A.J. DiCintio
How would you govern, how will you vote?
By A.J. DiCintio
How would you govern if you were president?
Would you insist that an $800 billion stimulus bill innovatively be spent on a major national job producing project, say, modernizing the nation's electrical grid? Or would you turn the entire bill over to your party's leaders in Congress and then sign it after they have used every last penny to buy pork for your and their voting base?
Would you work for fairness in this country's abominable tax code and pursue every other reform you believe will spur the growth of good private sector jobs? Or would you at every turn pursue policies of Government Building, the already bloated size, scope, power, and indebtedness of the federal government be damned?
Would you, given the nation's terrible unemployment and underemployment picture, work tirelessly, practically, and creatively to bring American back to its former economic self? Or would you attempt to hide the failed, worn out roots of a Government First ideology by continually speaking the proven emptiness of redistribution with the euphemism "spread the wealth around"?
Would you begin your approach to solving the nation's heathcare problem by working with your political opponents on true reforms that enjoy widespread public support? Or, without a single vote from your opponents, would you use every trick in the political playbook to ram a 2,000 page federal takeover of heathcare down the throats of a dissenting American majority?
Would you be honest about the cost and the source of the revenues to pay for your healthcare law? Or, to expediently avoid the word "trillion," would you claim the law costs $900 billion only to have the Congressional Budget Office's $1.8 trillion price tag expose your duplicity six months later?
Would you help pay for that law by extracting $700 billion from Medicare and claiming "no harm"? Or, like this country's most important, non-partisan Medicare experts, would you be honest that such an impossible fiscal treat represents a viciously ugly trick on seniors?
Would you be fair regarding any sacrifice you ask of Medicare recipients? Or would you take $700 billion from the program without demanding a penny from your dear friends of the $200 billion a year trail lawyer industry?
Would you institute a sensible foreign policy based upon military strength and deep respect for our soldiers and diplomats? Or would you concoct an Apology First scheme that, for example, takes so much time to fret a million worries about how it might offend the sensibilities of Libya that it never authorizes action, thereby causing the deaths of four Americans in an eight hour attack by heavily armed terrorists?
Would you respect the rights the First Amendment guarantees religious institutions? Or would you be the first president in American history to tell those institutions what ministers they can hire and fire, only to be slapped down by a resounding 9-0 Supreme Court decision?
Would you react to individual success, whether achieved by a student or a creator of a successful business, by praising initiative, diligence, sweat, and tears? Or would you adopt a sarcastic tone as you mock success with the slur, "You didn't build that, government did"?
Would you appoint Jeffersonian judges to our courts, reminding the nation that the Constitution does not empower judges to make law? Or would you try to hide your love of a judicial oligarchy by using the term "empathic" to describe activist judges who will permit or themselves order any governmental act of social engineering that agrees with their ideology?
Would you forcefully and actively condemn breaches of morality and intellectuality in the speech of your appointees and supporters no matter the political consequences? Or would you talk a good show about civility only to stand mute and uncaring when a multitude of your supporters, even the highest members of your party, blithely and regularly hurl "racist" and other foul, pernicious epithets at any citizen who criticizes any of your policies?
Finally, but not last, would you refrain from partisan politics to concentrate on having your disaster response agencies effectively prepare to do the job the public pays and expects them to do and then stay out of the way when disaster strikes? Or would you rush to a photo-op and issue political attacks after a devastating Hurricane Sandy, only, two days later, to refuse to answer questions about FEMA's failure to have stockpiled food, supplies, and, shockingly, even bottled water for the stricken, beleaguered people of New Jersey and New York City?
To the above, the vast majority of citizens will respond "yes" to the first question and "no" to the second, which, in each instance represents Barack Obama's policy or behavior.
The hope here is that if you are one of that majority, you will not just vote accordingly on Tuesday but will remind every like-minded family member and friend that the only alternative for change is Mitt Romney.
