Those of us on the right, (pun intended,) side of the fiscal debate have made a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory over the past few decades. When we make our points without apology in the arena of ideas, we win elections, period. After winning those elections, many on our side have taken to the idea of swaying to the perceived shifting in public opinion winds. When that happens, we lose elections, and we lose them big. It never ceases to amaze me how the spin on those cycles can be so wildly misread, and believed. If you are a conservative, do not read the NYT, Time, Newsweek, or watch ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or MSNBC. These sources of information are telling us all whole sale lies. Read the WSJ, Investors Business Daily, and if you must watch T.V. for your news, Fox is at least less offensive than the rest. This essay is not about media bias though, it is more about the upcoming debate on entitlement spending. It is about the victory, which by the way is no small feat, at shifting our national debate from the how fast will our government grow paradigm, to how much fat will we cut from a bloated budget paradigm. It is a discussion about the upcoming media blitz to make us all believe that American Sentiment is suddenly changing, to wanting the government to continue its massive growth and spending habits on the social welfare programs which have so effectively bankrupted our country. It is a discussion about our elected leaders natural tendency to capitulate on their principles and agree to continue the stupidity.

When we talk about cutting entitlement spending, this is what we mean.

This should be a no brainer. Mr. Thornton is perfectly capable of getting himself work, and supporting himself. Being in the financial services industry, I have some knowledge of how Social Security Disability works. First off, all who apply are automatically declined, and must put themselves through the appeals and adjudication process. People are either approved or declined through several steps of a lengthy multi tiered adjudication system. That is, a person may be declined several times before the system of appeals is exhausted. The national average adjudication time is roughly 2 and 1/2 years. So, if anyone believes that Mr. Thornton simply slipped through the cracks, guess again. Not only is Mr. Thornton on public assistance, but his care taker, Ms. Diaz, is as well. Clearly she would be able to support herself, as she is fulfilling the duty of providing nursing care for Mr. Thornton. Each and every time we bring up the discussion of legally mandated spending, which can not be cut without a change in the law, we are assured that puppy dogs, children, and old people will surely die as a result of our callousness. When our nation was founded, it was founded on the principle of self determination. This meant, and continues to mean that each of us would be free to pursue our own destinies free from a governmental authority which would be able to place obstacles in our path base on the whims of a ruling elite. While I agree that Mr. Thornton should be able to pursue his dreams of being an infant forever if he so chooses, it is not my dream to pay for it. Mr. Thornton’s right to be a baby, is for Mr. Thornton to pursue, completely on his own. The beauty of a free society, is that each person may pursue their own interests, but it only works if they are willing to do so only on their own behalf. No one should be forced to support their neighbors. Now, I realize that there will always be those in our society who are unable to feed, and clothe themselves. I believe we all agree that as a moral society, we wish to help those people, but the pendulum has clearly swung too far in the direction of entitlement becoming a lifestyle. Judging by the digs of Thornton and Diaz, it appears to be a pretty nice lifestyle at that. He has access to cable T.V. and the Internet, as well as spending money for toys, building supplies, and power tools. I lived in the Detroit area during the late 80’s and early 90’s. I remember John Engler as Governor of the State of Michigan cutting the budget of every department in the State by 10% across the board. He did this 3 years in a row, and not a single person lost their benefits. Imagine what we could do if we cut the baloney.

Now, as a special treat, enjoy the new tone of Washington politics as a group of Democrats puts that nice non demagogic language on display, accusing Congressman Ryan of shoving Grandma off of a cliff. The statement of course, wishing to return to a limited role for government, on which our nation was founded means we want to kill old people. Of course, it is not important at all that Ryan’s plan does nothing of the sort, and that privatizing the system would not spend one dime less on recipients than what is currently being spent. Privatizing the system merely means that seniors would be able to make their own decisions if they wished, rather than a bureaucrat sitting behind a desk.

Crossposted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.