SmallGovTimes.com

By: Steve Adcock | Published on 07/25/07    

I think that Terence Jeffrey, writer for Human Events, said it best when he penned his reaction to the Democratic debate on Monday evening. “I suspect the way many viewers reacted to this week's Democratic presidential debate co-sponsored by CNN and YouTube depended on whether they generally see themselves on the taking or giving end of government transactions.”

Tragically, I think that is true. Those who routinely receive government funding or resources probably found the debate to be breathtaking, beautiful and amazingly sincere. Those of us who pay for those people, however, probably thought something much different.

The rousing debate was littered with new (and some old) ways to increase the size, scope and role of the federal government. Health care was popular, as it typically seems to be, along with issues like the minimum wage, education and environmental standards.

My favorite is health care. It is interesting to listen to the candidates talk about how much compassion they feel for those Americans who can't afford health care. Their solution, of course, is to make everybody else pay for it. What a plan!

Creatively, Dennis Kucinich used the Bible to rationalize government spending on socialized medicine. “The Bible says we shall be and must be repairers of the breach. A breach has occurred,” he said, and “we have to acknowledge that. It's a breach that has resulted in inequality in opportunities for education, for health care, for housing, for employment. And so, we must be mindful of that”

Mindful, Dennis? How do you define mindful, and how much money does the federal government need to spend on the “breach” before the United States can become “mindful” of the problem?

Barack Obama opined “And as president of the United States, my commitment on issues like education, my commitment on issues like health care is to close the disparities and the gaps, because that's what's really going to solve the race problem in this country.” It is always about race, isn't it Obama?

And lest we forget wonderfully-groomed John Edwards, exquisitely appealing to much of the same women he finds in his local salon, “And I have made this a central cause in my life and a central cause in my campaign. More women have difficulty getting the health care that they need than men do.”

What is the solution to the health care “crisis” in America? It just so happens to be the same solution to everything else: government involvement.

Hillary Clinton uttered “...we have to have a sense of national commitment that universal health care is an American value.”

Anderson Cooper, the CNN host for the debate, asked Christopher Dodd if his plan would cover so-called undocumented workers. “It would,” responded Dodd.

Same question to Governor Richardson: “Yes, it would. It should cover everybody.”

Interestingly, Richardson continued with his answer by aptly placing his foot directly into his mouth. “In this country, no matter who you are, whether you're a ditch- digger, you're a teacher, you're a CEO, you're a waiter, you're a maid, every American deserves the right to the best possible quality health care.”

Every “American”, Governor? Does that mean illegals, who CNN refers to as “undocumented workers”, deserve the right to the best quality health care? First, Richardson says his plan covers illegals, and then proceeds to provide access to the best quality health care to “Americans”. Which is it, Governor, and how much is it going to cost?

Another favorite issue of mine is the minimum wage, which is the government's solution to the problem of those evil corporations trying to stiff the working public by paying them dirt cheap wages for back-breaking labor. Wage-fixing, in the mind of the politician, makes everything okay. Apparently, though, the wage is not quite good enough.

John Edwards challenged every Democrat on stage that night to support a minimum wage of at least $9.50 an hour. Currently, the minimum wage is $5.85 an hour.

And who, Mr. Edwards, is going to pay for that minimum wage? Corporations, of course. And if a corporation's payroll increases, expenditures tend to decrease. Hiring decreases. The only thing that does not decrease is, of course, the price of its goods.

Senator Dodd wants to see the minimum wage increase to “$9 or $10” to, you know, give people a chance to provide for their families. How sweet.

The candidates were asked if they would work the next 4 years on the national minimum wage. Arrogantly, those who responded all said “yes”, of course, but when you're sitting on a nest egg of, in some cases, million upon millions of dollars, what effect does the minimum wage really have on your ability to provide for your families? It has none. They are super rich. What do they care? And more importantly, why should they care?

My favorite line in the debate came from woman's-rights activist John Edwards, who said "I think the people who are powerful in Washington -- big insurance companies, big drug companies, big oil companies -- they are not going to negotiate," said Edwards. "They are not going to give away their power. The only way that they are going to give away their power is if we take it away from them."

Speaking of “not going to give away their power”, John, what do you think of returning a lot of the power held in the hands of the politician back over to the people? Specifically, the power to save for our own retirements without government involvement, or the power to marry whomever we want, or the power to start a small business without filling out mountains of bureaucratic paperwork and following scores of arcane and useless laws, some of which we probably don't even know about, and all of which help to encourage outsourcing to less restrictive nations.

How about giving the American people the power to smoke in bars and other establishments that allow it, and making April 15th just another day without the hassle of submitting volumes of government paperwork to Washington D.C. on tax day, and letting the American people devote some of their tax money to the private school of their choice instead of forcing them to fund underachieving and politically correct cesspools of mediocrity?

Would you like to talk about that, John? I am all ears.

Original URL:
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/07jul25.enlarge.government/index.html