Today, 3 Feb 2015, the following three columns promulgating Progressive policies are carried via Real Clear Politics from their respective media organs:
“President Holds High Ground in Budget Fight” – Dana Milbank, Washington Post.
“Obamacare is Costing Way Less than Expected” – Ezra Klein, Vox.
“The Long Run Cop-Out“- Paul Krugman, NY Times.
Milbank’s is a treatise on the GOP daring to exercise the Rule of Law via the DHS budget and illegal immigration. Klein’s a celebration that new CBO numbers project that Obamacare will cost only $36B (that we don’t have) rather than the earlier-estimated $41B (that we don’t have). And Krugman’s piece, in his own words, “it’s refreshing to see signs that Mr. Obama is willing to break with the long-termers and focus on the here and now.”
Three widely-known Progressive opinion influencers arguing that immigration and the Rule of Law (Milbank), Debt (Klein) and “the long term” (Krugman) pale in importance to the here and now.
Besides Progressivism, what do these three men share? They have no children. For them there is no future; there is only a “here and now.”
Why would they support programs that lessen their current delight only to ensure liberty and rising living standards in a long-term about which they don’t care?
The future in which immigration plays an enormous part, the Rule of Law an even greater role, and in which our ever-growing debt will lower everyone’s standard of living and liberty, is theoretical to these three opinion-setters. At best.
If demography is destiny, democracy is toast-at least those democracies where citizens can vote themselves a living at someone else’s expense. It doesn’t take a mathematical genius to see that governments’ addiction to intergenerational income redistribution is not sustainable unless someone keeps supplying babies at an accelerating pace.
Who is supporting ever-more Debt and redistribution? A Left not having babies. (Anywhere in the world.)
Who is resisting the Progressive-driven erosion of the Rule of Law, the Debt that is reducing living standards for generations yet unborn, and the discarding of “the long term”?
Parents. People with children.
People for whom the future is NOT theoretical, but real. People who are having and raising “hostages to the future,” in the little ones scampering around their homes, attending the local schools (that Democrats refuse to make better due to their obeisance to Teacher Unions, the primary obstacle to reform), for whom we save for a colleges made less- and less-affordable by the same Progressive policies these three support. (Speaking of Teacher Unions, where do Public School teachers send their kids, at least those who have kids? Private schools – away from the tenure and unionization that they know cause failure.)
The GOP, inexplicably, has nothing to say about this, no desire to educate the voters that the voting differences between those who are populating the future and those who are stealing from a future they are not populating are distinct, put parents at a disadvantage, and are unbridgeable. And growing.
Rather than leading in every single election with which party is destroying the future of the children that only GOP voters are raising, GOP “leadership” ignores the issue. And then wonders at close or losing elections, increasing debt and growing entitlements.
I’m quite sure these three columnists mean what they say. That the concerns they express are concerns in which they believe.
But their concerns are only for the present.
Those of us keeping the nation alive and free for the next generation and the generations following, “for ourselves and our posterity,” as it once was put, have larger, more existential concerns than can be dealt with by those making opinions that will help define the future of our nation but who will not be participating in that future in any way shape or form.
The Left in America has below-replacement fertility. The problem in democratic countries globally is the same: the problems of Europe of immigration, fiscal collapse, pension under-funding are, at root, the result of fertility choices. The Left is not having the children on whose (nonexistent) earnings they plan to fund their (already bankrupt) entitlement programs.
And because no leaders on the Right are intelligent enough to grasp that voters in the Center, where elections are won and lost, who are or plan on becoming parents, might need to be educated to take into consideration when voting the fact that voting for Democrats will increase the fiscal burden on their children alone, many in the Center and Center-Right pull the lever for the candidate who will, unbeknownst to them, lower – only – their kids’ future living standards and reduce – only – their kids’ liberty as they work ever-more hours to fund programs relying on ever-more kids who don’t exist. That pulling the lever for what sounds great – in the short term – will lower their childrens’ futures in “the long term” that the childless Krugman demands we ignore.
Those who vote Democrat, like these three – childless – columnists so concerned about today – and only today, and who demand we set policy with no thought of “the long term” about which they don’t even care enough to populate, are not having children.
At the end of the day, policy set by those without children is a free lunch: Steal from future generations to which Progressives have no actual attachment, to buy votes today to remain in power in the short term.
Seriously, if you’re able to bill someone else for the money you spend, what’s not to like?
For what do Democrats/Progressives buy votes? Above all else, entitlement programs that consume an increasing majority of our spending. What do entitlement programs require, above all else? Babies. “Ballooning centrally owned liabilities are perched atop a demographic pyramid with a base that must continue growing to avoid Ponzian collapse.”
Bill Frezza (who does have children) rewrites Lady Thatcher: