Who’s your nanny? Crush­ing am­bi­tion

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary - By Bill O’reilly

The left-wing me­dia went wild af­ter the elec­tion when anal­y­sis showed that many poorer Amer­i­cans sup­ported Pres­i­dent Obama and en­ti­tle­ments could have been a ma­jor rea­son why. Lib­er­als al­ways like to think of them­selves as no­ble, and the thought that some vote-buy­ing could have oc­curred is deeply of­fen­sive to them.

Nev­er­the­less, the facts speak for them­selves.

Amer­i­cans earn­ing less than $30,000 a year gave the pres­i­dent about 7 mil­lion more votes than Gov. Rom­ney. All told, Obama de­feated Rom­ney by 3.5 mil­lion votes. The math is clear.

But what about mo­ti­va­tion? How can you as­sign en­ti­tle­ments as a vot­ing fac­tor? Well, what else is there?

Were lower-in­come Amer­i­cans vot­ing to sup­port the $16 tril­lion dol­lar debt?

The 8 per­cent un­em­ploy­ment rate? The nearly $5,000-ayear de­cline in wages for work­ing peo­ple?

No, many lower-in­come vot­ers were sup­port­ing the ex­pan­sion of meanstested en­ti­tle­ments like food stamps, Med­i­caid and wel­fare pay­ments, along with Oba­macare, where about 30 mil­lion Amer­i­cans will have their health in­surance paid for by other Amer­i­cans.

When you have in­di­vid­u­als in more than 100 mil­lion Amer­i­can house­holds re­ceiv­ing some kind of fed­eral sub­sidy out­side of Medi­care and So­cial Se­cu­rity, that will mean some­thing at the bal­lot box.

Es­pe­cially be­cause Mitt Rom­ney pro­posed to change all that.

But why is dol­ing out so­called “means-tested en­ti­tle­ments” a bad thing? Isn’t it a sign of a hu­mane so­ci­ety?

Fi­nan­cial safety nets are surely wor­thy. We can’t let the el­derly and chil­dren suf­fer be­cause they don’t have re­sources. But what’s hap­pen­ing in Amer­ica is far more than sim­ply ex­pand­ing a needed safety net.

Twenty years ago, the feds spent 9 per­cent of the to­tal bud­get on en­ti­tle­ments other than Medi­care and So­cial Se­cu­rity. Now, the num­ber is 16 per­cent. Lib­er­als scream that it’s be­cause of the bad econ­omy. Not true.

Twenty years ago, un­em­ploy­ment among AfricanAmer­i­cans was 14.3 per­cent. This year, it is 14.3 per­cent. In the His­panic-Amer­i­can precincts, un­em­ploy­ment in 1992 was 11 per­cent; to­day, it’s 10 per­cent.

It is the lib­eral cul­ture that is driv­ing the en­ti­tle­ment men­tal­ity, and that is de­struc­tive to the coun­try. The truth is that folks who get stuff are not likely to be as mo­ti­vated as peo­ple who work for things. Free­bies sap ini­tia­tive.

We are liv­ing in a “Where’s mine?” age. “If at first you don’t suc­ceed, then ask for things to be given to you.” A record amount of Amer­i­cans are re­ceiv­ing food stamps, and more work­ers are on fed­eral dis­abil­ity than ever be­fore. The Demo­crat Party ac­tively sup­ports the en­ti­tle­ment ex­pan­sion, and that ab­so­lutely helped Barack Obama get re-elected ear­lier this month.

If we con­tinue down this road, how­ever, say hello to Em­peror Nero. Same thing hap­pened in An­cient Rome. Look it up. The pop­u­la­tion be­came weak and un­mo­ti­vated, and Ro­man power col­lapsed as in­di­vid­ual am­bi­tion was crushed by self­ish­ness and de­pen­dence on the state.

The ques­tion used to be, “Who’s your daddy?” Now, it’s, “Who’s your nanny?”

And we all know the an­swer. Bill O’Reilly is the au­thor of “Pin­heads and Pa­tri­ots: Where You Stand in the Age of Obama”.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.