You Must but We Can't.

Is this the Peter Principle moment for the Federal Government? Have we for now come to the point that the magnitude of encroachment into the lives of private citizens is now beyond their level of ability to do so?  Hopefully.  Obamacare's appetite for one sixth of the economy seems to be too big a bite for the Progressive Liberal crowd steeped in their theory and devoid of any practicality. 

Barack Obama, in his 2001 NPR radio interview maintained that government must do more.  "More" seems to be unattainable beyond this point, for now.

We are instructed and threatened with tax /penalty to "sign up."  We "must" and are required to do so.  The mechanism with which we are to engage and satisfy this dictum "can't" accommodate the efforts to comply.  The software and website are inoperable. The bureaucracy is incapable. Are we thus relieved of the obligation?  No.

To point out this absurdity to a liberal is to invite invectives such as "why are you so mean spirited?" and "are you a racist?"  Practicality, pragmatism, and functionality are obstacles of reality that don't exist in the world of liberals. The theory they say is sound, so it will all be okay in the end.  Right Nancy?

Additionally, the practical matter missed by the theorists is that the masses of uninsured who wish to remain uninsured and who will bear the brunt of the cost of this program are not rushing to enroll. Likely, they never will.  The theorists won't understand why someone wouldn't want to take part in this magnanimous collective affordable care achievement.

Just like the Jay Leno street interviews where the pedestrian is asked "who is the Vice President" or "what country in north of South Korea?", the response for enrollment will be "huh? Really? "I have to?" Perhaps there should be sign up booths at the exits of the President's next University speech.

Meanwhile the clock ticks, the requirement to enroll is still intact, and the dysfunctional mechanism that is Obamacare is the elephant in the phone booth.  To point out the short falls of the program is to slight the all mighty and his signature achievement. Can we, ala Saul Alinsky personalize this disaster and pin this mess on the President?  Not likely.  His aversion to responsibility remains.  It would take a hounding media to keep the water from running off this duck's back.

Perhaps the 'fluffing of pillows' and leaving food stamp mints for his constituents was the apogee, for a while.


Bruce Johnson


Is this the Peter Principle moment for the Federal Government? Have we for now come to the point that the magnitude of encroachment into the lives of private citizens is now beyond their level of ability to do so?  Hopefully.  Obamacare's appetite for one sixth of the economy seems to be too big a bite for the Progressive Liberal crowd steeped in their theory and devoid of any practicality. 

Barack Obama, in his 2001 NPR radio interview maintained that government must do more.  "More" seems to be unattainable beyond this point, for now.

We are instructed and threatened with tax /penalty to "sign up."  We "must" and are required to do so.  The mechanism with which we are to engage and satisfy this dictum "can't" accommodate the efforts to comply.  The software and website are inoperable. The bureaucracy is incapable. Are we thus relieved of the obligation?  No.

To point out this absurdity to a liberal is to invite invectives such as "why are you so mean spirited?" and "are you a racist?"  Practicality, pragmatism, and functionality are obstacles of reality that don't exist in the world of liberals. The theory they say is sound, so it will all be okay in the end.  Right Nancy?

Additionally, the practical matter missed by the theorists is that the masses of uninsured who wish to remain uninsured and who will bear the brunt of the cost of this program are not rushing to enroll. Likely, they never will.  The theorists won't understand why someone wouldn't want to take part in this magnanimous collective affordable care achievement.

Just like the Jay Leno street interviews where the pedestrian is asked "who is the Vice President" or "what country in north of South Korea?", the response for enrollment will be "huh? Really? "I have to?" Perhaps there should be sign up booths at the exits of the President's next University speech.

Meanwhile the clock ticks, the requirement to enroll is still intact, and the dysfunctional mechanism that is Obamacare is the elephant in the phone booth.  To point out the short falls of the program is to slight the all mighty and his signature achievement. Can we, ala Saul Alinsky personalize this disaster and pin this mess on the President?  Not likely.  His aversion to responsibility remains.  It would take a hounding media to keep the water from running off this duck's back.

Perhaps the 'fluffing of pillows' and leaving food stamp mints for his constituents was the apogee, for a while.


Bruce Johnson


RECENT VIDEOS