© A.J. DiCintio
November 5, 2012
How would you govern if you were president?
Would you insist that an $800 billion stimulus bill innovatively be spent on a major national job producing project, say, modernizing the nation's electrical grid? Or would you turn the entire bill over to your party's leaders in Congress and then sign it after they have used every last penny to buy pork for your and their voting base?
Would you work for fairness in this country's abominable tax code and pursue every other reform you believe will spur the growth of good private sector jobs? Or would you at every turn pursue policies of Government Building, the already bloated size, scope, power, and indebtedness of the federal government be damned?
Would you, given the nation's terrible unemployment and underemployment picture, work tirelessly, practically, and creatively to bring American back to its former economic self? Or would you attempt to hide the failed, worn out roots of a Government First ideology by continually speaking the proven emptiness of redistribution with the euphemism "spread the wealth around"?
Would you begin your approach to solving the nation's heathcare problem by working with your political opponents on true reforms that enjoy widespread public support? Or, without a single vote from your opponents, would you use every trick in the political playbook to ram a 2,000 page federal takeover of heathcare down the throats of a dissenting American majority?
Would you be honest about the cost and the source of the revenues to pay for your healthcare law? Or, to expediently avoid the word "trillion," would you claim the law costs $900 billion only to have the Congressional Budget Office's $1.8 trillion price tag expose your duplicity six months later?
Would you help pay for that law by extracting $700 billion from Medicare and claiming "no harm"? Or, like this country's most important, non-partisan Medicare experts, would you be honest that such an impossible fiscal treat represents a viciously ugly trick on seniors?
Would you be fair regarding any sacrifice you ask of Medicare recipients? Or would you take $700 billion from the program without demanding a penny from your dear friends of the $200 billion a year trail lawyer industry?
Would you institute a sensible foreign policy based upon military strength and deep respect for our soldiers and diplomats? Or would you concoct an Apology First scheme that, for example, takes so much time to fret a million worries about how it might offend the sensibilities of Libya that it never authorizes action, thereby causing the deaths of four Americans in an eight hour attack by heavily armed terrorists?
Would you respect the rights the First Amendment guarantees religious institutions? Or would you be the first president in American history to tell those institutions what ministers they can hire and fire, only to be slapped down by a resounding 9-0 Supreme Court decision?
Would you react to individual success, whether achieved by a student or a creator of a successful business, by praising initiative, diligence, sweat, and tears? Or would you adopt a sarcastic tone as you mock success with the slur, "You didn't build that, government did"?
Would you appoint Jeffersonian judges to our courts, reminding the nation that the Constitution does not empower judges to make law? Or would you try to hide your love of a judicial oligarchy by using the term "empathic" to describe activist judges who will permit or themselves order any governmental act of social engineering that agrees with their ideology?
Would you forcefully and actively condemn breaches of morality and intellectuality in the speech of your appointees and supporters no matter the political consequences? Or would you talk a good show about civility only to stand mute and uncaring when a multitude of your supporters, even the highest members of your party, blithely and regularly hurl "racist" and other foul, pernicious epithets at any citizen who criticizes any of your policies?
Finally, but not last, would you refrain from partisan politics to concentrate on having your disaster response agencies effectively prepare to do the job the public pays and expects them to do and then stay out of the way when disaster strikes? Or would you rush to a photo-op and issue political attacks after a devastating Hurricane Sandy, only, two days later, to refuse to answer questions about FEMA's failure to have stockpiled food, supplies, and, shockingly, even bottled water for the stricken, beleaguered people of New Jersey and New York City?
To the above, the vast majority of citizens will respond "yes" to the first question and "no" to the second, which, in each instance represents Barack Obama's policy or behavior.
The hope here is that if you are one of that majority, you will not just vote accordingly on Tuesday but will remind every like-minded family member and friend that the only alternative for change is Mitt Romney.
© A.J. DiCintio
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
