In his quest to gain ground in the governor's race here in Wisconsin, Tom Barrett has begun to run an advertisement savoring his hero status he acheived at the state fair last year. What would've happened had Tom Barrett not intervened, is of course, speculation. The crime itself and the perpetrator will not be discussed. What we will discuss is Tom Barrett's basis of thinking which is also speculation.
But not having a conversation with Tom Barrett on this, does not preclude potential voters from taking a step back and analyzing what actually was being fought by Tom Barrett. After all, his campaign is hailing him as a hero. Voters are expected to make a decision on whether Tom Barrett is a hero or just a guy who wants to save eight dollars of his own money.
This is a very good example of how Democrats think. Why did this whole situation occur? Is it because Tom Barrett believes he is a modern-day Ivanhoe? Let's ask the question; why did Tom Barrett Park several blocks away from the State fair Park? As mayor of the city of Milwaukee, wouldn't he encourage attendees of the Wisconsin State fair to park in the lot on the State Fairgrounds? After all it is close, it is safer?, and it is a source of revenue for the state fair.
Perhaps thinking like a Democrat, Tom Barrett decided that he could walk in extra three blocks and save himself eight dollars. After all that eight dollars would've had to come out of his own pocket. He wasn't there on official business, as many state fair attendees are not, so why not save a few bucks? On the other hand, Tom Barrett has raised taxes for the city of Milwaukee residents every year in office.
So how much did this savings of eight dollars cost taxpayers? What did the fire and rescue response cost along with the dental work, the hand surgery, the follow-up hand surgeries, rehabilitation, just to name a few. Chances are, that the bills totaled more than eight dollars.
Let's not forget to add Robin Hood to this. After all, Democrats like to take the money from the rich people, and nowadays a rich person is anyone who works in the private sector and not a member of a union, and expand social programs for the underachiever. After all, self responsibility is a lot of work. It's the kind of work that Democrats don't want people to do. It would have a negative effect of having people rely less on government expansion. The progressives want to spread the wealth around. And just because you earned it, it's not your wealth. No, cutting back spending in the government sector is still something that liberals and progressives are still not willing to embrace. Tolerance, to progressives and liberals, means ceding your own beliefs to theirs. Will that make everyone happy? Only if you do not want to have your own independent thoughts.