. . . that's what they were talking about, way back then.
The fact was that in this country, we had gone very much further toward socialism than most democratic countries in Europe -- in the extent of the public sector, with the nationalized industries, and the amount of control, and to some extent the attitudes. We had to turn back. In other words, the center is always the midway between two points, and the whole of the political debate had gone to the left. . .
. . . more spending, more taxing, and more regulation. So does the uber-progressive Houston Chronicle.
In the last eight days, the paper -- in the voice of its editors, cartoonist, and public-affairs columnists -- has urged more spending at least six times, more regulation at least five times, and more taxes at least once.
The paper frosted this three-layed cake with filigrees of criticism and mockery for those who would spend less, tax less, and regulate less: conservatives generally, the Tea Party in particular.
ELEVEN STATES are in such fiscal danger that Forbes recommends against investing there, either in houses, businesses, or municipal bonds. These states "can look forward to a rising tax burden, deteriorating state finances and an exodus of employers."
Two factors determine whether a state makes this elite list of fiscal hellholes. The first is . . .
That is the name for $1.2 billion in automatic spending cuts coming January 1 because the famous super committee famously failed to agree how to cut the deficit.
Conventional wisdom says this will be a disaster. One-half of the cut will hit defense spending and the other one-half will reduce domestic spending, not including Social Security and other sacred cows, both spread over the next ten years.
Critics are nearly unanimous that the cuts will destroy civilization as we know it, by hollowing out the military and sending starving kids into the streets to trade iPhones for Cheerios.
The critics may be right, but we still ought to do it. Here's why.
YUVAL LEVIN, founding editor of National Affairs, is quickly emerging as one of America's most important public intellectuals. Here are snips from a pre-election essay on what was at stake in the election:
That was the pull quote from Paul Ryan's address of October 25 at Cleveland State University, perhaps the finest speech by any candidate in this campaign.
If you're genuinely undecided about how to vote -- and even if you're not -- you will do yourself a favor by listening.
I am struck that while the president talks about rich people, Romney and Ryan speak about poor people. And while the president delivers snippy one-liners about aircraft carriers and submarines, Romney and Ryan speak about peace.
Here are a few snips from the Ryan speech:
We are here . . . on behalf of the idea that no matter who your parents are, no matter where you come from, you should have the opportunity in America to rise, to escape from poverty, and to achieve whatever your God-given talents and hard work enable you to achieve.
. . . .
With a few exceptions, government's approach has been to spend lots of money on centralized, bureaucratic, top-down anti-poverty programs. The mindset behind this approach is that a nation should measure compassion by the size of the federal government and how much it spends. The problem is, starting in the 1960s, this top-down approach created and perpetuated a debilitating culture of dependency, wrecking families and communities.
. . . .
In this war on poverty, poverty is winning. We deserve better. We deserve a clear choice for a brighter future. So what is the alternative approach to Mitt Romney and I are offering?
. . . .
The short of it is that there has to be a balance -- allowing government to act for the common good, while leaving private groups free to do they work that only they can do. There's a vast middle ground between the government and the individual. Our families and our neighborhoods, the groups we join and our places of worship. This is where we live our lives. They shape our character, give our lives direction and help make us a self-governing people.
. . . .
So what is government's duty when it comes to the institutions of civil society? Basically, it is to secure their rights, respect their purposes, and preserve their freedom.
. . . .
But it's not just the abuses of government that undermine civil society: It's also the excesses of government. Look at the road we're on, with trillion-dollar deficits every year. Debt on this scale is destructive in so many ways, and one of them is that it crowds out civil society by drawing resources away from private giving.
Even worse is the prospect of a debt crisis, which will come unless we do something very soon. When government's own finances collapse, society's most vulnerable are the first victims, as we are seeing right now in the troubled welfare states of Europe. . . .
. . . .
Wherever we are in life, whether we are rich or poor, black, brown, or white, Americans by chance or by choice, we are one nation, rising or falling together. That is the promise of America, and we can make it real in the lives of the many who feel left out. To all of those Americans, I ask you to support our campaign, because our cause is yours, and yours is ours, and together we can achieve great things.
