Democrats say the darnedest things. Take NH House Rep Ruth Gulick (D- Aesop’s Fables), whom Skip recorded at a recent Belknap county budget meeting. Ruth shared a little morality tale with those present, with regard to budgets and responsibility.
In Ruth’s version the county taxpayers have a moral responsibility to the employees whom they pay. That responsibility includes ensuring that the employees continue to enjoy the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, regardless of any other circumstances. Put simply; she objects to taxpayers (or any of their elected representatives) asking those employees to pay more for their own benefits.
Not a surprise coming from a Democrat, until you hear how she went about it.
To make that point, as Skip observed here, she compares paying for county employee benefits to how she is “…a superb parent because I give them an allowance and I pay for their food and clothes.”
So in Ruth’s analogy, as a” mother,” we have an obligation we are not permitted to shrug regardless, presumably, of how painful that might become.
We also have to assume, for her analogy to have any relevance at all to the debate at hand, that the money for the food, clothing, and the allowance Ruth gives her own children did not actually come from Ruth. She will have had to go door to door to extract it from her neighbors, using the looming authority of the law and the backing of the power of the police state, to guarantee her “superbness” as a parent. And this shall have occurred without regard to the neighbor’s needs, their right to their own labor and property, or whether Ruth’s “shakedown” could in any way affect their own ability to be as superb a parent as Ruth.
Such is the nature of the Left’s morality.
Taken to its extreme, Ruth’s “children” (or government employees) have more rights than anyone else, including Ruth, so it would be acceptable for them to cannibalize her should the need eventually arise, to ensure that they do not see any decline whatsoever to the lifestyle to which they feel they have become accustomed (see also “entitled”). And that consumption is inevitable as the state grows larger and more demanding at the expense of those with dwindling resources with which to feed it.
And therein lies the real morality tale of Ruth ‘Aesop’ Gulick; the needs of the state outweigh the needs of the many, even up until there are no longer any resources left among the “many” to feed and clothe them. The state is nothing more than a fire we feed, incapable of starting itself, unable to even sustain itself without the resources of others, but entitled to demand a never-ending escalation of those resources until it has consumed them all, leaving nothing left, including itself.
Sorry, there is no happy ending to this tale.
