...on being a constituent

“If pigs could vote, the man with the slop bucket would be elected swineherd every time, no matter how much slaughtering he did on the side.” -Orson Scott Card

Much has been made in recent days of the attempt in the senate to block a further extension of unemployment benefits (it finally passed today BTW). Obama, of course, has demonized the republicans and pitted them against the unemployed who "just want a job."

The president claims the unemployed need this extension, but he and his party need it far worse. Obama's interests, and the interests of the democrats, lie in getting the maximum number of people onto the government dole prior to the upcoming elections...and keeping them there for as long as possible.

The idea is simple: You don't bite the hand that feeds you. To the contrary, you vote for it.

Ideally, you get people to vote for you by fixing problems like sky-high unemployment. But if you suck at fixing problems (the unemployment rate is still above 9.5% and the real unemployment rate is much higher) and your interests lie elsewhere, then your best bet is to give out free money--to literally buy votes--and create an ongoing dependency on the government. The Obama administration is doing just that, basically saying, "Don't worry about a job--you don't need one. You need us! We'll give you money. You don't even have to work for it--it's free! We'll be your daddy and take care of you. Now, get out there and vote for your daddy."

That sounds cynical and harsh, but it's not blindly cynical and harsh. In late 2008, when my former company cut its staff by 50%, I found myself unemployed and was grateful to have unemployment insurance for the few months it took me to find a new job. Back then (in the heart of the recession) you were eligible for 6 months of unemployment benefits, which was generous but not too generous. The looming cut-off certainly helped focus and intensify my job search. Then benefits were extended. Then extended again. And again. They're up to two years now (do you really need two years to find a job?) and the president wants more.

Imagine being the hand that feeds 9.5% of the voting population! Imagine being the person who gives them their money every month--who pays for their mortgage and car! Think of it: A constituency of the unemployed! And the worse you do your job, the bigger this constituency gets. Genius!

And government handouts aren't limited to unemployment benefits. Since Obama took office, the percentage of Americans who don't pay taxes has gone from 40% to 49%. And analysts predict it could go as high as 60%. Forget the fact that half of all Americans currently bear the entire, sky-rocketing tax burden and think of the political ramifications of having 60% of voting Americans not having to pay taxes. That's not just a constituency, it's a guaranteed election-winning super majority.

It's going to cost money, of course. Lots of money! And for a nation who's already $13 trillion in debt, it's money we simply don't have and can't afford. But massive deficit spending has yet to phase the Obama administration--after all, this just might be the best political strategy tax revenues and borrowed Chinese money can buy. And besides, it's Bush's fault that Obama has to dig out of this mess by passing a trillion dollar universal health care...I mean...um...er...

...on being disingenuous

This week renowned dimwit and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder filed suite against the state of Arizona for crafting a state immigration law that seeks to enforce federal immigration law (mind you, Arizona has yet to implement the new law over which they are being sued). The Arizona law, he says, "crossed a constitutional line" by "hampering the authority of the administration of President Barack Obama to enforce national immigration policy."

Two comments:

First, when did Eric flippin' Holder become a constitutionalist? Holder, his party, the President who appointed him and the justices they nominate view the constitution as an antiquated stumbling block to progressive government...until it suites their needs, I guess.

Second, why on earth would a man and an administration that overtly refuses to "enforce national immigration policy" care about its authority to do so? Authority is meaningless without action (or the will/intent to act). The Arizona law is nothing less than a product of federal immigration law perpetually unenforced. If federal immigration law were enforced in any meaningful way, the Arizona law would not exist. Period. It has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with a complete and willful dereliction of constitutional duties on the part of this and previous administrations in order to curry the favor of latino voters.

"Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility," Holder recently opined in defense of his law suite. Indeed, Mr. Attorney General, indeed. But then so is enforcing immigration law. What gives you the right to set laws but not enforce them? Is the constitution nothing more than a buffet to you? Let me know when you or anybody else in Washington conjures-up the will to enforce immigration policy--to do your job--and I'll consider giving a rat's patooty about your hampered authority.

In the meantime, chew on this: According to recent opinion surveys, 60% of Americans, and over 70% of Arizonans, support the new Arizona immigration law. Seems like doing your job would not only be constitutional but very popular. But what do I know? I'm just one of the 60% of "misguided" Americans who'll be voting your party out of office in a few months.