Socialism without a purpose

Unfazed by the recent disappearance of more than $3 trillion in wealth, Barack Obama has famously declared that his objective as president will be to "spread the wealth around."

Given the fact that the United States is in debt to the tune of about $10 trillion, and has just lost another $3 trillion in fragile "assets," isn't this tantamount to a soldier rushing into battle without any ammunitiion?

What is it, exactly, that Obams is going to spread around?

This puts Obama, and the United States, in a very strange position. The voters may elect a socialist to the Oval Office on Nov. 4, even though he will have none of the tools that socialists require, namely other people's money. Lots of it.

It is rational for voters who have socialistic goals, such as single-payer universal medical care, to vote for a socialist presidential candidate who shares their goals. But what is the point of electing a socialist who can't possibly achieve those goals?

A hard-headed observer might conclude that what the United States needs most in the White House is an expert at making something out of nothing. There happens to be one such expert available, namely Mitt Romney, who became rich by dismantling failed businesses, disposing of the wreckage and salvaging the parts that still had value.
Those skills are precisely what the United States needs now, for similar duty on a much larger stage.

It is the government's responsibility because government-sponsored entitites, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and highly placed members of Congress were key players in a 30-year social engineering project that destroyed the free market in mortgages and caused the loss of $3 trillion in mortgage-based securities.

What does Obama bring to the task at hand? Nothing at all. His oratorical gifts will do him no good. Neither will his seeming aversion to anything that normal people throughout the world consider to be work.

He was a community organizer in Chicago for a few years, which means he talked a good socialist game but didn't actually have to play one. Community organizers are talkers, not doers.

As a state senator in Illinois, he frequently voted "present," instead of yea or nay, which evinces a dislike for decison-making.

Yes, Obama is a millionaire, but he made almost all of his money presumptuously authoring two autobiographies, not by jousting in the hazardous arena of private enterprise. The preparation of his resume appears to be his life's work.

His reliance on cleverness, his skimpy work background, and his aversion to making hard decisions all argue that he is unfit for the task at hand.

To seize the moment, John McCain should announce three steps:

1. If elected, he will serve one term. This would take the age issue off the table and attract an untold number of women voters from both parties who could then anticipate a 2012 contest involving Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin, or both.

2. If elected, he will, on his first day in the White House, pardon the two imprisoned border patrolmen, Ignascio Ramos and Alonso Compean, while also providing back pay and a return to duty. This would draw a bold black line between him and President Bush, a line he needs to draw.

3. If elected, he will appoint MItt Romney to a key post involving economic recovery and unwinding the mortgage industry mess, owing to his expertise in salvaging value from failed enterprises.

This is not the time for the United States, a serious nation, to begin an unserious experiment with socialism.

{Earlier post: Promise to Pardon the Border Patrolmen, Mr. McCain}