Another day, another window into the real Hillary: a Western European Socialist who wants to implement a vast array of new social programs to hook the voter on government entitlements.
Not a week goes by without Hillary unveiling a massive new — and unnecessary — federal social program. Two weeks ago she announced in Iowa her $110 billion/year National Health Plan, which will probably cost closer to $250 billion/year. Then she announced her Baby Bond program: a $5,000 bond given to every baby when they are born. Why this is done isn’t known, nor is who manages the money, what you can do with it, and what you can’t do with it. Cost? $25 billion a year.
Now, her latest: a $1,000 per person contribution to your 401(k) retirement plan — or else the government creates a new, special retirement account for everyone. Cost? At least $25 billion per year.
Hey, it’s only October of 2007. At this rate, Hillary has 13 months to announce dozens of more spending plans before the presidential election!
The question is, do we need these things?
Are these new federal spending programs necessary? Don't forget — once they are implemented they are virtually impossible to eliminate or reduce. Are the people demanding them? Are these programs addressing a pressing issue in our country right now?
Healthcare is a huge problem, but Hillary’s plan doesn’t fix it; in fact, like Bush’s disastrous Prescription Drug Program, her plan will make the healthcare/insurance problem even worse.
Most government programs that aim to solve a problem in fact compound the problem in unexpected ways — plus they require new taxes on the middle class, which today cannot afford another penny of taxes.
Oh, sure, Hillary’s disciples will tell us that they are only going to raise taxes on the mega-rich. But that won’t do the trick. In order to pay for all these new programs, it will require Democrats doing what they always do: sap the middle class with huge taxes to pay for these programs. Period.
Furthermore, politically Hillary is trying to do the opposite of George W. Bush: by doing everything for people she contrasts herself to the perceived lack of caring from Bush. Plus, like her hero FDR, she wants to create a lasting social legacy like the New Deal.
Now, let’s get to the philosophical question: is it the role of Washington DC to provide each of us with a "birth bond" and a retirement account and to give us healthcare and other new entitlements?
Is that the proper role of the federal government in the United States of America ?
Or, instead, shouldn’t we follow Lincoln’s simple dictum: “government should only do for people what they cannot do for themselves”?
Now, a sadness: these Republican presidential candidates are pathetic in these debates when it comes to defining what we conservatives and Republicans ought to believe. Their blind defense — with the exception of Ron Paul — of everything G.W. Bush has done is killing them and eliminating any credibility they might have had among independent voters, who are the key to winning next year.
Fred Thompson had his one moment to seize the race, and he bombed. So it’s Rudy and Romney — the two biggest flip-floppers in the race. Neither of whom has a principled bone in his body.
Oh how I despair for our country!
And many, many others share this sense of desperation over the direction of this great land.
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.