Send Them Back
We both praise and vilify the country’s leader for doing the job our laws require. Ironically, the deportation zealots would have been better off drafting President Obama back into office. In both terms, he deported (removed and returned) more illegals than the current President did in his original term. Why didn’t President Obama suffer the same outrage?
Are the current administration’s antagonistic words, fear-mongering, heavy-handed actions, and disregard for due process proper or productive? Of course, the current enforcement sentiment did not arise in a vacuum. Why did we allow the former administration to manipulate our laws and essentially open the borders?
Our desire for less expensive labor and tolerance of legislative inaction created this environment, and both political parties and their members are complicit. Like illegal drugs, we have an insatiable demand for immigrant labor that can only be satisfied through unlawful entry under the current system.
Why do we place a higher value on smoking weed than on giving dignity to our illegal immigrant laborers? We had the political will to legalize marijuana but not the will to pass laws providing fundamental residential rights to otherwise law-abiding, tax-paying immigrant laborers. Why do we relegate these immigrants to second-class, shadow status (to exploit them?)? Will we only act when we have no choice but to mow our yards, vacuum our floors, and pick our crops?
Adequately addressing immigration reform requires more than a couple of hundred words. It will take more receptive minds, a commitment to an agreement, and much less finger-pointing and progress-stifling conflict.
Don’t Touch What’s Mine
Why do we not shout “liar” when our sanctimonious politicians say reducing Social Security benefits is breaking a sacred trust to return our payroll tax payments? The system would not be approaching insolvency if Social Security benefits were merely a return of taxes; you will receive more than you paid in.
The only thing matching our zeal for maintaining the current benefit scheme is our unwavering commitment to inaction. How can we defend the benefits without providing a means to support them? Why do we demonize anyone suggesting benefit cuts or raising taxes when the status quo is not an option? We must find that criticizing the messenger and doing nothing is better or easier than pursuing a solution.
The Dirty Word
DOGE inspires celebration or disgust. Given the federal budget deficits and national debt, why isn’t everyone clamoring for fiscal reform?
Only once in the past 25 years has the government collected more revenue than it spent. In the past three fiscal years, the government spent an average of 34% more than it collected, or $1,670,000,000,000.00 annually. At the end of the 2024 fiscal year, the national debt was $34,460,000,000,000.00.
Instead, we complain that the cuts are draconian, and, in its haste, DOGE makes more than the typical number of mistakes involved with any undertaking. We want a more measured approach using a scalpel instead of an axe. However, we have not required our politicians to take consistent, measured steps to balance the budget. Our tolerance for deficit spending begat this Paul Bunyan.
On the other hand, why do many take grotesque delight in the cuts? Yes, they are necessary overdue steps, but every reduction adversely affects an employee, program recipient, vendor, or criminal (in the case of fraud).
Why do we not recognize that the national debt is a much larger opponent1 than our political foes and act accordingly?
_________________________________________________
Do this and last week’s messages prove that we are always wrong or cannot stand firmly for anything? Certainly not. The messages suggest we consider any inconsistent thinking and our role in creating the problem we rail against. This awareness should not weaken our resolve but improve our methods and the odds of a solution.
____________________________________________________
1Author’s note. I have sounded the impending doom alarm since the mid-1980s, and 40 years of history have proven me unfailingly wrong.