If people hark back to their social studies classes, they might remember being taught that the first purpose of any government is to provide for the safety and security needs of its citizens. One might also recall learning that, after obtaining shelter and enough to eat and drink, Maslow's "Hierarchy of Human Needs" posits that personal safety and security are the most basic needs -- outstripping social, esteem and self-actualization needs -- among humans.
Knowing this, one cannot help but wonder why President Obama would blanket the media with a campaign asserting that our nation would become a disaster if sequestration went into effect. Although, he's tried to walk back from some of his hyperbolic statements, he deliberately chose to tell all of the nations' citizens to prepare for significant deprivation.
Given what has taken place, it would seem that rational citizens would question the effectiveness of Mr. Obama as a leader. If disaster lay before us, and if it is government's primary role to protect citizens, then why has our president not protected us and allowed this disaster to become reality? Does this not signal that the president is a failure as a leader? Doesn't his media campaign just advertise that he has failed in his primary duty to protect us? The "buck," in this case, did not stop at George W. Bush's desk, at John Boehner's desk, or in Tea Party offices (Mr. Obama's usual blame targets). Instead, it did stop with Mr. Obama, and he fumbled.
Our president's fiscal fictions have not only been wrongheaded but insulting as well. He clearly thinks that the electorate is stupid and economically illiterate, or both. The "takers" might be, but the "makers" surely are not; and, hopefully, that will be a problem for the Obama administration.
Charles F. Falk