fbpx

The purpose of government is to do the things we have to do together that we can’t do on our own

By Michael Laffey

It was reported today in Politico that Bill Clinton attacked the Tea Party during comments to a group of reporters. His comment was as follows,

“We need to understand that one of the things that tends to tilt things toward the Republicans’ anti-government narrative is our country was born out of a suspicion of government,” Clinton said. “King George’s government was not accountable to us. That’s what the Boston tea party was about. When the tea party started out, at least they were against unaccountable behavior from top to bottom. Then it morphed into something different. If you want to go against that grain, you’ve got to tell people you understand it’s a privilege and a responsibility to spend their tax money, but there’s some things we have to do together. And that’s what the purpose of government is, to do the things that we have to do together that we can’t do on our own.”

I am confused as to why this was viewed as an attack.  I don’t think there is hardly a person in the Tea Party or in the Republican Party who would disagree with this. In fact I think this statement sums up the conservative philosophy.

The problem is that too many politicians and too many liberals don’t view it as a privilege and a responsibility to spend our tax dollars they view it as a right and they spend our taxes on things we can do for ourselves. 

Of course Bill Clinton is a very smart guy and he knows this.  He also knows that most people in this country if they really think about it agree with this philosophy of government.  What he is really doing is misrepresenting what Conservative Republicans and the Tea Party stand for.  This is all part of a concerted effort to make us look like the radicals.  There is a real danger that this disinformation campaign can work.

We must make it clear to the public that we know there are some things the government should do for us, things like provide police protection, provide for the common defense, maintain roads and infrastructure and protect public health.  Though some might disagree I would add provide for universal education and maintain public lands.

Then we need to ask people like Bill Clinton how subsidies to farmers and corporations (like solyndra) fit into his definition. How is something like medical insurance something we cannot provide for ourselves?  For that matter, why is retirement something we cannot provide for ourselves going forward?  Why should the government subsidize mortgages through Fannie and Freddie Mac? Why does government subsidize a TV station and artists and obscure museum’s in out of the way places. Why why why to thousands, maybe millions of government expenditures.

If the Democrats are going to play this game we need to turn the tables on them.

Posted: October 1st, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Michael Laffey | Tags: , , | 10 Comments »