It's election time again, and as usual, we have been given a crisis to help us make up our minds. The planting field is ready, now we need the fertilizer. It will not be spread by machine but by word of mouth.

With all of the events going on, it is not surprising that comparisons from one scenario can fit other circumstances. In this case, the Casey Anthony trial. The comparison: how the father was blamed with no proof. It accomplished the purpose. Take the attention away from the main subject. It worked. One juror even let the father become part of her decision.

Politically, the rich play the father's role. The purpose is to remove the emphasis taken from the real culprit: uncontrolled spending. The theme seems to be that government needs to spend exactly what it needs to spend to continue their drive to run more of life in the private sector.

It cannot be argued that when things get out of hand, there is a cause. To try to tell us the reason is someone not paying their fair share is ludicrous. Everyone else lives by the rule of spending only what we have. If we don't, we must sooner or later own up to the fact that, quoting Pogo, "we have met the enemy and he is."

Do politicians really mean what they say when talking about spending limits? In 2006, the Republican Bush administration requested a raise, showing that this is a regular occurrence. In response, a Democratic senator responded, "The fact that we are here today to debate America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren."

Did he mean what he said or was it just his turn to recite the democratic line? In either case, the senator was our current president, Barack Obama. Isn't it strange that the senator who saw the request as being wrong then doesn't see it that way today? Sounds like it was just a democratic talking point.

Today, the president still places the blame on Bush. Every president inherits something from his predecessor. From Clinton, Bush received a dismantled CIA. He accepted that situation, restored the CIA and made it capable of playing a role in getting Osama bin Laden. No grousing about what he was left; just accept it, attack it and resolve it.

The only people who don't make mistakes are the ones who don't do anything. Obama has surrounded himself with "theoretical geniuses" and they have already have told him what they think. Problem, the theoretical aspect has fallen flat and they have nothing more to say.

So where do we go from here? What our leader wants is to blame Republicans and ask for more time. We can't afford more time and neither can he. We realize it; he doesn't seem to. Why must government always be reactive and never proactive?

George Koesters
Gainesville