Unvarnished Liberal Crap

Here's a great example of Unvarnished Liberal Crap, courtesy of the Los Angeles Times: Working Without a Net, by Peter Gosselin. This good man bleeds his heart out for the American family who, despite historic prosperity, still must cope with *Gasp!* risk. My fiskers are out, so let's break it down.

Working Americans and their families arrived on the doorstep of the current economic crisis uniquely ill-equipped to cope with its consequences. Rather than having gained a financial protective coating during the period of growth that preceded it, working families up and down the income spectrum were actually nudged further out on an economic limb and therefore were primed for being picked off once problems emerged.

So "working Americans" decided to squander all their gains rather than save something back. Who's fault is that?

Even as our incomes went up, economic risks -- the costs of being laid off, of suffering a work-stopping illness or of a catastrophe like a house fire -- that were once largely borne on the broad shoulders of business and government were being shifted onto the backs of ordinary families, from the working poor to the reasonably rich.

When did "the broad shoulders of of business and government" ever bear the burden of house fires and work-stopping illnesses? This is a classic "straw man" argument: Set up a non-existent enemy and argue against it.

... following a rash of disasters ... insurers phased out guaranteed replacement cost policies in favor of "extended replacement cost" policies. ... It is up to you to figure out what it would cost to rebuild your home. And it is up to you to keep your policy current.

Theoretically, you could do this job. But the industry's own estimates show that more than half of American homeowners simply have too much else going on in their lives to keep tabs on changing building codes, the fluctuating price of plywood or what carpenters and plumbers are making in their neighborhoods.

This is typical liberal, big-government, nanny-state condescension. "Poor thing! You shouldn't be saddled with those decisions about your home insurance! You can't do it yourself, let big brother take care of it for you." This is asinine. I adjust my insurance policy annually, all by myself! All I do is see what new homes in the area are selling for, add in the value of my stuff inside it, and insure my house for that amount. No looking up building codes, pricing lumber... And I do it all without the government's help! Look mama, I'm a big boy!

Similar changes -- with similar shifts of economic risk from business and government to families -- have occurred in retirement, where the switch from traditional pensions to 401(k)s has left individuals largely on their own to provide for old age.

So? The stock market consistently outperforms social security. Period. If I die, my family gets the money in my 401K--they certainly won't get the money I paid in to social security. Also, I guess the author is unaware of the massive pension shortfalls big companies are facing, not to mention pension fraud that leaves people with NOTHING! I would much rather handle my own retirement, thank you.

Similar changes have occurred in the way people pay for college education, where rocketing costs and the declining availability of federal grants have meant that most families can no longer pay as they go to send their kids to school, but must borrow. That's left parents more financially exposed. And it's meant that after they graduate, most young people are saddled with debt and, in many cases, must make a beeline to the best-paying jobs to help defray the costs of college.

When was this magical golden era when a family could "pay as you go" for a kid's education? Another bogus argument. Go complain to the overpriced universities! Maybe congress could drag "Big Education" through televised hearings and demand to know why they are gouging the consumer? Nah, they only do that to the big oil meanies. Finally, despite Michelle Obama's whining, I can think of many fates worse than graduating college with a degree and having some debt to pay off.

Some argue that in the new, globally competitive economy, U.S. business and government simply cannot afford to provide the kinds of protections against financial peril that they used to. Perhaps not. But that doesn't mean that we should automatically shunt the job of bearing these dangers to families alone. And it most assuredly doesn't mean that we should pass along the task without letting people know they've just been assigned the job of bearing a big new load of risk.

This last statement is liberalism in a nutshell; and it's what gets liberals elected. If you drink yourself into a stupor, lose your job, and drive your family to ruin, Big Government should be there to catch you when you fall, with my tax dollars. Some calamity befalls you, big business and Uncle Sam should shoulder the burden. Kids in college? Government should pay for that, too. There was a time when families actually saved back money for emergencies and budgeted for future expenses like college.

Not anymore. We buy houses we can't afford and burn through our credit cards buying trendy goodies, all the while whining about how bad things are in this country. Things go south and we expect our fellow taxpayers to subsidize our irresponsibility. That's liberalism, served up by politicians looking for votes, aided and abetted by thousands of media propagandists who churn out crap like this LA Times article, and your fellow citizens are snarfing it down like hogs at the trough.

Are you voting this November?