They say elections have consequences and they usually do, but it seems we have reached a point where it really doesn’t make any difference.
You know we are in uncharted territory when, as the Wall Street Journal reports, “[Italian President Giorgio] Napolitano, a former member of the Italian Communist Party, … sponsors a free-market economist [Mario Monti] [which] shows how serious the head of state was in seeking the fastest way to take market pressure off his country.”
The same can be said about the voter rejected Ohio ballot proposition meant to reform public employee union bargaining “rights.” The media is declaring the Ohio vote a game changing victory.
Normally, politicians would respond by doing what the media says the public wants, but the politicians cannot do that anymore since the politicians are flat broke and cannot print money like the federal government.
Under the proposed reform, public employees would have had to contribute more to their pensions and health insurance premiums. Now they won’t have to, so the state and local governments will have to make ends meet by laying off workers. Still union leaders are euphoric.
When I was a teacher, I saw similar responses from union leaders who would fight to preserve goodies for older teachers at the expense of younger teachers who would have to be let go to preserve the perks to which the older members had become accustomed.
In this environment, I cannot understand why Obama would seek a second term. A Democrat without wealth to redistribute is a pathetic sight. It is hard to imagine what a second Obama term would be like. Perhaps Bill Clinton could pull it off, but Obama is no Bill Clinton. He must expand the welfare state or die.
As of yet, Obama has not found an alternative to money with which to fuel the expansion. Especially when Bill Clinton exclaims, “Right now, in this fragile economy, I don’t favor raising taxes.”
What’s a Democrat to do?