July 2, 2007

Democrats’ Pathetic Political Pandering

The Democratic Party’s political propaganda was flying high last week at a presidential candidate’s forum held at Howard University. Promising universal health care for all Americans was not new from the presidential hopefuls, but now candidate John Edwards believes that if the government spends enough money, we can find a cure for AIDS.

If it were just a matter of spending enough money, then all diseases known to mankind would already be cured. This may come as a shock to candidate Edwards and others, but medical breakthroughs cannot be bought on a legislative or campaign schedule. But worse than the lofty, empty promises is the absolute disregard for how much these platitudes of universal health care and a cure for AIDS would cost the taxpayers.

But as usual, the candidates would finance these unknown incalculable costs with the same strategy they have used for decades. Namely, let’s just tax the rich some more, even though they never define who are the rich. The USA Today headline of June 29 describing the forum event proclaimed “Democrats call for ending the tax cuts for the rich.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton said, “Money from the elimination of the tax cuts would finance universal health care.” There is no factual logic to this statement whatsoever. First, how can you finance something if you do not know what it would cost? Answer, you can’t. Second, even if a reputable think tank or agency had estimated the costs, it would be off by at least a factor of three, based on recent experience with the estimated cost of the 2003 Prescription Drug legislation. And third, the tax cuts did not reduce federal tax revenues. Instead, they produced a substantial increase in federal tax revenues.

Sen. Barack Obama’s comment was similar, but with a preface that “the Bush tax cuts, people didn’t need them, and people were not asking for them.” The implication is that Congress should not reward the taxpayers with a tax cut unless they ask, and government is obviously the supreme judge of how much of our money we need.

The illogic of both of these statements is beyond pathetic. It is also insulting.

The audacity of such open-ended promises can only be surpassed by the number of people who actually believe these empty campaign pledges. Aside from the incalculable costs of such promises is the gauntlet of the legislative process. Just consider the buzz-saw the failed Immigration Bill went through for good reasons. Or, consider the lack of legislative traction for Personal Retirement Accounts for no good reasons except politics, even though President Bush actively led on the issue.

But when you consider the number of people who are more interested in the next “American Idol” winner than the next president of the United States, there is little wonder as to why candidates are able to get away with the modern-day equivalent of the depression-era political promise of “a chicken in every pot.” Unfortunately, some people are still waiting for that chicken from the government, while most people went out and worked for their chicken.

Thomas Jefferson said, “A government big enough to give you everything you need is strong enough to take everything you have.” The federal government has already gotten so big that the lead Democratic presidential candidates are quite comfortable promising huge benefits to everyone at the expense of an assumed endless trough of our money. And although they have not taken everything yet, 50 percent of the taxpayers paying 97 percent of current income taxes is a good start. 

The people of this country deserve and need more than pathetic political promises and public pandering. We will not get the leadership we need until we demand it and expect it. The recent collapse of the proposed Immigration Bill provides hope that people are waking up, although not often enough or fast enough.

A glimmer of hope is better than no hope at all. Otherwise, it’s just pathetic.