ShareThis Page

A trifecta of temerity

| Saturday, April 12, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Conservative pundit Cal Thomas has “concerns about the amount of money required in campaigns, especially presidential campaigns.” In his USA Today column last week, Mr. Thomas seemed aghast that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney spent a combined $7 billion on their 2012 campaigns.

One can only wonder if he's similarly affrighted that Americans spent $6.9 billion on Halloween last year. Is he equally bothered that, also in 2012, Americans spent $478 billion on groceries; $117 billion on fast food; $96 billion on beer; $65 billion on soft drinks; $47 billion on child care; $40 billion on lawn care; nearly $35 billion on gambling; $30 billion at the local dollar store; $25 billion on professional sports; $17 billion on video games; nearly $17 billion on Easter and $10 billion on romance novels?

That $7 billion looks paltry by comparison. And hand-wringing over it is silly. ...

“Progressivism” was in full farce Thursday last as President Obama commemorated the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The president that logic forgot went on to tout as a grand success Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs of deepening dependence, poverty preservation and Orwellian doublespeaking. Among them — Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start and food stamps.

Never mind that Medicare and Medicaid are ticking time bombs of fiscal unsustainability rife with fraud and programmatic oxymorons. Never mind that Head Start is nothing more than a glorified federal baby-sitting service with, by the government's own assessment, little or no cognitive benefits. And never mind that the effectiveness of food stamps, the program's rolls massively expanded over the years and food stamp use ignorantly promoted as a “growth” generator, is dubious at best.

“The academic evidence is quite mixed ... in either combating hunger or improving nutrition,” Cato Institute scholar Michael Tanner reminded last year. “Even the Government Accountability Office concedes that the ‘literature is inconclusive as to whether SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) alleviates hunger and malnutrition for low-income households.'”

To which most garden-variety “progressives” will retort: “Well, we must not be spending enough money!”

Well, all sizzle, no steak and little intellectual wherewithal typically are part and parcel of “progressivism.” ...

“Thank you, Vladimir. May I have another, SIR?!” That might as well have been what Secretary of Stumble, er, State John Forbes Kerry asked the shirtless and expansionist Russian megalomaniac last week in Washington.

As The Wall Street Journal noted, on the same day that the proprietor (in absentia) of Fox Chapel's Rosemont Farm was lowering his affectatious voice and sternly fidgeting with his spectacles before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee over Russia's Ukraine intentions, “the Pentagon announced steep cuts to U.S. nuclear forces, four years ahead of schedule, in accordance with the 2010 New START treaty with Russia.”

Never mind, remember, that Russia has been treating its treaty obligations like toilet paper, grossly violating older treaty provisions as it negotiated new provisions that it planned to ignore, too. We cut, early; they ramp up, continually. Surely Mr. Kerry is delirious from a Rosemont-contracted swine flu. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel must have been over for dinner.

Emptiness and quackery passing for diplomacy are leaving the United States in an embarrassing and dangerous position.

Colin McNickle is Trib Total Media's director of editorial pages (412-320-7836 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.