Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton outlined a broad economic vision Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.
"On your own," as in individual responsibility and achievement? No, that would be cruel and insensitive.
"Shared responsibility," as in it is the hard-working, play-by-the-rules American taxpayer's responsibility to fund amoral, lazy, and incompetent corporations and individuals?
"Shared prosperity," as in take from those who work, earn, and achieve and give it to those who do not?
Where is the justice in this? How is it fair for the government to -- at the point of a gun and with the force of law -- take from those who have acquired wealth by honest means and redistribute it to those who have not? The former first lady is attempting to buy others' votes using your tax dollars.
This is socialism, and it is an enemy of Liberty. It is immoral, for it makes both those who receive undeserved benefit from others' hard work and those from whom the product of their labor is stolen slaves. The former is made dependent upon the State, and the latter is forced to fund without consent people and activities they would not otherwise have chosen.
The senator must use language like this to convince the lazy, selfish, and fearful that she really does care about them. This kind of misrepresentation also serves to discourage criticism, for who could be so heartless? And the reporters who dutifully and uncritically relay such deceit are complicit in her crime.
Here' s the attack on property rights and achievement:
The Democratic senator said what the Bush administration touts as an ownership society really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.
"I prefer a 'we're all in it together' society," she said. "I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none."
That means pairing growth with fairness, she said, to ensure that the middle-class succeeds in the global economy, not just corporate CEOs.
By "we're all in it together," the senator actually means, "we're going to take your hard-earned money whether you like it or not. You don't? What are you, some kind of greedy, racist, Republican?"
As for government "working for all Americans," our Founding Fathers defined what that would look like and set in place laws to sustain it, while simultaneously ensuring our Liberty and Prosperity. It's called the Constitution. It explicitly defines and limits the proper role of the federal government.
Unfortunately, it seems very few Americans have actually read it. Worst of all, the politicians who swear to defend it only misuse it in achieving their own political objectives.
As for that last statement, to socialists, "fairness" means an equality of outcome and not of opportunity, regardless of merit or effort. It means higher taxes and greater dependence on the government. It means the redistribution of wealth.
The Forced Equality of Outcome (F. E. O.) really is ugly.
That is immoral and unjust, but it's good for politicians, because those who promise it are often rewarded with another term in office and the admiration of a like-minded MSM.
"There is no greater force for economic growth than free markets. But markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed," she said. "Fairness doesn't just happen. It requires the right government policies."
The tyranny of "but."
When a normal person hears "promote our values," they naturally assume the speaker means the values shared by the speaker and the audience. Of course, with Senator Clinton and other liberals, "our" here actually means "my and other socialists'."
As for the "right government policies," could the senator possibly be referring to things like laws prohibiting stealing? Fraud? False advertising? Coercion? No, she means, the "right restrictions on Liberty."
"We have sent a message to our young people that if you don't go to college ... that you're thought less of in America. We have to stop this," she said.
Yes, just ask Jon Cary.
Beyond education, Clinton said she would reduce special breaks for corporations, eliminate tax incentives for companies that ship jobs overseas and open up CEO pay to greater public scrutiny.
Why not just end all entitlement programs, (apart from Social Security to those who've paid for and rightly expect it)?
Clinton also said she would help people save more money by expanding and simplifying the earned income tax credit; create new jobs by pursuing energy independence; and ensure that every American has affordable health insurance.
Another trifecta.
To help people save more money, why not . . . stop taking it?
"Pursuing energy independence" means more wasted tax dollars and greater government. That's a winner!
And of course, Hillary couldn't leave out her baby -- socialized medicine! If at first you don't succeed, get elected president yourself!
. . . In the last six years, productivity has increased, but family incomes have gone down, she said, leading to rising inequality and pessimism in the work force.
There are many reasons for Americans to be pessimistic, but a lack of socialism is not one of them. The senator's cure for these ills created by the meddling of government -- more government -- must be rejected forcefully.