Of course there was a "social socket." It's the "something for nothing" socket that sells Lotto tickets, and in politics, promises you all the good things of life for free. All paid for by people nobody likes.

And of course, at a certain point tyranny does not need consent.

You know, if you paid any attention at all to what I've written over the years, you wouldn't need to ask any of those questions. I know damn well the "whys." You just don't want to hear them. Things I've said many times:

-- The "Middle Path" was passed years ago. In the mid 1970s we were doing pretty damn well on a Federal budget less than a third of what it is now. In constant dollars.

-- It's obvious that the "progressives," which currently control the Democratic Party, are not at all interested in any "Middle Path." If there's an upper limit to how much power and wealth should flow to the government, they apparently haven't reached it. The Democrats have never proposed any solution to any issue that did NOT involve more power and wealth funneled to the State.

-- I put example after example of increasing encroachment on our choices and freedoms, and liberals cheer them on. Why SHOULDN'T the government be able to tell you what your shirt buttons should be made of? For everyone's good, of course.

To cut through the crap, and put it in the simplest possible terms, A lot of Americans now are saying the government has gone too damn far, gotten too damn big, and is getting too damn like governments that have ended badly in the past.

The Left and liberals respond that no, it's nowhere near big enough, taxes aren't high enough, and the State doesn't have nearly enough power over our lives and economic activities. If they have a limit, I've never heard of it.

Americans look back and see that, not that long ago, well within my own adult life, we were doing pretty well on a much smaller government.

There's your "why."

But again, you don't want to hear it.