I’m not mad at Rick Scott for flip-flopping—or at least not that much). Not being a Floridian, I never invested a lot of hope in him. Perhaps if I knew of some GOP candidate who would have been superior as governor, I’d be more angry. But I’m blissfully ignorant about the Florida race for governor.
Yes, Rick Scott sold out. He ran as a politician who was aware of what the debt-driven, ponzi-scheme, unaffordable entitlements are doing to the United States, and what it is doing to the character of people who are enticed into dependency on the those entitlements. He recognized Obamacare’s insanity. So, according to NPR’s blog:
“After the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the administration’s Affordable Care Act but made the expansion of the Medicaid program voluntary last June, Scott vowed that his state wouldn’t participate in the expansion of the program for low-income Floridians. The vast majority of the cost would be paid by the federal government, but that didn’t matter to Scott. ‘Florida will opt out of spending approximately $1.9 billion more taxpayer dollars required to implement a massive entitlement expansion of the Medicaid program,” said the governor in a statement last July.’”
Scott changed his mind. I have to admit I don’t hate him for it. Suddenly he had virtually every hospital in the state lobbying for him to take the loot. The Federal Government has basically bribed the majority of every state, and certainly the majority in powerful lobbying sectors, to grab all they can while it lasts. He probably realized that his stand meant that he would be a one-term governor who would have been mocked and hated for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, his stand against the financial Armageddon probably wouldn’t actually prevent it. So, on a list of personal pros and cons, Scott’s decision makes a kind of sense.
In my opinion, the correct decision would be to stay out of politics in the first place. If you don’t have the power to solve the problem, then why give us all false hope to attain office?
Despite all I have to say above: I do find Rick Scott to be really despicable. What kind of man has to drag his recently dead mother into his political machinations? “Scott said the recent death of his mother helped him change his mind.” Why would his mother’s death have anything to do with it?
The New York Times gives some elaboration:
“During his announcement on Wednesday, Mr. Scott said his mother’s recent death and her lifetime struggle to raise five children ‘with very little money’ played a role in his decision. ‘Losing someone so close to you puts everything in a new perspective, especially the big decisions,’ he said.”
This is what I can’t stand. Scott could simply point out that he thinks the state cares more about free money than about the future implosion of the United States. But he can’t admit the most elementary truths that everyone else can see. His mother helped him campaign when he was running for governor. If her life of poverty was such a significant factor in her life, why didn’t she bring it up then? In the NY Times piece, Scott actually says that the Feds are going to provide free “quality healthcare” (my emphasis). Quality? Just take the money and stop lying about it.
This kind of thing makes me wonder about politicians. Scott had to explain a political turnabout (or “betrayal” as his supporters might say) and this was the story he decided to go with? I find it sickening.
America is headed for a debt doomsday, but anyone who now refuses to participate in the problem loses present benefits. It is an iron trap. In a democracy, where a politician has to stay popular to stay in office, it is virtually impossible to escape.
The “good news” is this: What can’t last forever, won’t. But the results might make Scott’s mother’s life look easy in comparison to what’s ahead.