You live in a house, the drainage gets plugged, you call a plumber and negotiate a deal with him. He’ll get your drainage flowing and you’ll pay him so much for his service. It is a contract of short duration to be executed instantly and put behind you so that you may tend to other business.
You get
into your car to go somewhere but the car does not start. You call a tow truck that
takes it to the dealership from where you bought it, where they repair it. This
is done because months ago, you pledged to make monthly payments in exchange
for a car you expected will run or be repaired under warranty for the next three
years. That too was a contract, but it was made conditional because it was of a
long duration in a setting that’s unpredictable yet had the potential to cause
you extreme hardship were it not for the warranty that protected you.
As to who
you are, you were elected to serve as a member of the legislative assembly
where contracts of short and long durations are devised to ascertain that
tranquility will prevail in the country, that a reasonable standard of living
will be maintained through the efficient allocation and use of the available resources,
and that justice will be done if and when it is breached. What you’re busy
making in the name of the nation, are open ended self-imposed contracts designed
to fashion an ideal condition in which the nation will be able to bask today,
tomorrow and for as long as the condition will last.
All of
that sounds so ideal and so doable, you hate to think that something can go
wrong with it. But can it? Can something really go wrong with that? The answer
is yes, something can go wrong, and does all the time. That’s because life
changes, and what’s ideal today may not be tomorrow. This is why you’ll find that
most often, problems present themselves, not because people change, but because
they refuse to adapt to the changing circumstances.
For
example, medical science has advanced so much, we now live decades longer than
our forebears. As a result, the demographic makeup of society has changed so significantly,
it is becoming increasingly more difficult for the working population to
sustain the pensioners’ standard of living. Elected to find solutions for this
kind of problems, you wonder what can be done.
What you
do is listen to advisers, one of whom happens to be David Harsanyi who wrote an
article on the subject. It came under the title: “Sunsetting Federal Spending Programs Is A Fantastic Idea,”
and the subtitle: “Why do Americans have to live
with legislative decisions made nearly 90 years ago?” The article was published
on February 9, 2023 in The Federalist.
Together, the title
and subtitle of that article reveal David Harsanyi’s mode of thinking. In
addition, the body of the article says that the writer’s thinking is based on
what he believes are fundamental principles. In fact, he says that no federal
spending program can henceforth be made open-ended. The programs that will be
devised in the future will therefore have to contain a provision at which point
they will end by themselves, or contain a provision for their termination by
the government. The article also reveals that the sense of principle is what
motivated Harsanyi to mock derisively the idea that Americans are forced to
live with legislative decisions made nearly 90 years ago.
Here, in condensed
form, is how David Harsanyi expressed those thoughts:
“Asking Congress
to reauthorize federal spending bills every few years is a great idea. Why
would stalwarts of ‘democracy’ oppose revisiting spending decisions made by
legislators nearly 90 years ago? No living person has ever voted on them. And
though ‘liberals’ are generally more protective of Social Security than the
Bill of Rights, entitlement programs aren’t foundational governing ideas,
they do not protect our natural rights, nor are they at the heart of the
American project. Every year, hundreds of thousands of private-sector
establishments go out of business, and yet not a single federal government
program ever does. It is madness”.
This being the first
time in a long time, as far as I can tell, that a Jew spoke in terms of
principle, it behooves us to hark back to a time when principle was the
mainstay of Jewish deliberations, however quibbling their deliberations were. In
fact, it can be said that the Jews won the battle to conquer America wearing
the protective shield of the lawsuit around one arm, and wielding the sharp
sword of principles in the other hand.
So
equipped, the Jews clobbered their political, judicial and journalistic
non-Jewish counterparts by making them look like unprincipled lightweights who will
never win the propaganda fight of the Cold War against the Communist World. In
contrast, they presented themselves as the potent alternative that can restore
to America the glory it lost having been defeated in Vietnam. In consequence,
the doors that were traditionally closed to the Jews in America, opened widely
for them, and they walked in by the thousands. Before you know it, they had
occupied the District of Columbia and the State Houses the way they now occupy
the West Bank of Palestine. The takeover of America by the Jews was complete.
But that
situation did not last long because the American public knew how to respond. It
developed a healthy contempt for its treasonous elites, and went on to express
the deep distrust it developed for the ungrateful Jewish double-crossing
scoundrels. So the question that poses itself is this: What exactly irks the
American public?
It is the
disloyalty of the Jews as shown in David Harsanyi asking: “Why would stalwarts of ‘democracy’
oppose revisiting spending decisions made by legislators nearly 90 years ago?
No living person has ever voted on them,” which means he wants to end America’s
assistance to needy Americans without suggesting an alternative.
Worse, he suggests
neglecting the needs of Americans without proposing that the Federal and State
legislatures repeal all binding and non-binding open-ended resolutions they
voted on to privilege Israel. These were and continue to be resolutions whose
cost add to the hurt of needy Americans.