No. 30: A Conservative Compromise
January 27th 2009 21:31
Stopping to help
Those who know me personally are aware that I describe myself politically as a Fiscal Conservative and a Human Rights Liberal. Obviously, from these posts, I have no use for a bloated, infringing government. It should be said that I have no use for racism, homophobia,
While perusing the Drudge Report today, a piece located at WNEM, Channel 5 t.v., Bay City, Michigan, caught my eye. It reads: "WWII Veteran Freezes To Death In Own Home." Friends, there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for allowing such. These precious veteran men and women, have fought to keep us free! They are agonizing as they question the worth of their sacrifices while observing our current national state of affairs, and sadly, many are dying every day.
There is a way preventing problems like this from repeating in the future. Here is my idea:
1) Demand that each electrical power firm supply a minimum amount of power to each occupied home in America. Perhaps enough for a couple of light bulbs and a monitoring device for seeking help would suffice. There are power limiters available to serve this purpose. This can be funded through a very small surcharge on all electric bills monthly.
2) The same thing goes for water. There should at least be enough water allowed for drinking and a bit for bathing. Fund the small allowance through a slightly higher rate for everyone monthly.
Far too many people are losing their jobs in the current Depression (note this is really what we are into now). Just because sickness or unemployment comes knocking should not cause one to be deprived of a nominal amount of electricity or water. For those unfortunate souls living in the colder climates, freezing to death should not be an option. No one should fear for robbery, assault or invasion because there is no light bulb burning. No one should dehydrate or be unclean for the same reasons.
Now, this may sound like socialism and I suppose one could define it this way. I am not proposing wholesale socialism or a larger government. No. It is just a way of addressing one small shortcoming in our system. Surely, in spite of the definition, we can serve our people better. I have always maintained that history reveals Capitalism is the best approach to economic development and maintenance--due to human nature--but it must be through Capitalism with a conscience!
Do we desire to be more compassionate, and a "kinder, gentler nation?" If so, perhaps all of us need to examine just what we are doing and where we want to be in the future. After setting our goals, we should lay out the methods by which we achieve these goals and monitor them along the way for corrections.
With these proposals, there is a recognizable "slippery slope" on which we could find ourselves. We are aware that to open the proverbial "Pandora's Box" might lead to more concessions. We can prevent this without giving our wonderful system over to total governmental control. Should we at least take a look at this idea? What do you think? Am I way off base here?
While thinking, please keep it between the lines.
| 46 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief