Are We Debating the Wrong End of the Horse? | Eastern North Carolina Now

    As we approach election day in any presidential election we always debate several hot issues. It seems the liberal press and a few slick politicians control the particular part of the issue being debated. We do not always argue about how to solve the problem relating to the issue so much as we address some emotional part. Sometimes the most heated debates are not about the real issue.
Hood explains it all: Above.     photo by Stan Deatherage
    Take abortion. Conservatives are against it and liberals are for it. The argument rages. There are really two issues. One has to do with whether abortion is murder or not. When does life begin? The other has to do with whether or not, under the Constitution of the United States, the taxpayer should finance abortions for those who cannot afford them. I can remember when abortion was strictly illegal. It was done in secret places mostly by people with some medical training, not doctors, who would have gone to prison if discovered. Many times both of these two issues are argued as one causing great confusion. I was impressed with Mitt Romney when he, during a FOX interview with Chris Wallace, said his first issue is whether or not it is a legitimate function of government to provide abortions to anyone. He understands this issue.

    Taxes are another issue that is argued at the wrong end of the horse. Whether taxes should be raised, how much and on whom is not the valid issue. This is a three pronged debate. First, we should argue about what we are spending money on and what items should have spending reduced. We have to raise taxes simply because we are spending money. The second arguable point is how quickly do we want to reduce our national debt. If we want to pay it down quicker we should raise taxes and if slower we can leave them the same or reduce them. The third thing to argue about is who should be taxed. If we apply the principles of a democracy and our Constitution, everyone should pay taxes. I think collecting welfare and having to also pay some minimum income tax would do wonders for this Nations sense of responsibility. Everyone who accepts government aid of any kind should pay a minimum income tax.

    Take a look at the Food Stamp issue. There are two parts. Again we stand at the wrong end of the horse. The liberal element has been very concerned about the dignity of those whom we have fed for many years. So, guess what, it is a secret of the state as to who gets food stamps. The debatable question is if you take a hand out for ten years, how much dignity did you have to begin with? I do not have a problem with keeping it a secret for up to two years but there comes a time when one becomes, as the Russians say, "a parasite on the state" and gets shipped to a work camp. The second part of this issue is whether or not the food "stamper" should get better food than the working person. If each "stamper" were to be limited to two years of being on the program, I would be less concerned. How many years does it take to overcome hard luck? A lot of food stamp cards are sold for cash. I propose that after one year the food stamp card allows the "stamper" to draw a set amount of specific commodities each month based on the size of the family. For example a family of three could get the following each month: 8 pounds of dried beans, 8 pounds of rice, 5 pounds of bacon, 4 pounds of butter, 5 pounds of sugar, 10 pounds of corn meal, 8 pounds of flour, 8 pounds of ground meat or sausage and 6 gallons of milk. Those who want a more fancy fare could either work or go to the volunteer food banks. The number of people on food stamps would nose dive.

    Then there is health care, the Affordable Care Act, also known as "Obama Care". The real issue is we cannot afford Medicare as it is now run. The cost is bankrupting the government. In order to solve this problem everyone is going to loose something. The real issue is who is going to loose what and who is going to pay. The fear of loss of the entire program has been used to terrify the elderly. That is also an issue for their children, heaven forbid if we had to dig into our pocket to provide for our parents.

    There is nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that says providing health care is a mandated or even proper function of any government. Other debatable issues are whether we can successfully finance Obama Care, the socialistic excesses and the abuse of our Constitutional rights within the Affordable Care Act. It is astounding that so few of our elected officials, and judges know so little about the Constitution, and that is certainly not debatable.

    Watch out for the emotional spin put on issues from now to election day by all politicians. Be sure what you see is the head of the horse and not the other end before you form an opinion.