In the case of New York state, I can’t work up much sympathy for these folks. They keep re-electing liberal Democrats to office, so they better fork up dough to keep the public sector unions afloat. I can’t understand the political dynamic that maintains this sorry state of affairs. I guess the people with money move to Florida & the rest of the voters believe they benefit from the welfare state, so they continue to cast their votes for tax & spend politicians.

And when the state runs out of money, they can look to their Democrat allies in D.C. for a bailout.

As for the NYT, it might be an economical alternative to toilet paper which goes for $2.00 a roll at the grocer on my street – but I can’t fathom giving money to the slimes.

I think you just described the car sales profession.

They create a “problem”, promise to “fix it”, pass something they can pretend fixes it for “no cost”, and then later, get it paid for by raising taxes, usually in deceiptful ways that hide the burden from the citizens.

A very large portion of what government does isn’t necessary for the government to do. What the government does do is always inefficient. And it always costs much much more than it should.

But policiticians are by nature and by trade, con artists. So they are masters at creating new crises, lying about what they did last year, and making spectacualar new promises this year for yet more things that don’t need to be done.

That’s why they should be thrown in jail for life.

And poor Paterson, by apparently telling the truth for probably the first time in his life has sealed his death warrant. There will be thousands of other con artists swarming to paint new lies for the citizens of New York tomorrow. They will dance on his grave as the lives of the citizens of the state swirl into the cesspool of dependency.

George Bush 1 fell “victim” to this very thing.

But as astute a youngster as I was, it wasn’t until college that I was presented with the reason why costs go up and why taxes are levied and new ones come around. The government simply cannot say “no”.

They are, and have been, the biggest enablers in the history of enabling. Although attempted in dribs and drabs, with the welfare reform program signed by Clinton…and the obvious reusults, more people looking for (and finding) work and less on the public payroll, the idea of simply cutting off spending to things that are a financial black hole (pun intended) are never considered. To do so would be political suicide on the basis of it being: racist, politically incorrect, insensitive, unfair, unjust, biased, singled out, disruptive, cruel, etc.

The really hard choice, the choice to demand that welfare reform get investigated and enforced would result in those politicians being raked over the racism coals for all eternity.

Is there an answer? Yes, but it means electing officials who do not fear not getting re-elected (as in: term limits).

Then, those who are able to work but refuse, can either sign up for jobs that the government needs done in order to get paid, or, do without. Still no law against homelessness.

If we could just get elected officials to abide by and understand the Constitution we might stand a fighting chance. But this is where….as of this past election, I have lost most of my hope. To me, Obama is the cat lady. Yeah, living in the house with hundreds of smelly, messy, mooches that reproduce arbitrarily and often, and the entire household suffers and does without in order to feed the useless, smelly mooches. But the minute you say “no”, the nutso cat lady has a hissy fit and accuses you of the aforementioned crime of insensitivity.

Not the greatest analogy but the point is made. Nothing else gets done because all effort is given to provide for something that gives nothing in return. Eventually, the powers that be have to come and take all the cats away (mostly to be destroyed) and the cat lady taken to an institution for help.

But who’s gonna rid us of all the cats? Who’s gonna take the cat lady away?