Government’s cloud land is not real life

To the editor:

Ms. Joan Loewen’s letter that faults Michael Spahr for being afraid of the current political situation is a clear example of why he is afraid.

Ms. Loewen supports the Biden administration, whose actions demonstrate the vast gap between how the Government operates, as opposed to what is known as “the real world,” “the private sector,” or perhaps, “everyday life.” In this latter sphere, transactions of value are guaranteed by observance of agreed-upon rules. For instance, if I borrow money, my ability to repay it is thoroughly analyzed by the lender; if I fail to repay it, I am responsible for crimes or penalties. Or, in another example, my family must operate under a budget that guarantees that I can afford to pay for the things I buy; if I can’t, actions like repossessions and evictions are brought to bear.

The government, on the other hand, operates in a sort of hazy cloud-land where these economic or transactional constraints may or may not be observed according to the whims of the moment. Let me take two examples from the list of Ms. Loewen’s arguments.

Voter IDs. The right to vote can be viewed as such a transaction, based on the understanding that one person is allowed one vote. The government’s part of the contract is that they accept your vote as valid if your authorship of that vote is guaranteed and your ability to vote more than once is denied. Your part of the contract is to prove your identity. These transactions are routine in “the real world,” using as an example the need for a badge to enter a secured building — or an ID to board an aircraft. However, Ms. Loewen argues that an individual’s need to provide that guarantee in voting is burdensome to some people — Black or white, I assume — who, because of their economic status are unable to get an ID.

I don’t understand why a person cannot get an ID. Does Ms. Loewen think these economically disadvantaged people are living in shacks in the country with no way to get to town? People have friends and relatives who have cars, and I suspect that most companies would give an employee time off to get an ID. There is no excuse for a person’s inability to get an ID if he or she is truly interested in voting. But, in cloud-land, I guess this doesn’t matter.

On another matter, Ms. Loewen blithely approves of all the money that is being spread all over everywhere in the name of “infrastructure.” To begin with, even the Democrats have admitted that what everyone considers infrastructure — roads and bridges and such — is only a very small part of this bill, which is why Democrats in cloud-land are pretending that all sorts of other things are infrastructure when everyone knows that they aren’t. (Actually, the need for a national infrastructure bill in the first place is because of political failure on the local level over the years, where municipalities have not properly budgeted for infrastructure maintenance. I suspect that all the bridges, roads and railroads in Walt Disney World, on the other hand, are in excellent condition.)

The infrastructure bill, moreover, is not burdened with anything so meddlesome as a budget. In cloud-land, this will be made up some way by more taxes, but this spending comes on the heels of massive spending for COVID, money that I don’t’ recall having seen a budget for.

Let us sum up. The push for voting rights without IDs in Georgia is a preview of what will be put forward in the Democrats’ voting rights bill that is now in Congress, a bill that will remove every need for evidence of proper one person-one vote authenticity. If this bill passes, both parties will cheat as much as possible to win, with some resulting violence, but the result will favor the Democrats, who will be counting the votes. Then, our democratic election will have as much validity as Vladimir Putin’s does in Russia. The last fragile connection between the real world and cloud-land will then be severed. But, oddly enough, Democrats will stop spending as much as they do now, because there will be no need to buy votes. We will then not be under a democracy or socialism: we will be under a dictatorship, and I suspect this is what Michael Spahr is really worried about.

I’m worried about Ms. Loewen, however, because she’s part of the half of the country that’s going along with the Democrats’ programs. I hope she remembers that the other half isn’t.

John Brittain



Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)


Starting at $4.39/week.

Subscribe Today