Editor, The News:
It would appear that President Obama believes that if our government can provide minimum income to retired people, to offer health insurance to everybody and to increase income equality, it should do so.
If it cannot do that, it should not do it. That would please “liberals.” “Conservatives,” who believe you must earn your own way, think that is wrong.
Now the question is: How do we approach the question? As politicians? As economists? As religionists? Let us start as politicians.
As a Republican, I say: This kid from nowhere is going to be our leader? Never! No matter what he proposes, we don’t vote for it.
As a Democrat, I say: Look. This man gets our vote, but let’s have a few members join the others just to show the people how independent we Democrats are.
As an economist: Holy cow! Another $750 billion. How do we know that the Chinese will buy these new notes — and if they don’t, what then?
We have to cut that program back a bit, so what do we slice off that program? We’ve got to keep those dollars for the banks and small businesses and we have to keep those tax deductions.
And as a religionist — which one? Christian? Hindu? Muslim? Buddhist? Taoist? Jew? No matter which one, they all profess a similar belief in giving aid to the needy — helping your neighbor — being kind to the poor. Isn’t that what President Obama professes?
In 1854, Abraham Lincoln wrote, “The legitimate object of government is to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they cannot, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well for themselves.”
Do you think that Obama, with his “yes” and “no” vision of government programs, follows Lincoln’s program?
Richard J. Audino
Editor, The News: