In a previous post I pointed out how government dependency that is being promoted by the socialists are creating problems of poverty and results in the lost of our freedoms. I also made the point that the MSM is promoting this socialism. Today’s Argus Leader editorial proves that point to be true. They primarily mention government dependency issues when they speak about the cooperation among our congressional delegation. After discussing Ellsworth and the pork laden transportation bill, they say this:
But not every issue is going to directly affect South Dakota. Most votes will be on legislation that - while it touches our state - is more general in nature. Social Security. Medical care. Insurance. Foreign aid and disaster aid. Veterans affairs. Terrorism and the Iraq War. Civil rights, as reflected - or taken away - in the USA Patriot Act. Education reform.
Then they mention these points:
Our focus is on South Dakota. And with rare exceptions, we're going to be in general agreement about what will benefit our state:
We need help developing technology as an economic engine - help that goes beyond turning the old Homestake mine into a national underground laboratory.
We need support for agriculture and energy development, particularly focused on ethanol and wind energy.
We need some sort of change in how the Missouri River is managed.
We desperately need help for our Indian reservations - help in all areas.
There's more, but that's enough to start.
Note how we need "help" on our "economic engine", including agriculture and energy, and we "desperately need help for our Indian reservations - help in all areas". These are all positions that promote dependency on the federal government. The same goes for the mentioned Social Security, Medical care, Insurance, and disaster aid. They even want Veterans to give up freedom and become government dependents.
You will not find anything in the Argus Leader that points out how government dependency is what created the problems on the Indian reservations. There is nothing to be found in the paper about how the transportation bill creates a dependency where South Dakota is forced to give up freedoms for its citizens. An 18, 19, or 20 year-old soldier back from Iraq cannot legally enjoy a beer. We cannot legally drive without a seat belt. We, as a state, gave up the right to make those decisions in order to remain dependent on the government's funding.
This makes me wonder, do we have the faith to think we can do things for ourselves. Do we have enough moral values to believe that we can move our own railroad tracks, build our own bike paths, and provide for all of our needs? Or do we continue to say it is OK for others to be made responsible for such items through the authority of our central government?
It seems that no politician can successfully run on a conservative platform that promotes removing South Dakota from government dependency. And how much of that has to do with how the South Dakota MSM promotes the far-left socialism that advocates more government dependency?
