it.  And delay the scheduled completion date.  Hence my friend’s foul mood.

The Government Exempts themselves from the High Compliance Costs of their own Legislation

You’d think the authorities having jurisdiction (AHJ) would have given a waiver.  But they didn’t.  It was a big office building.  And a small control room.  Less than 1% of the company’s total employees would ever enter that room.  Didn’t matter.  Some of the AHJ enjoyed their power.  Others were simply afraid someone would sue them down the road.  So they delayed the project. 

Unfortunately, they had already begun to relocate operations from the old to the new.  They suspended all presentations for a month at this facility so the old conference room could be demolished and rebuilt into something else.  And it was.  Demolished.  Now they had no place to wow their customers.  For another month or two.  That’s a whole quarter they had to reschedule around.  It did not impress their clients.  And may have cost them one or two.  All because of the silly inflexibility of the AHJ.

This is a good example of the unintended consequences of liberals’ best intentions.  It’s a microcosm of the ADA’s affect on business everywhere.  Sure, they had a noble goal.  To make a barrier-free world for all.  But the compliance costs to fully meet the letter of the law were brutal to small and medium sized businesses.  But Congress didn’t care.  It’s ‘do as I say, not as I do’.  Literally.  You see, Congress exempted themselves from the American with Disabilities Act of 1990.  Why?  Wait for it.  Because they said it would be too costly for them to comply.  And they said this publicly to justify their exemption from the act.  Unbelievable.  The height of arrogance and condescension.

The High Compliance Costs of OSHA

Well, Congress was dragged kicking and screaming into the real world.  Thanks to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution of the 1994 midterm elections.  That Congress authored the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995.  Congress would no longer be above the law.  Now they, too, had to comply with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.  To name a few.

I have a friend who works in construction in a metropolitan area.  He’s a project manager for a construction manager.  And you should hear some of the things he tells me.  Big construction projects often have federal money involved.  And when they do, there are some pretty restrictive rules.  Especially on the big projects.  Why?  Because big projects have deep pockets.

You would not believe some of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requirements on a construction project.  Well, on big projects, because no small contractor could afford the compliance costs.  Or the owner, for that matter.  A couple come to mind.  He said that a worker had to tie himself off when working on a ladder more than 6 feet off the ground (a nylon safety line tied to a body harness attached to something fixed and immovable).   Contractors had to conduct daily safety meetings with their field employees.  They had a safety trailer on site with a couple of safety officers to walk the site and police safety.  They had to get ‘hot work permits’ anytime they used a welding torch or other open flame.  You get the idea.  Workers couldn’t do anything dangerous without an inordinate investment in time and money on part of the contractor.  And yet workers still did stupid things.  Like refuse to wear a hardhat on a hot day.  Of course, when they did and OSHA happened to be on site, they’d write a pretty big fine.  And guess who had to pay it?  Not the employee.  But the employee’s boss.

But when Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, they exempted themselves.  Because it would have cost them too much to comply.

The High Compliance Costs of Affirmative Action

But there’s more.  When federal money is involved, there are other hoops to jump through.  You see, the metropolitan area had a large minority population.  And the federal government wanted minority owned businesses to share in some of that construction money.  It was affirmative action.  To help minority owned businesses.  A certain percentage of the work was set aside for these businesses.  The problem was big projects have tight schedules and high-tech building processes.  The kind of work that big and established contractors do all of the time.  And the kind that little contractors starting out who need help (the kind of contractor the government wanted to help) had little to no experience doing.  The idea was for the big guy to mentor the little guy.  Which is not easy to do when competitively bidding work.  Helping these contractors earns no revenue.  It just adds cost.  So you either include the cost up front (and not get the job because you’re not the low bidder).  Or you leave it out and try and recoup it on the back end (I believe the technical term is raping and pillaging on change orders).

Well, there are rules.  And it starts at bid time.  Your bid form asks for the percentage of these minority businesses you’ll be using.  There’s a minimum required.  But you can use more.  And the government weighted things differently.  You counted contractors at their full contract value.  But material suppliers were discounted (I don’t remember, but it might have been 50%).  Suppliers are safer to use because you can use your own highly skilled work force.  So you max these out.  Then you use some small minority contractors on some easier work you can peel off from the rest.  It’s nothing against these guys.  They do well on some of the less exotic stuff.  But some of the other stuff is just over their skill level.  Because they’re new and inexperienced.

Now, because they can use suppliers, there are minority ‘suppliers’ out there looking to exploit this set aside.  They’re not really a supplier, though.  They’re a ‘pass-through’ company.  What they do is offer their services to basically buy from a contractor’s preferred supplier and then resell to the contractor for a small markup.  This basically defeats the whole point of helping minorities, but it helps you stay on schedule.  Construction today uses just-in-time deliveries.  Especially on construction site with no storage area available for material.  And they need their well established working relationships to feed their supply pipeline.  It usual works.  But sometime a contractor’s audit will disallow a previously approved ‘pass-through’ supplier.  And when they do, look out.  If you don’t meet the percentage you included on your bid form you’re looking at some serious fines.  My friend told me the government wrote this one poor contractor of his a fine greater than the value of his contract.

