On the rare and precious occasions when the real questions of War and Peace and of our ravaged Economy are asked of our government in such forums as the U.S. Senate, they seem to disappear into the mist that pervades the dome above a Democrat Senate-majority and the corridors of the Democrat Administration. And that appears to be just fine with the Dem boosters at the state and precinct levels.
On July 24, Independent Senator Bernie Sanders addressed a Senate committee, in-part, as follows in the paragraphs below. I -- an ex-lifelong Democrat and never a Republican -- ask your patience in repeating brief portions of the Senator's address so to lay the foundation of the questions I would ask of you, or more specifically of Democrats.
Here is Independent Senator Sanders:
"Economically, the United States today has, by far, the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major country on earth and that inequality is worse today in America than at any time since the late 1920s.
"Today, the wealthiest 400 individuals own more wealth than the bottom half of America -- 150 million people.
"Today, one family, the Walton family of Walmart fame, with $89 billion, own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America. One family owns more wealth than the bottom 40 percent.
"Today, the top one percent own 40 percent of all wealth, while the bottom sixty percent owns less than 2 percent. Incredibly, the bottom 40 percent of all Americans own just 3/10 of one percent of the wealth of the country."
Think about what the Independent senator has said. Then think about these quite reasonable questions to ask of Democrat senators, our Democrat President, and Democrat partisan-citizen enablers:
(1) What Democrat senator will stand to address this skewed distribution of income, wealth, and property attributable to mal/misfeasance of decent government regulation and appropriate oversight -- with the conviction equal to the Independent Senator from Vermont? And why would he not?
(2) Where is, or can we reasonably expect the same level of conviction voiced by the Democrat President who refuses federal campaign funds for the ten-times higher "privately" donated campaign chest? (That's about $100 Million vs his own stated expectation of $1 Billion in private "donations.")
(3) What would a reasonable person think to be the quid pro quo of a very large privately furnished campaign contribution?
(4) Why is the issue of government vs private presidential campaign funding NOT now more prominently listed -- if at all -- on the current agendae of Democrat "meet-ups" at the state and precinct levels?
(5) Do you yourself think that large private campaign contributions make a difference in flavoring future legislation and affecting regulatory oversight?
(6) Do you care beyond the mentality that "our guy is better-than or lesser-evil-than their guy"?
When this progressive writer asked such questions of Democrats in my own community, the only response offered was to charge if I were a "secret agent for Romney." That's how pathetically the partisanistas respond on questions such as the above as well as when will THEIR President end the Bush-Obama Wars.
A long time ago, a very wise person said: "We get the government we deserve." Maybe. Or is it now perhaps: We get the government that someone buys." Either way, and no matter how egregiously unrepresentative a partisan faction of that government might be, it's to be expected that any reasonable question of its integrity and actions will be defended with partisan fervor all the way down to street level by the loyal members who are themselves most betrayed.
1 | 2
|Go To Commenting|
|The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.|
The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.
This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.