For a long time I have been saying (along with a lot of other people), that Hugo Chavez was running his country into the ground. He diverted investment funds from PDVSA, Venezuela’s state-run oil company, into social programs. As long as the price of oil kept rising, he could do that. Unfortunately, Venezuela’s sour, heavy crude is particularly hard to get at and refine, and requires a high rate of investment in order to keep production up. As a result, the number of barrels per day (bpd) that Venezuela produces has declined pretty sharply since he took office in 1999.
As a consequence, the money that Chavez used to paper over the cracks in his socialist paradise has vanished, and the cracks are deepening:
President Hugo Chávez has been facing a public outcry in recent weeks over power failures that, after six nationwide blackouts in the last two years, are cutting electricity for hours each day in rural areas and in industrial cities like Valencia and Ciudad Guayana. Now, water rationing has been introduced here in the capital.
The deterioration of services is perplexing to many here, especially because the country had grown used to cheap, plentiful electricity and water in recent decades. But even as the oil boom was enriching his government and Mr. Chávez asserted greater control over utilities and other industries in this decade, public services seemed only to decay, adding to residents’ frustrations.
Nothing is free. Everything has to be paid for. Pay attention, liberals – for the last time, will you please understand that government can’t get it right? That the more you turn over to government, the worse things get? There was a joke during the Cold War perhaps you younger people don’t remember:
What happens if the communists take over the Sahara desert?
Nothing for ten years. Then there’s a shortage of sand.
It might make you liberals feel good that Chavez talks about social justice, but all he’s really about is megalomania. He wants power for himself and simply to have it. He tried to gain power by a coup. When that failed, he took up the populist cudgels and managed to win the Presidency – and since that time he’s called upon paid thugs, again and again, to intimidate people in to giving in to his rule. And now he’s just shy of Stalinist in his control – and the Venezuelan economy is collapsing.
So, too, it would be in the United States, if we turned over more and more things (such as health care) to the government. Government cannot do other than get it wrong whenever it steps outside its proper bounds.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
Everything that has been predicted, which of course modern liberals scoffed at, is coming to fruition.
But again, this is an example of modern liberals not learning from history. Europe is moving away from socialist and statist states because of their limitations and failures. Venezuala is on the way to becoming the next failure. We have seen the same results in N. Korea, Cuba, China, Soviet Union, etc. etc.
But they are determined to do the same here with different results. Hint: you do know that if you keep banging your head against the wall it will hurt. But if you must continue, do so.
Definition of most liberals: some one who insists on following a failed socialist policy expecting a different result. Not a very promising thought.
“Wanting” to barf? I have been puking non stop since that moron Obama was elected.
If only W could come back. We sure could use his steady hand right now…
“If only W could come back. We sure could use his steady hand right now…”
Please describe the state your country was in when W left, I’m curious to see what you remember.
I know you are all very scared because you think Obama is a radical socialist. Trust me, he is not. He’s nowhere near as liberal as my current government in Denmark (and they are on the right of the Danish political spectrum). I think the biggest problem is that you guys cannot differentiate between different political systems. If something is not based on 100% capitalism you immediately place it in the same box as Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela. Be more nuanced.
There is no doubt that Obama is more liberal compared to Bush but I believe even Reagan would have thought Bush was extreme. Besides, what did Bush leave you with? Two wars, an economy that was free falling and a destroyed reputation. Why weren’t you that shining city on a hill when he left (if he was so good)?
you are the only civilized country in the world that cannot take care of all your own sick citizens, and yet you are so afraid of a healthcare system with a public option. Your ranking when it comes to living expectancy and child mortality rates is embarrassing to say the least (doesn’t that bother you?).
Bush lowered taxes for the rich – Obama is going to raise them (are you all rich?).
I remember Bush lowering taxes for everyone who paid taxes, not just the rich. And domestically, Bush was quite liberal, having approved a senior prescription drug benefit and NCLB which were very expensive social programs, of which I don’t believe Reagan would have endorsed.
Bush lowered taxes for the rich – Obama is going to raise them (are you all rich?).
The real question is, what will the effects of significantly raising taxes on the wealthy be on the economy and on tax revenues. I’d bet negative on both accounts.