Mad libs

I will be coming out with some statistics for last night's debate, as I did with the previous two. However, this is an opinion post.

Something hit me last night. At one point, the moderator asked the order in which the candidates would address the problems of health care, energy, and entitlement (social security).

The assumption is that health care and energy are issues that are in dire need of large-scale help from the government and that social security is an already-existing government program that needs fixing because it is on the brink of destruction.

The part that hit me was that last note: social security is an already-existing government program that needs fixing because it is on the brink of destruction.

Again, social security is an already-existing government program that needs fixing because it is on the brink of destruction.

If you haven't just had the same light bulb go off that I did, let me fill you in. We'll begin with some history.

In the 1920's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to prohibit the use or possession of alcohol. That never went smoothly, and after thirteen years of crime-ridden black markets, the prohibition was repealed.

In the early 1930's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to impose higher taxes on big corporations and the wealthy. That went smoothly for less than a year, and drove the economy into the great depression.

In the mid-1930's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to (basically) insure the income of retirees. That went smoothly for less than a century, and now social security (and the future of some retirees) is on the brink of destruction.

In the 1970's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to impose windfall profits taxes on big oil companies. This went smoothly for less than twenty years, and now America has dangerously increased its dependence on foreign oil.

In the 1990's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to greatly strengthen Affordable Housing requirements on banks, giving them quotas to meet on loans to less-fortunate communities. That went smoothly for less than twenty years, and now the entire housing market (and economy) is on the brink of destruction.

In 2003, the government (parts of it) deemed it necessary to invade Iraq. That went smoothly for less than a year, and only now are American forces beginning to make a real difference. And now, because of this misplaced and mismanaged war, thousands of Americans have lost their lives and the United States' debt to foreign nations has been dangerously increased.

Of course, the above is common knowledge. Let's play some mad-libs and figure out some more interesting things. Try and fill in the most witty, zany, wacky government ideas you can! Just make sure it makes sense given the government's history of helping the American people.

In the early 2000's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to _____________. That went smoothly for _______________ and now ______________.

Try this one!!

In the early 2000's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to universalize health care. That went smoothly for thousands and thousands of years, and now everybody's health is perfect.

It's obvious!! How about this:

In the early 2000's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to reinstate the windfall profits tax on big oil. That went smoothly for thousands and thousands of years, and now America is completely energy-independent and global warming is gone.

History proves it!! Another logical one:

In the early 2000's, times were tough and the government deemed it necessary to ban hand guns. That went smoothly for thousands and thousands of years, and now there is no violence.

Come on people, it is only logical! Big government works!

Enough fun with mad libs and sarcasm. Let me return to my original point.

The moderator asked the candidates which they would address first: health care, energy, or social security.

Social security is the failed government program of that trio. If government takes over health care, it will be the failure-to-fix for presidential candidates in the 2050's.

Nobody is under the illusion that social security will be "fixed". "Fixed" means deleted. It means people will have to save money for retirement. Bill Clinton once famously said that more people under thirty believe they will see a UFO than believe they will ever receive a social security check. He was right. They are right. Social security bombed.

Let's not do this with health care.

As for energy, both candidates propose aggressive spending in the energy sector. My stance is and has always been that this is good, until the day that the government decides to take over the energy sector and own it. Once that day comes, I will protest it just as much as I protest universalized health care.

The problem with capitalism is that some people prosper and some people don't. Some people get great health care and some people don't. There is suffering involved.

The problem with socialism is that the suffering culminates in a big disaster down the road, after years of ignorant bliss. Human suffering cannot be removed from any equation, only shoved to one side or another.

For years, affordable housing has delayed the suffering of people who don't like living in apartments. They are suffering now.

For decades, social security has delayed the suffering of seniors who couldn't manage to save enough. They will be suffering soon.

Now, Democrats want to delay the suffering of people who can't afford good health care.

If you're one to delay suffering, go ahead and vote for it. Me? I recognize that life is ugly because it must be ugly. If someday it is not, we will cease to be human.