America voted to expand the nanny state, but who is paying the nanny?

 Last nights elections results didn’t change the balance of power much in Washington.  It is still headed in the direction of runaway spending, expanding entitlements with more and larger government services. Of course, this costs tremendous amounts of money

Bill O’Reilly summed up the election results yesterday:

“There are fifty percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. Who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it and ran on it. ... Twenty years ago, President Obama would have been roundly defeated by an establishment candidate like Mitt Romney.”

As I wrote in my October 21 piece, the left has capitalized on being the party of the government dependent entitlement society.  This population has been mobilized to vote and has tipped the balance of power. They are immune from the effects of a bad economy the private sector is mired in. Why should they care if taxes are raised? 

The national debt of 16 trillion doesn’t affect them either, future generations will be saddled with this burden.  We ran out of our own money long ago and are now spending our children’s/grandchildren’s money to afford today’s entitlements.

But what is important to this base, is getting stuff today… President Obama and his party have done the best job of promising that. But nothing is free, everything comes with some sort of price tag.  That price is monetary and a loss of freedom from more intrusive big government protecting you from yourself by imposing its policies on you.

 Britain’s Prime Minster Margaret Thatcher said:  “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” 

America had an opportunity yesterday to change that direction, but failed to grasp it when an alternative for fiscal responsibility was offered by the Romney candidacy.

Many Americans will now get what they voted for: A bigger and more intrusive nanny state…paid for by someone else, until they run out of money.