Ownership Societies Have Only One Beneficiary

While the Shrubmiester is gallivanting on the other side of the globe on the taxpayer bux, The Big Dick Cheney keeps the propaganda fires at home stoked and burning. Here we see him using another public event (the saver summit, what ever that is) for political purposes by speechifying and spinning his shell game with the future of America.

Here's a whole set of questions that were churning in my noggin on my AM run that I was hoping to get some feedback on from the blogisphere. Let's call these:

Windspike's AM Run Questions & Points To Cogitate

• A) How many folks feel like they have been fed a grand bait and switch on this whole Iraq conflagration where taxpayer dollars are poured on by the bushel every second to keep that burning?


• B) I thought the bait and switch was against the law, at least in the commercial world. What is it when executed by the W, Rove and co?


• C) Is there a difference between a set of politicians that say "tax and spend" is bad when they suggest by their actions that borrow and spend is better? The former promotes responsible government where the current generations pay their way, while the latter foists the burden on future generations for years and years to come.


• D) I wonder: The W, Rove and Co seems to have taken lessons from the good, kind, former owners of Enron when they suggest an "ownership society" is the way to go for America. What kind of Enron-style shell game are they playing with the future of our country?


• E) I suppose the system will implode when the morally bankrupt administration aligns with a fiscally bankrupt treasury. Of course, the ownership society rules suggest it’s a lot like a Doritos commercial - spend all the dollars you want, we'll print more. In the end, who wins in an ownership society? Is it not those who are already owners?


• F) When you are living from paycheck to paycheck and there is "too much month at the end of the money," how are you supposed to translate your existence from renter to owner?


• And G) One more quick question aught set the stage for my slice from today's speechifying by the Big Dick: How is it that tax cuts and social program cuts benefit those working for minimum wage when they usually pay no taxes under the current system in the first place?

The President and I are strongly committed to building an ownership society in the United States. From the beginning of our administration, we've set out to help more Americans have a chance to own a house, a small business, a health care plan, and a retirement plan. In all of these areas, ownership is the path to opportunity, greater independence, and more control over your own life. Everyone deserves a chance to live the American Dream, to build up wealth of their own, and to have assets for retirement that government can never take away.

The American Dream begins with saving money, and that should begin on the very first day of work. The power of compound interest is even greater when people start saving early. Yet a lot of American families live paycheck to paycheck -- often finding, as the saying goes, "too much month at the end of the money."

And this underscores one of our fundamental obligations in Washington: to be good stewards of the taxpayer's dollar, to keep the federal government's claim on workers' paychecks as low as possible.

This requires, first of all, that we keep a close eye on federal spending. Every year of our administration, we've reduced the growth of non-security discretionary spending. This year the President's budget will reduce it again, and trim or eliminate more than 140 programs that are performing poorly or not fulfilling essential priorities. By passing these reforms, we'll save the American taxpayer another $14 billion next year -- and stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009.