http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Vf5AqeATY2s/TT8eCokZKTI/AAAAAAAAAvk/7wdOIZexnno/s1600/shell-game-Obama.jpg

Before we can tell whether someone is succeeding or failing, we first have to discover what he is trying to do. Whether he is the president or the guy next door, his real objective may be quite different from his stated objective.
● The “sequester,” a planned cut in spending, took effect, and the president and his aides – including the mainstream media – blamed Republicans. But in fact, it was the president’s idea, and he signed the bill. Nevertheless, instead of cutting nonessential services, the government is cutting vital services like the TSA – and threatening serious flight delays at major airports. In addition, severe cuts will be made in defense, meat inspection, and the like. If the object is to reduce bloated spending in the least painful way, the program is failing miserably.
But if the object is to cause the most pain possible, it is succeeding. That way, the Republicans can be blamed, and the people can be convinced that more spending – and therefore higher taxes – are necessary. The “sequester” has been transformed from a government program into a political maneuver, and the president has been transformed from commander-in-chief into campaigner-in-chief.
● The “sequester” allots 50% of the budget cuts to the military, though the military makes up only 20% of the federal budget. That is, the military will suffer two and one-half times more cuts than would be “fair.” If the object were “fairness,” all departments would have been cut the same percent. And if the object were to make the cuts so great that they would be intolerable, the president would have compromised to avoid them.
But if the object is to reduce our capacity to intervene abroad, or even to defend our country, the “sequester” is a rousing success.
● The “stimulus” spent vast amounts of money we didn’t have, but produced only half-vast results. Unemployment remains high. We depend on foreign countries to buy up our ballooning debt, but this can’t go on forever or the dollar will weaken. If the object is economic recovery, the program is failing.
But if the object is to control the auto industry, the financial industry, and now the health-care industry − and at the same time to make people dependent on government aid − then the program is succeeding. If the object is to weaken America economically, so we will be less able to intervene abroad militarily, it is succeeding brilliantly.
If the economy remains stuck in neutral as a result of this meddling, Democrats can claim that the continuing “crisis” demands even more government intrusion into our daily lives.
The lesson is clear: The more liberalism fails, the more it succeeds:
● Government-run health care is touted as the way to give quality care to everyone. But where will the money to pay for it come from? The president claims it will come from eliminating “waste and abuse” in Medicare and Medicaid.
If the current government-run programs are full of “waste and abuse,” why would an even bigger program be efficient? Why not eliminate the “waste and abuse” now, to prove he can do it, and then go on to the bigger program? Why not make Medicare and Medicaid self-supporting now, to prove he can do it, and then go on to the bigger program?
But what, precisely, is the $500 billion in “waste and abuse”? Expensive medicines or treatments for anyone over age 65? You may not consider this “waste and abuse,” but what if the bureaucrats in charge of ObamaCare do think of it that way? He who pays the piper calls the tune, and if the government pays the piper, the tune may be “So Long, It’s Been Good To Know You” for you or your loved ones.
The object is not health care for everyone, but control of everyone. In unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats can decide matters of life and death for us and our loved ones, in what sense are we citizens of a republic, and not subjects of a ruler?
● Most studies show that bilingual education produces graduates who have mastered neither language. Yet its supporters remain enthusiastic. Why? Could it be that large numbers of poorly educated people provide a pool of cheap labor? Could it be that they provide a large group that is dependent on government help, and hence votes Democratic?
Could this be why the government gives schools extra money not for every student who masters English, but for every student who remains in bilingual classes – and has not mastered English?
● In 1940, more black families were intact than at present. In this respect, we’ve gone backward. Part of the blame goes to welfare programs that give money to single mothers, but cut off payments if there is a man in the house. Yet proponents of such programs remain enthusiastic. Why?
Do the proponents want to help dependent people become self-reliant? Or do their government jobs and foundation grants depend on always having a large supply of dependent people? Do “community organizers” depend on the same thing? Are there people who profit – in money or power – from keeping people dependent?
● Airliners and schools were made “gun-free zones” at the insistence of anti-gun zealots. But were airliners safer from hijacking? Ask the victims of 9/11. Were schools safer from mass shootings? Ask the victims of Columbine, Virginia Tech, or Sandy Hook. Yet the zealots remain zealous. Why?
Many pilots want to carry guns after appropriate training. Yet even after 9/11, obstacles are put in their way. Why? What else would have been as likely to prevent 9/11?
Great Britain and Australia enacted virtual gun bans, but violent crime rates are rising alarmingly. Yet the gun bans remain in force. Why?
Studies show that where law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry guns, violent crime falls. Yet gun-control advocates strongly oppose these laws. Why?
Perhaps gun-control advocates want crime to increase, so they can enact even more stringent laws and disarm citizens completely. Why else would they pursue a course that is leading away from their stated goal of crime reduction?
Is President Obama succeeding? At what?

At cutting excess spending as painlessly as possible? No. At causing the most pain possible, and blaming Republicans? Yes.

At stimulating economic recovery? No. At increasing government control over the economy? Yes.

At strengthening America as a world power? No. At making us weaker and poorer, so we cannot intervene effectively on the world stage? Yes.

At making Medicare and Medicaid more efficient? No. At putting the government in charge of everyone’s life-and-death decisions? Yes.

Are proponents of bilingual education succeeding? At what? At making students fluent in two languages? No. At creating a pool of cheap labor and getting more money for themselves? Yes.
Are welfare advocates succeeding? At what? At keeping families intact? No. At keeping people dependent on the government, and keeping themselves influential and employed? Yes.
Are gun-control advocates succeeding? At what? At making the streets safer? No. At disarming law-abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless against criminals and subservient to the government? Yes.
When these government programs fail, which they usually do, “progressives” demand more of them. More taxes. More “stimulus.” More government control of business. More government control of health care. More taxes. More government control of light bulbs and toilets. More welfare programs. More taxes. Always “more.”
But never an explanation of how much would be enough. Just “more.” Small children routinely demand “more,” without any thought of what “more” will cost, or what the harmful effects might be. But we are adults. Or at least we should be.
The object is not that these programs will work, but that they won’t, so the government can seize control of even “more” of our daily lives.
Before we can tell whether someone is succeeding or failing, we have to figure out what he is trying to do. And then we can decide whether to help him do it, or exert every effort to block him from doing it.
Contact: dstol@prodigy.net. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
www.stolinsky.com