We’ll blame our bad tempered presentation of this off-point post on the fact that we’re nearing the end - we hope - of a couple of weeks of a severe head cold. We’re just not in a very good mood. When we looked at the morning paper, there was a minor internal explosion. Well, maybe not minor!
The page one story was headlined, "Obama’s budget: What’s in it for Indiana?"
The heading on the page 8 editorial tells us, "We ignore "red menace" at our peril."
In this case, the "red menace" refers to the dire, red ink fiscal situation of debt and deficit in the nation’s fiscal picture.
Would a more consistent approach by the paper have been a headline, and story, like, "Federal spending in Indiana adds to fiscal problem." Or, "Inappropriate (Unnecessary) federal projects in Indiana."
Our occupation used to require us to attend local budget hearings. We were never able to comprehend how some folks could go directly from complaining about property taxes to a school board meeting to testify "Nothing is too good for the kids." An apparent total inability to connect raising a tax rate with spending more money.
If the front page wording itself is not out of line, surely the psychology of a headline asking "What’s in it for us?" belies the thought of dangerous spending levels.
Years ago we used this analogy in an editorial in an association newsletter. "If a valid study indicates that government is spending twice as much on paper clips as is needed, and further concludes that cutting back to necessary levels will close two paper clip factories and cause substantial unemployment, what is the proper action?"
We seem to have reached that point. Is there really a painless, effortless way to get rid of an addiction? Any suggestions?
Will we someday send people to Washington to govern in the name of all citizens rather than with a mandate to swap votes and tax dollars with the (vain) hope that we can take more from our neighbor than he can take from us?