By Arthur Freyre, Esq. (Miami, Florida)
Here is another installment of odds and ends, short commentary devoted to the latest political events in the last couple of months.
This week, Washington will be wringing their hands concerning the sequestration. The one thing everyone needs to keep in mind is that the sequestration is a manufactured crisis. The budget cuts involved are small. The sad thing about this debate is that the real issues are not even addressed. There are two major crises involving government spending.
The first crisis is an issue with entitlement spending. Some experts have stated that by 2025, there will be no money for Social Security. It is also anticipated that Medicaid and Medicare will run out of money a lot sooner. 2025 is only twelve years away folks.
The second crisis is a crisis of stewardship. Rather than bemoan about how dreadful the spending is, here is a link from Sen. Tom Colburn’s office.
Sen. Colburn has been passionate about the need to reform government spending. Every year his office highlights the wasteful spending that is going on in Washington. This year is no exception. I would encourage you to read the report. It is a great defense against any Democrat’s argument that we are hurting the poor with these budget cuts.
While spending is on the people’s mind, Congress should be asking the following question for each department and agency, “What is your purpose?” Any agency that gives a vague answer should be on the list of being eliminated. For instance, what is the difference between the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency?
Why are there food stamp programs in both the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services? What is the purpose of the Department of Education or the Department of Energy? It is time to move beyond the rhetoric that Washington has a spending problem and move to facts explaining the spending program.
Speaking of purpose, since my last blog posting, Karl Rove and tea party supporters have gotten into an interesting debate as to who is a true “Republican.” Reading about this tiff has convinced me more strongly that the RNC Chairman Preibus should address this issue of what defines a Republican head on and not defer to the 2016 nominee. As the old saying goes, “Nature abhors a vacuum.” The longer this matter remains not answered, the more likelihood we will have divisive primaries.
Chairman Preibus should focus on asking the following two-part question: 1). “What is freedom?” and 2). “What four issues are non-negotiable for the Republican Party?” Answering these questions gives Republicans three benefits. The first benefit is that it takes away the argument of ideological purity. The second benefit is that it allows Republicans to debate on the issues and not who is a better Republican. Finally, it allows Republicans to present a short, quick, answer to those who would like to know “What is a Republican?”
Conservatives were also in shock when Florida Governor Rick Scott decided to allow the Medicaid expansion into the state of Florida. Democrats are claiming that the Governor Scott is flip-flopping because of the upcoming election. However, I am surprised that no one is asking whether or not the Governor made the decision through a businessman’s eyes. He was a healthcare executive. I look forward to hearing or reading someone address this issue.
Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court is about to hear oral arguments on California Proposition 8. Proposition 8 defines marriage as one man and one woman. This is a very tricky issue for the U.S. Supreme Court to wrestle with. It is tricky because the definition of marriage entails a religious element. If the Supreme Court were to disregard this element, it would allow for tyranny. How you might ask?
If the Supreme Court were to define marriage counter to what has been traditionally taught through almost all major religions, then the government will dictate to people what love is and what it is not. A government bureaucrat, not the priest, or a pastor, or a rabbi will become the final arbiter to what we can think and not think. If the government can dictate this, then what other subjects will be considered taboo.