A Love-Hate Relationship With Spending. And Spending Wins Out.

I’m no stand-up comedian, but I can’t help but run by you this one: Washington Post syndicated columnist David Ignatius is crying out, Spending, No! Obamacare, Yes!

(Audience laughter.)

Yes folks, Ignatius is positively appalled by the U.S. government’s massive spending sprees, and desperately wants someone to do something about it. But first, there’s just one little thing he’d like the government to do: put through the most massive spending spree in the history of the United States.

He does add the caveat that it would be great if the politicians would arrange it so that Obamacare cuts costs – i.e. results in less government spending. (At first his article seemed like he was advocating higher taxes to offset the spending, but then he writes “cuts costs”, which by definition means reducing spending.) But if politicians did that, then it wouldn’t be Obamacare. It would be something far, far different from Obamacare – more along the lines of true healthcare reform like substantially reducing healthcare regulations, decoupling health insurance from employers, and instituting health savings accounts for all combined with high-deductible insurance. (Obamacare is the opposite of all that.)

Gotta love all the folks who express shock – shock! at all the gambling going on in the house, and then happily proceed to hit the blackjack tables themselves.