Two Columns

I was struck by a couple of columns over the weekend. One related the story of a man, destitute and ill, who felt compelled to rob a bank of $1 in order to be arrested, convicted, and sent to prison where he could receive treatment for what ails him. The man's story, at least initially, is pathetic. If all is as it seems, there should be something to help him. But the columnist goes on and on about this is why we need ObamaCare, to show we are a compassionate, caring people. If it means more taxes, well, so be it. He admits he grumbles, as we all do, about paying taxes. But, if it will help people like this man, we all should be willing to pay more. At face value, it's hard to argue the point. But, like so many such bleeding heart stories, there might well be more to the story. At least there are a lot of questions that must be asked. What are this man's ailments--how serious? There were no agencies (of the untold many) to help him? Is he overweight/obese? Does he drink and/or smoke? Has he ever? What about drug usage? When he did work, what did he do with his money? For instance, did he have a cell phone, a big screen tube, etc.? These are some of the questions that need to be asked and answered before someone can start blathering about "should" pay more taxes. Of course, we should want to help others in need. It's reasonable to question how the "need" came to be. It's also debatable that one "should" be forced to help, involuntarily, through taxes. Oh...the columnist never said anything about himself, that is, if he voluntarily contributed more to taxes.

Another used the theme of asking who you would allow to watch your children. The premise was a prelude to a discussion of the current budget, default, etc. carnival going on in DC. Now, up front, I think that this columnist must have a relative at the newspaper--I've said before I don't know how he gets space in the newspaper. His arguments, almost always, lack any reason. Well, almost immediately, he loses me again. When Bob Dole raised the question in the '96 campaign.... The columnist then suggests that Bill Clinton could watch your kids just as well, because he's an honorable, trustworth, etc. guy. Yeah, right! Have our standards of decency sunk even lower than I think?

Out....