Obama’s Goal: An Entitled, Dependent Majority
Written on Wednesday, October 24,
2012 by David L. Goetsch
Here is a widely accepted rule of thumb in politics: Government
entitlements, once conferred, can never be taken away. Government
entitlements, by their very nature, tend to be permanent. A corollary to
this rule of thumb is that people who become addicted to government handouts
will automatically vote for candidates who promise to feed their
habit. No politician understands this rule of thumb and its
corollary better than Barack Obama.
In fact, President Obama not only
understands the principles of entitlement and dependency, he is using them in a
concerted effort to keep himself in office and to ensure that the radical left
will maintain power in Washington, D. C. long after he is enjoying the
substantial perquisites of being a former president.
If it were not such an unscrupulous, unconscionable, deceitful
undertaking, one could almost admire President Obama’s single-minded
determination to achieve his nefarious goal. And what is that goal? It is
nothing less than an entitled America populated by citizens who are so
dependent on the government that Democratic victories in future congressional
and presidential elections are guaranteed.
But in their zeal to create
dependency, what President Obama refuses to acknowledge is that when our
country reaches the tipping point where more people are taking than giving, the
economy will fail.
When this happens, it won’t matter how large a
majority the Democrats enjoy in Congress, there won’t be enough dollars in the
federal treasury to pay the entitlements demanded by their dependent
constituents.
But, like all liberal Democrats, Barack Obama lives in the moment with
little or no concern for the future. His attitude can be summarized in
these words: I’ll get mine now and let the future take care of itself.
So
what is Barack Obama doing to get his now? Plenty. First, he using
subterfuge to remove the work requirement from welfare. This, of course,
will make it easier and more convenient for people to get themselves on welfare
and stay there. The work requirement was the most important component in the Welfare Reform Act of 1996.
It reduced substantially the number of
people collecting welfare. More importantly, it got people working who
had never before viewed that as an option, thereby breaking the cycle of
welfare.
Second, President Obama has undertaken a concerted effort to increase
the number of
Americans receiving food stamps. When Barack Obama took office, 30
million Americans were receiving food stamps, a number for which President
George W. Bush is partially to blame.
Today the number is 46
million and climbing. That is a lot of Americans who can be depended on to
support Barack Obama and other liberal Democrats in their re-election campaigns.
There is something fundamentally unsound about giving voting rights to people
who take from the system without contributing anything. Why should they work
when they can simply vote the income they need out of your pockets into theirs?
The president’s third tactic to increase dependency is to increase the
number of people covered by Medicaid. Now that the Supreme Court has
given its approval to Obamacare, people are no longer required to fall below
the poverty level to receive this entitlement.
Medicaid coverage, under Obamacare, will be extended to people whose income is up to 33 percent above the poverty level. Every new person who is entitled to Medicaid can be depended on to vote for President Obama and other liberal candidates.
Medicaid coverage, under Obamacare, will be extended to people whose income is up to 33 percent above the poverty level. Every new person who is entitled to Medicaid can be depended on to vote for President Obama and other liberal candidates.
November 2012 represents one of the most important dates in
our nation’s history. Either America will pull back from the economic
precipice or rush headlong over it.
Once over the cliff, it won’t matter
how many entitlements Americans qualify for, the federal treasury will be like
the drug pusher who no longer has access to product. He cannot give what
he does not have.
