Bob Cesca writes a very provocative and incisive op-ed about the apocalyptic drama going on in the minds of "purists" like Sean Hannity regarding the "socialistic" character of Obama's economic stimulus plan, and their morbid fear and outright hatred toward anything that reminds them of socialism. Here's the crux of Cesca's case:
I'm calling upon Sean Hannity to use his prime time television program as a platform to rally Republican politicians, cable news hacks and citizens alike to refuse delivery of not just recovery bill spending, but all so-called "socialist" government programs. Send it all back. End American socialism now! All of it.
Refuse to send your kids to socialized public schools and universities; refuse to use socialized roads and highways; refuse to call upon socialized police and fire departments; shut down the socialized air traffic control; refuse to visit socialized national parks; tell grandma that her Social Security and Medicare will have to be sent back to the government; demand the immediate dismantling of our socialized American military.
Sarah Palin and her supporters in Alaska should refuse all forms of "redistributed wealth" by sending back their checks from the socialized oil program there.
Send it all back. I'm sure the entire roster of Neo-McCarthyite pundits enumerated above -- Limbaugh, Scarborough, Hannity and the like -- have already forgone their usage of these socialist services so we can assume they've figured out a ways to get by. How hard can it be really? I mean, who needs roads when there are hot-air balloons and jet packs. Socialist fire departments? A house fire will eventually burn itself out, won't it? As for the pre-socialist 50-percent poverty rate for the elderly? If we can put a man on the Moon (also a socialist program), we can invent some bootstraps that'll fit over grandma's therapeutic stockings.
It's interesting how today's GOP officials, Sean Hannity and the other lamenters of America's socialistic turn didn't seem to have this kind of antagonism toward the $700 billion (eventually $840 billion) bailout under Bush -- even though it was the most socialistic move the United States had made in close to a century and it happened under a Republican presidency and with the support of Republicans in Congress. So let me try to understand their way of thinking: it's fine to bail out the corporations that raped the US economy but unacceptable to rescue the American people that are collapsing under its weight? Somebody explain this one to me.
Of course this package has its downsides, but never in the lifetime of anyone alive today has there been a more important time for the government to invest in jobs (if not save them) and stimulate growth. I don't see very many economists refuting this; in fact I've heard more economics posit that this bill isn't big enough to get the job done.
So I'm with Paul Begala on this one: all the governors and state officials who have opposed this package now need to walk the walk and refuse funds for their state. Let's see what happens to them in the next election cycle. All the purist individuals who denounce it should refuse the commie jobs it creates and either retreat back into unemployment or wait to get laid off. Anything less, quite frankly, would be hypocritical.