Rising inequalities in America?

Here's more evidence of liberals high on President Obama's multi-trillion dollar budget proposal. E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post griping about inequalities:

The central issue in American politics now is whether the country should reverse a three-decade long trend of rising inequality in incomes and wealth.

Politicians will say lots of things in the coming weeks, but they should be pushed relentlessly to address the bottom-line question: Do they believe that a fairer distribution of capitalism's bounty is essential to repairing a sick economy? Everything else is a subsidiary issue.

Dionne and many liberals seem to lack a clear understanding of capitalism. Capitalism works when the individual has the will and opportunities to work hard and accumulate wealth. Everyone can have the same opportunities, but not everyone has the will. Liberals tend to forget this facet and bring in the government as the Great Equalizer. That is socialism, not capitalism.

Capitalism is never fair because there will always be lazy punks who make the wrong decisions and waste their talents. Socialism wants to be fair, but that means taking money from the responsible members of society and feeding it to the lazy punks. No, thanks.

Government, please just stay out of the way. All I want is economic freedom and opportunities to work for my wealth.

Republican opposition to stimulus is Democrats own fault

All right, the ordeal about House Republicans' united front against the stimulus bill is getting more interesting now as columnists like E. J. Dionne are lobbying President Obama to abandon his bipartisanship efforts to win opposition support:

That's why last week's unanimous House Republican opposition to the stimulus plan was so important. For the most part, the Republicans escaped attack for rank partisanship. Instead, what should have been hailed as an administration victory was cast in large parts of the media as a kind of defeat: Obama had placed a heavy emphasis on bipartisanship and he failed to achieve it.

Worse from Obama's point of view, Republicans have used the stimulus fight to drive a wedge between the president and his loyal troops in Congress. Some Republicans argued that while the White House was trying to reach out, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants were insisting on a "partisan" bill -- even though the measure was largely based on the administration's own proposals.

The truth is that House Republicans appreciated very much the attention given to them by the President. Although their negotiations with the White House failed to produce a stimulus package they could support, they had only good things to say about the President's efforts in reaching across the aisle.

The root of the problem isn't with President Obama. It's with the House Democratic leadership, especially Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She pushed the bill forward without opportunity for more bipartisan debate. The bill is worth $900 billion in taxpayer money! She went to the press to pound on the Republicans' unwillingness to support it. In other words, while the President was working hard as a politician, Pelosi was running wild as a maverick.

That's the problem when a party hasn't been in power for so long and all of a sudden finds itself running multiple branches of government. Everyone is going to have a power and ego trip. If the Democrats are after some Republican votes, then they must resolve some internal issues between Obama-Pelosi-Reid.

The Rick Warren controversy

There is a lot of buzz surrounding Obama's inauguration invitation to Rick Warren. Many liberals and gay rights activists are shocked at the announcement and have come out to demand Obama take Warren off the list. However, more recently there have been calls in support of Warren.

My view is that President-elect Obama is doing the right thing, politically. He needs a well-known religious figure in his inauguration program to satisfy the conservatives. After all, that's nearly 50% of the voters, and he cannot be effective in his narrative of unity if he distances himself, a self-proclaimed Christian, from the anti-gay marriage crowd. I think E. J. Dionne best describes both men:

One need not be too pious about any of this. Both Warren and Obama are shrewd leaders who sense where the political winds are blowing.

Yet keep in mind that there are folks who oppose gay marriage but support gay rights, such as a civil union. Many have problems with gay activists attempting to redefine the traditional institution of marriage between a man and a woman. And that is understandable and reasonable. If marriage can be redefined at will by a certain group of people, then what prevents the next proposition of legal marriage to be between say, a man and multiple wives (polygamy)? Or a man and his car? Or a male ape and its mate? Where does it end? That's a point Peter Wehner of Commentary brings up.

Rocker Melissa Etheridge also weighs in on The Huffington Post, starting with:

This is a message for my brothers and sisters who have fought so long and so hard for gay rights and liberty. We have spent a long time climbing up this mountain, looking at the impossible, changing a thousand year-old paradigm. We have asked for the right to love the human of our choice, and to be protected equally under the laws of this great country. The road at times has been so bloody, and so horrible, and so disheartening. From being blamed for 9/11 and Katrina, to hateful crimes committed against us, we are battle weary. We watched as our nation took a step in the right direction, against all odds and elected Barack Obama as our next leader. Then we were jerked back into the last century as we watched our rights taken away by prop 8 in California. Still sore and angry we felt another slap in the face as the man we helped get elected seemingly invited a gay-hater to address the world at his inauguration.

Inspirational, no? But wait a minute -- I thought Bush is being blamed for 9/11 and Katrina? Liberals are starting to confuse even me. She writes an article with sincere emotions, but gays already have the right to love another human of their choice and are protected equally under the laws. Think about it.

Illinois Democrats show some love to Blagojevich

This is almost unbelievable... Illinois state legislature with a Democrat majority decided not to strip the governor of his power to fill the vacant senate seat for now. The main reason? They fear that a Republican may actually win the seat in a special election.

So it's back to square one for the people of Illinois, underrepresented in the Senate with just one senator.

E. J. Dionne seems pretty sure that Obama and his aides have nothing to do with the corrupt governor. Let's hope so.