ˈmɔr əl,ˈmɒr-[mawr-uh l, mor-] –adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
We all know liberals penchant for redefining what words mean. Fifty years ago, gay meant happy, today it means debased sexual preferences. Fifty years ago, choice meant the ability to choose between different options. Today, it means you are pro-abortion. Fifty years ago, marriage meant the sacred union between a man and a woman who loved each other and wanted to start a family. Today, to the left, it means nothing more than a gender-agnostic contract, between two or more people, by which you can extort money from the government and insurance companies. Fifty years ago, free speech meant freedom of speech. Today, free speech means you are free to say whatever you want, as long as it complies with current liberal thought.
And now they are at it again. Apparently, Chuck “The Duck” Schumer (he’s such a quacker) is redefining what a whole bunch of words means. Monday he said, of Eric Cantor’s plan to cut $350 billion from healthcare spending, “This approach is not balanced, it's not fair, it's not moral, and it will not be accepted. The proposal by Leader Cantor is very troubling.”
I don’t know which I find more troubling - that Schumer either doesn’t know what words mean, or that he’s purposefully in engaging in more redefinitions. Let’s start with moral. The definition is above. He doesn’t think it’s moral to cut healthcare spending (and specifically $250 billion from medicare). I don’t think it’s moral that the federal government has racked up over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, a large portion of which is medicare promises. According to a 2009 report by the National Center for Policy Analytics, unfunded medicare liabilities are in the $85 trillion range. Is it moral to make financial promises that you can't possibly meet?
I also don’t think it’s moral that year after year, the Congress has no problem spending more money that they take in, with no plan to cut spending. If your average American family or business went on the same kind of spending spree, they’d end up broke and filing for bankruptcy and have to work with the courts to come up with a payment plan and budget. But liberals think it’s OK to continue to spend more money than is brought in. Is it moral to spend more than you have and to pass that debt on to future generations?
And balanced? Somebody slap Schumer up side his thick New Yorker head. When fully half of Americans don’t even pay income taxes, how can he possibly hope to redefine balanced to mean what he wants it to mean? We’re not that stupid. As Florida Senator Marco Rubio said, “we don’t need new taxes, we need new taxpayers”. Balance means everyone paying, not some paying more. Is it moral for some to pay nothing whole expecting others to pay huge percentages of their income for the same services?
And lastly, fair. We cannot allow them to redefine this word. He doesn’t think it’s fair to expect everyone to pay? What do they know of fair? Is it fair that Democrats can break the law and get away it? Rangel didn’t pay his taxes, Geithner didn’t pay his taxes, but if one of us tried not paying our taxes, we’d be in serious hot water with the IRS, yet these liberal clowns continue to earn a paycheck from the federal government. Is it fair that liberals in government get one standard and everyone else gets another?
If you think everyone should pay fairly, and taxes shouldn’t be raised on those already paying the lion’s share, call your Congressman and tell them you like the old meaning of balanced, not Schumer’s.