09 September 2012 By Jacob G. Hornberger I don't understand why Mitt Romney doesn't offer to
replace Joe Biden as President Obama's running mate.
Wouldn't that save everyone a lot of time, money, and
energy? After all, is there any real fundamental
difference between Obama and Romney? Of course there isn't. This was most recently
demonstrated in an interview Romney gave on "Meet the
Press." According to today's New York Times,
Romney said that Obamacare isn't all bad and that
while he has his own healthcare reform plan in mind,
he would certainly retain portions of Obamacare if he
were elected president. Romney also praised Obama's killing of Osama bin
Laden, which Democrats are hoping will show Americans
that Democrats can be as tough in foreign affairs as
Republicans. As the campaign develops, voters are sure to come
to the realization that when it comes to political and
economic philosophy, there is absolutely no difference
between Romney and Obama, just as there isn't any
fundamental difference between liberals and
conservatives. On healthcare, Romney and Obama both believe that
it is the government's role to provide healthcare to
people. That's why they both ardently believe in
Medicare and Medicaid, socialistic programs that were
brought into existence during the regime of
arch-liberal Lyndon Johnson. Sure, they'll battle over whose healthcare reform
should be adopted, but necessarily it will be a fight
that avoids any discussion over whether government
intervention into healthcare is why the system always
is breaking down and constantly needs to be
"reformed." The last thing these guys are ever going to do is
to question whether the provision of healthcare is a
legitimate function of government. That would be much
too frightening. It's the same all across the board. Social Security? For these guys, it's a given that
this socialistic program is now a permanent part of
American life, notwithstanding the fact that it was
adopted during the Great Depression, when people were
suffering the economic effects of the Federal
Reserve's monetary policies. Given that the Depression
ended more than 70 years ago, how come Social Security
has never been repealed? Alas, that's not a question
that Obama and Romney are going to ask. They both
believe that it's the government's job to provide
people's retirement and to force people to be good and
caring to the elderly. Education? They'll both agree that public education
is an absolute mess, and Romney might even point out
that Obama doesn't even send his own children to
public school. But their fight will be over which of
them will be the better reformer. The last thing
they're going to do is question whether the government
should be in the education business. The drug war? They are both fiercely committing to
fighting it for the indefinite future, no matter its
manifest failure after decades of warfare. They will
both support the use of the military and the CIA in
foreign lands to fight the drug lords. Why, they might
even support the same thing here in the United States,
especially if the military and the CIA need some new
justification for their existence. There will be no discussion of drug-war corruption
within law enforcement and the judiciary, the massive
stealing of money by public officials with
asset-forfeiture laws, the violence that comes with
drug prohibition, the high jail sentences, the racism
of the drug war, and the long trail of ruined lives.
All that we will hear from both candidates is a long
rendition of good intentions and expositions as to who
will be the tougher drug-warrior-in-chief. Of course, they'll battle over who will be the
better manager of the economy and the better
job-creator-in-chief. Romney will blame Obama for not
cutting the deficit, restoring economic prosperity,
and creating more jobs. Obama will blame it all on
George W. Bush. The candidates who run in 2016 will
say much the same things. Neither Romney nor Obama will dare suggest that
managing the economy and producing jobs are not
legitimate functions of government. Their mindsets are
the same: that the government must manage the economy
and produce jobs and that it's the job of the
president to lead and oversee the process. In fact, neither candidate will think for a moment
that it is the federal government itself — and
specifically its massive paternalistic state — that is
one of the root causes of America's economic and
financial woes. That's why they both keep looking to
reform the system and both keep claiming to be the
better reformer. It's no different with foreign policy. Once he
assumed the presidency, Obama turned his back on most
everything he had said during his 2008 campaign and
embraced the Republican philosophy favoring
imperialism, interventionism, torture, civil
liberties, privacy, and the war on terrorism. In so
doing, he cleverly outmaneuvered the GOP, leaving
Romney to essentially run on one issue: that he'll be
a better manager of the economy and
job-creator-in-chief than Obama. Immigration? Romney will argue that he'll be tough
on immigration, but he'll have a difficult time
showing that he'd be a tougher immigration deporter
than Obama, given the record number of people deported
by Obama during the past four years. Meanwhile, the federal government continues to hurl
toward bankruptcy, spending a trillion dollars more
per year than what it raises with taxes. And everyone
knows that it doesn't really matter who gets elected
because both candidates have made it clear that the
last thing they're going to do is to drastically
reduce welfare expenditures or warfare expenditures.
Moreover, everyone knows that neither the welfare
sector nor the national-security state sector will
permit any major reductions in their respective doles.
Equally important, the mainstream media, both liberal
and conservative, would never permit such reductions
anyway. So, that means that federal spending will continue
soaring through the roof regardless of who is elected.
It also means that massive amounts of debt will
continue to be piled onto the backs of the
hard-pressed American people. Federal Reserve
inflation will come, as it has decade after decade,
ensuring continued monetary debauchery and plunder.
So, why not an Obama-Romney ticket? Sure, it
wouldn't solve America's woes, but neither will
electing one or the other of them. At least it would
spare the country the boredom, anguish, and expense of
the next two months of the campaign. Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the
Future of Freedom Foundation. Comments 💬 التعليقات |