Liberal Legislation:  Compliance Costs, Avoidance Costs and Unintended Consequences

The federal government has no business experience.  At least, the liberal left.  But they’re always trying to make business better.  And fairer.  This results in huge compliance costs.  And avoidance costs.  The federal government has little sympathy for the swath of destruction their legislation causes.  Especially when they were exempting themselves from much of that legislation. 

But it’s ‘do as I say, not as I do’.  Because they feel they’re above the law.  Or, at least, should be.  So they continue to tinker.  Failing more times than not.  And causing a slew of unintended consequences.  Despite their best intentions.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #38: “Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 4th, 2010

Liars Lie

Lying works.  Political spin.  Poetic license.  Fibbing.  Slander.  Libel.  Call it what you’d like.  Politicians lie.  Because it works.  Especially when you can’t win in the arena of ideas.  If they can’t win the philosophical debate what do our politicians do?  Attack the messenger, not the message.  If the history doesn’t validate their policies what do they do?  Revise history.  It never changes.  The only thing that does is the people hearing the lies.

Presidents may dream, but the House of Representatives controls the purse.  That’s why there are numerous battles between Capitol Hill and the White House.  Between Speakers of the House and presidents.  Some of the big partisan battles in recent times?  Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan.  Tom Foley and George H.W. Bush.  Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton.  Nancy Pelosi and George W. Bush.  When different political parties hold the White House and the Hill, the partisanship escalates.  And the lies get more brazen.  Especially on the political fringe.

Some lies bordered on the ridiculous.  Like Ronald Reagan created AIDS to kill homosexuals.  That George H. W. Bush flew to Iran on an SR-71 to meet secretly with the Iranians during the 1980 presidential campaign.  Why?  To negotiate with the Iranians to keep the American hostages until after the election.  That George W. Bush blew up the Twin Towers to start a war that would let him invade Iraq.  No doubt there was some political damage from these lies.  But the lasting damage from these ridiculous lies pale in comparison to the Big Lies that the Left perpetuates to this day.

Trickle-Down Economics

Ronald Reagan was president from 1981 until 1989.  When he entered office, the economy was in the toilet.  Double digit inflation.  Double digit interest rates.  Unemployment at 7.1%.  Reagan wanted to cut taxes and spending.  The Democrat controlled Congress wanted to increase federal spending to ‘stimulate’ the economy (ala Keynesian economics).  The Congress fought him.  But Reagan used the bully pulpit and appealed directly to the American people.  They liked his message which brought pressure down on Congress.  They gave a little.  Reagan got his tax cuts.  The top marginal rate went from 70% down to 28% by the time he left office.  The result?  The economy boomed.  They call it the Decade of Greed.  Because we were very materialistic and greedy.  And people lived well.

Yes, but at what cost?  That’s what the Left always says to refute Reaganomics.  What they deride as trickle-down economics.  They point to military spending.  They point to Reagan’s deficit spending.  And the growing federal debt.  The Left says this is what Reagan’s tax cuts have given us.  Growth and prosperity at the expense of future generations.  Which is perhaps the greatest lie of the 20th century.  But because the Left has repeated it so often, a lot of people accept it as fact.  Even though the numbers refute this grand lie.

When Reagan entered office, federal tax receipts were $517 billion.  When he left office in 1989, federal tax receipts were $991 billion.  This is an increase of 91.7%.  Or, to look at in another way, tax receipts in 1989 were 1.9 times the amount they were in 1980.  That’s almost double.  So, despite the great lie of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts did NOT cause deficits or increase the debt.  Cuts in the tax rates brought MORE money into the federal treasury.  Excessive federal spending caused the deficits.  Federal spending increased from $590.9 billion in 1980 to $1,143.7 billion in 1989.  That’s a 93.6% increase.  Spending, too, almost doubled.  In other words, spending increased 1.9% more than tax receipts by the end of Reagan’s second term.  Washington was awash in money.  They just spent it faster than it came in.

Blame the excessive spending on Cold War defense spending or domestic spending.  The point is moot.  Because it doesn’t change the fundamental truth that Reagan’s tax cuts INCREASED federal tax receipts.  Or the lesson learned that tax cuts stimulate the economy.  Anyone saying otherwise is lying and trying to revise history.

