From Beverly's upcoming book: Agenda Games
For many years, there have been back-and-forth warnings for and against certain foods and beverages, to the point where old-timers don’t pay much attention to them, and young parents are totally confused. Alcohol was supposed to be terrible—until some sage figured out that wine, in moderation, actually aided digestion. Meat was a killer, except that it contained protein that was difficult to get in another form. Bacon was a heart attack waiting to happen, but a certain type and amount of fat in the diet was good for you. Then the axe was laid at the foot of the cow: whole milk, much less cream, was to be avoided. Buttermilk was ripped from the grocery shelf because nothing was “fattier” than that—except how would anyone ever again make a tasty pancake or waffle? Finally, dairy sections were filled with no-fats: no-fat yogurt, sour creams, milk, puddings, etc., until one day doctors discovered that many people couldn’t digest no-fat dairy products!
Every first Lady, of course, has to have a gimmick, and Michelle Obama’s is obesity. Not satisfied with having schools teach about the major food groups and their merits (parents thought teaching something in health classes besides sex might actually be a good move), but school lunches suddenly became nightmarish events that discouraged eating altogether and led to food fights. Indeed, the food police at one school recently examined the contents of a pupil’s lunch sack and, finding a nicely wrapped turkey sandwich, compliments of mom, threw it out in disgust and exchanged it for…chicken nuggets—which, last anyone heard, contained the dreaded “f” word: f-r-i-e-d. Who knows? Maybe the food police boil them. Plain. Without salt.
Which brings up an interesting article by James A. Bacon (yes, no kidding!), written April 6, 2012, for The Washington Times. The piece was only somewhat tongue-in-cheek. He starts with the sensible question: What good has all this food-related badgering by the government done? “Americans are more overweight, more prone to diabetes and more at risk of heart disease than ever before,” he wrote.
You got to have a deal, If you don't have a deal, Then how you gonna get a budget through? For those of you who remember South Pacific, the musical, the song, Happy Talk, you get the above reference.
The Happy Talk was all over the Sunday News Shows. Experts pointing fingers and talking about Raising Taxes and Cutting Entitlements. And Boy! Are they happy!
Oh, they may look serious and concerned, but they are tickled pink. They talk of Putting the Burden on Middle Class Americans and Catastrophic Damage to the American Economy.
But there is only the one budget they are talking about (when a question gets answered at all). Let's talk about the other budget. Let's define our terms.
Entitlements are being defined as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, the one we all paid for from the first day we worked. These are the programs we love, so cutting them sounds horrific.
There are other entitlements.
There is Federal money going to support undocumented (illegal) aliens in several states – California, North Carolina and Texas for three that are pretty obvious. There are signs in Spanish at the border telling those who cross to get to North Carolina for a free pass. The free pass includes money, food, housing, transportation and education – all gratis.
There is Federal Welfare, which has a huge infrastructure to do nothing but give free money to those who contribute nothing to the national production.
There are millions and billions given to United States Territories, which receive the same benefits of states but pay no taxes.
And millions and billions given to foreign countries, some of which hate us and actively work against us, which get us nothing.
There are millions going to Federal Programs that have been over for years or are useless, such as the psychiatric study to discover why men in prison are depressed. Millions into the pockets of a small group of psychiatrists to study men in prison. Hm!
Would you like to cut tax breaks? Cut the huge tax breaks to two of the most profitable sectors in American Business – the oil companies, which are logging the highest profit levels in history, the history of any company in the world, and Big Pharma, which gets billions in tax breaks and even government money for “development” of new drugs, and then charges big-time for the results.
The argument, if it comes up at all, for these is that they are not very big categories and would not save us much if they were cut.
Horse-biscuits! In the first place, I don't believe it, because every time I read a report about these tax-breaks, it's in the millions, if not billions. In the second place, if it is true, so what? A little here and a little there could save Social Security.
Suppose your family sat down at the table to discuss the family budget. OK, I know, that's a fantasy, but suppose it happened, just for argument's sake. Would you cut out food, clothing and shelter first thing? Or would you look good and hard for things that could be cut without endangering life and limb?
Suppose you wanted to go on a diet. Would you begin by depriving your lungs of air, so they would shrink in size? Would you cut out your liver, spleen and stomach? No, you would believe there must be a better way.
The Sunday morning talk shows have been all about the budget today, but only two things were discussed, raising taxes and cutting entitlements. However, no one mentioned eliminating tax breaks to the sections of society already making more money than Midas, and no one mentioned eliminating the entitlements that are really sucking this country dry, the money going to people who are contributing nothing to our country except to the crime rate.
If we want to get the country back on it's financial track, we have to get some people on the job who are willing to look at the whole picture. Let's hear about the other budget, the one nobody seems willing to adjust.
Are there hard choices to make? Yes, there are. But the smart decisions aren't politically hurtful to the other party, so neither side wants to make them. The bi-partisan decision would be to cut the fat, the unnecessary expenditures, the old, retired programs and the favorites that help no one but a few special interest groups with loud front men.
Perhaps it would help if the Sunday Morning Talk Shows got some guests who are willing to really talk about the subject rather than stoke the argument, point fingers and lay blame. It's time for a new panel, one that gives us more than “Happy Talk.”
|