Wither on the Vine

The Reagan decade ended prosperously.  Reaganomics were a success.  Which was a threat to those with a vested interest in Big Government.  But people liked Reagan.  And only agreed to vote for George H.W. Bush when he made the infamous ‘read my lips – no new taxes’ campaign pledge.  But Bush was no Reagan.  He wasn’t as conservative.  Or as charismatic.  He couldn’t sell conservative America (center-right) his less than conservative policies (center-left).  The Left, seeing he was no Reagan, maneuvered him into a position favorable to them on the deficit.  The Republicans wanted to cut spending.  The Democrats, of course, wanted to raise taxes.  And with the Democrats in control of the House, he caved.  He raised taxes.  And when he did, he became a one-term president.  The American people were so angry when he reneged on his ‘read my lips – no new taxes’ pledge, the third party candidate in the 1992 presidential campaign, Ross Perot, got 18.9% of the popular vote.  No third party candidate did better.  Exit polling shows he drew equally from both Bush and Clinton, though only 20% of his voters were liberal.  The rest were conservatives and moderates.  Perot brought a carnival atmosphere to the campaign.  Charts and props made for good TV.  This spectacle, though, drew critical attention away from Clinton’s past.  Parts of which moderates would have found objectionable.

Clinton ran as a centrist.  He lied.  As liberals are wont to do during a campaign in a center-right country.  Once in office, he swung to the left.  The American people were angry.  As people are wont to be when lied to.  At the 1994 midterm elections, the people spoke.  And gave both houses of Congress to the Republicans.  Newt Gingrich became the Speaker of the House.  He co-authored the Contract with America which was a Republican pledge to return America to a conservative path.  It appealed to the American people.  It’s what swept the Republicans into power.  And it scared the Left.  So they attacked it.  Called it the Contract on America.  And they attacked Newt Gingrich.  With a vengeance.

In 1995, Gingrich discussed an alternative to Medicare.  Number crunchers projected Medicare (and Social Security) to go into the red a decade or two out.  Medicare (and Social Security) is a big federal expenditure and a political third rail.  The Left uses the elderly as political pawns whenever they can.  Because that’s what Big Government does.  Get people dependent on Big Government and then scare the hell out of them by saying the Right wants to take their benefits away.  Gingrich was discussing high-deductible health insurance plans and tax free Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs).  The MSAs included an annual federal subsidy for seniors.  The plan would be appealing to seniors, Gingrich thought, because they could get better health care coverage with a private plan.  The MSAs and the federal subsidies would make it affordable.  Better care without paying more.  Who wouldn’t want that?  Once people made this choice voluntarily, they would move out of Medicare into a private plan.  Those comments in 1995 included this:

What do you think the Health Care Financing Administration is? It’s a centralized command bureaucracy. . . . Now, we don’t get rid of it in round one because we don’t think that that’s politically smart and we don’t think that that’s the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it’s going to wither on the vine because we think people are voluntarily going to leave it — voluntarily.

Wither on a vine?  Talk about a hanging softball.  There was no way the Democrats weren’t going to whack that one out of the park.  It quickly became ‘Medicare benefits’ and NOT the inefficient ‘centralized command bureaucracy’ that was going to wither on the vine.  The Left ran with it.  Another grand lie.  Repeated it at nauseam.  And scared the seniors.  Gingrich’s days were numbered.  And Clinton had a new enemy to demonize.  Which came in handy when no one wanted his policies.

The Lies that Keep on Giving

Big Government depends on getting as many people dependent on government as possible.  Medicare (and Social Security) is one program that does this very well.  And when Gingrich dared to threaten it, they destroyed him.  With a grand lie.  Like the grand lie that tax cuts stimulate deficits, not the economy.  Perpetuating these lies enables unsustainable government spending.  Threatens the future of all Americans.  And the longer it takes for the truth to come out, the deeper the hole we dig ourselves into.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #9: “Liberal politicians have more fun because their licentious behavior is more readily forgiven.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 13th, 2010

LORD ACTON SAID, “Power tends to corrupt.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  And it’s true.  When you’ve acquired god-like powers, it is very difficult to restrain the use of that power. 

In Mel Brooks’ History of the World: Part I, French King Louis the XVI said it was good to be king as he fondled and made love to any woman he pleased.  Though perhaps a little light on historical accuracy, the French monarchy was an absolute monarchy (whereas Great Britain’s was a constitutional monarchy with a Parliament to check the king’s power).  The French king could in theory do anything he wanted to.  Well, until the sans-culottes stormed the Bastille.  This was the point of no return in the French Revolution.  And we all know what happened next.  (The revolutionaries beheaded King Louis XVI and his queen, Marie Antoinette).

America didn’t have any kings.  But we did have a royal family.  And a royal court.  Camelot.  Our queen was Jackie.  Her king, JFK, enjoyed the trappings of court life.  For it was good to be king. 

The hottest, sexiest and most voluptuous woman in America was the blonde bombshell Marilyn Monroe.  Every man fantasized about having sex with her.  JFK didn’t have to, though.  He was boinking her.  Yes, he cheated on his queen, America’s most perfect wife in the most perfect family.  Monroe would later commit suicide.  No one knows if that had anything to do with the affair she was having with the unavailable JFK.  Whatever the sad truth is, posterity has forgiven this Democrat.  And JFK remains a Democrat icon.

Bill Clinton had a political hero.  JFK.  He even met him.  A highlight of his nascent political career.  He worshipped him.  Wanted to be like him.  And he was to an extent.  He couldn’t keep it in his pants either.  He, too, found it was good to be king.  The fun you can have with interns.  Not sex, mind you.  Just oral-genital stimulation to, um, issue.  And that was his undoing.  That…issue…landed on a blue dress.  It proved he committed perjury during grand jury testimony.  This led to impeachment.  But he survived the Senate vote and remained president.  Clinton supporters derided the whole episode as ‘just sex’.  They didn’t need to forgive this Democrat.  Few found any fault in his actions.  People liked Clinton.  He was cool.  Why, he even talked about his underwear on MTV.

WHEN WE TALK about politicians, it is important to note that there are two kinds.  There are the decent, honest, trustworthy, selfless representatives of the people and the ones with an ‘r’ next to their name.  At least, that’s the common misperception.  Apparently, power does tend to corrupt.  And, apparently, absolute power does corrupt absolutely.  But only if you’re a Republican.

We often attack Republicans for trying to force their morality on us.  Live and let live, we say.  The Democrats, on the other hand, have the reputation of being nonjudgmental.  Anything goes.  Because they don’t judge us for any of our social behavior we don’t judge them.  And are quick to forgive them.  And always ready to pounce on any moral lapse of anyone who dares to criticize our own social behavior.

What does this mean?  The Left has carte blanche on licentious behavior and can pretty much do whatever the hell they please.  If they get caught all they have to say is, “Sorry.”  And then it’s like it never happened.

TED KENNEDY HAD a ‘d’ following his name.  He was a big time liberal.  So liberal that his ‘brand’ of Catholicism had no problem with abortion.  A member of Camelot, he enjoyed some king-like behavior.  He didn’t preach morality to anyone and no one preached it to him.  He lived life.  And his partying lifestyle brought him one day to a small island near Martha’s Vineyard in 1969.   His pregnant wife was home in bed.

Chappaquiddick.  We all know what happened there.  A young woman would die.  And a presidential hopeful would be hopeful no more.

Mary Jo Kopechne left a party with Ted Kennedy who was ‘driving her back to her hotel’.  About midnight.  Kennedy could have had his chauffeur drive her.  But he didn’t.  He drove her himself.  So there they were, the two of them, alone, driving on unlit, deserted roads.  They stopped on one road.  Someone approached.  The car backed up and sped away.  Towards a narrow bridge with no guardrails.  A bridge that veered slightly left from the path of the road approaching it.  Kennedy didn’t.  He tried to stop but it was too late. 

The car skidded off into the water, coming to rest upside down.  Kennedy got out.  He didn’t contact authorities until the following morning.  That’s when they removed Kopechne.  Some reports stated her body was in a position with her head bent backwards with her mouth reaching up to what may have been an air pocket in the upturned car.  She may have been breathing until her exhaled carbon dioxide eventually suffocated her.

Authorities didn’t file charges.  They did suspend his driver’s license for 6 months.  He paid Kopechne’s family about $100,000.  His insurance company paid them another $50,000.  Kennedy’s wife miscarried.  And he remained in the Senate for another 40 years.  We forgave this Democrat.

HOUSE DEMOCRATS FILED eighty four ethics violations against Republican Newt Gingrich in 1997.  Only one held.  The House of Representatives fined the Speaker of the House $300,000 for ethical wrongdoing.  This was over the tax-exempt status of a college course that he was involved with that had ‘political purposes’.  The IRS found no tax violations. 

The fallout from this helped push him out of his Speaker position by pressure from within his own party.  They saw his public image as too much of a liability.  He ultimately resigned.  We did not forgive this Republican.

THE KENNEDY FAMILY has a reputation.  There’s talk about a curse.  But is there a curse or is it just a reckless lifestyle by people who feel they can do whatever they want?  Imagine if someone else was driving that car that night.  Do you think it would have ended differently?  Do you think there would have been some criminal charges?  Negligent homicide?  Probably.

Newt Gingrich didn’t commit tax fraud.  But there were questions about the tax-exempt status he claimed which violated House rules.  And that reckless disregard of House rules could not stand.  Gingrich’s political career was over. 

Compassion appears to be the rule when a Democrat falters.  Vengeance appears to be the rule when a Republican falters.  There are exceptions, of course.  But, in general, if you really want to have fun while in Congress, it would be prudent to have a ‘d’ next to your name.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,