We've come a long way since President Kennedy advised us to "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." Today we have a Presidential candidate promising to do practically everything for us except wipe our noses, cook us breakfast, and walk us to the bus stop.
According to the Los Angeles Times, "In more than a year of campaigning, Barack Obama has made a long list of promises for new federal programs costing tens of billions of dollars."
If I had a nickel for every promise made by politicians in my lifetime, I would be among those "rich" people whose money Senator Obama plans to confiscate to fund the many promises he has made. As it is, I am a senior making less than $50,000 a year, and therefore would supposedly be among those getting a piece of Obama's wealth distribution plan. But this is not "change" I can believe in. I would rather have fairness and freedom for all Americans than a handout taken forcefully from one of my countrymen to buy my vote.
Robbing Peter to buy Paul's vote is a stale old cliche in the Book of Cheap Political Opportunism. One of the earliest soak-the-rich schemes was the income tax. This had been used temporarily before, mostly as an emergency measure in times of war, but it was made part of the Constitution in 1913 by the 16th Amendment. Our founding fathers deliberately excluded the income tax as an option because they felt it would be detrimental to both the economy and individual liberty. Politicians later sold the income tax amendment to the people on the premise that it would only apply to the incomes of the super rich, such as John D. Rockefeller. The masses, in turn, would get a reduction in traditional taxes, which were in the cost of goods they purchased. Since that time, of course, the income tax has been expanded to all working people, and their sales and property taxes have gone up too while the government grows ever bigger and ever more corrupt.
Apparently there are not yet enough poor people to deliver victory in a Presidential election, so Obama is emphasizing that the money he takes from those making over $250,000 a year will be redistributed for the benefit of the "middle class." He says he will "not only ensure the economic security of middle class families in the long term" but also "give them a chance for some relief in the short term, to make sure that Americans aren't just getting by but getting ahead." If you believe that, and if you value security over liberty, it's a tempting promise.
Personally, I am offended by the Obama campaign's main premise -- that we need or expect the government to solve all our problems, most of which were caused or exacerbated by the government in the first place. America would be better off if the government focused on protecting law-abiding citizens from criminals and terrorists and left us otherwise free to pursue our own happiness and well being.
Furthermore, unless he plans on building an iron curtain around America, Obama will be powerless to stop many of our nation's top producers and job providers from fleeing to countries which reward success rather than penalizing it. Then he will have to increase taxes on what's left of the middle class until they become poor. I can see confiscating the money of rich crooks, which would include, in addition to drug dealers and other customary gangsters, many congressmen as well as some of their influential friends in the banking and finance industry. But disproportionately confiscating the wealth of people who earned it honestly is unfair and a serious threat to freedom, prosperity, and opportunity. The road to Socialism is paved with golden promises, but it ends in dependency and mediocrity.
Admittedly, Republican congressmen in recent years have been spending money like liberals and threatening our freedom with debt. Too many of them have joined in the porkbarrel/earmark game wherein they support each other's non-essential spending projects in you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours fashion. To his credit, Senator John McCain in his 20-plus years in Congress has never accepted one earmark for his home state of Arizona. This is a remarkable achievement especially when you consider that Obama has requested $900 million in earmarks for Illinois in less than one full term as a U.S. Senator. Obama responds that such spending represents under one percent of the total federal budget. That may be true, but McCain's record here says something about his character -- it says that he is willing to stand up to negative peer pressure and do the right thing; it says that he is willing to put his country first, ahead of personal political gain.
And this is not the only instance of McCain putting his country first. As his refreshingly feisty running mate, Governor Sarah Palin, puts it, McCain is the only one of the major party candidates who has actually "fought" for his country. As a war hero and 5-year prisoner of the Viet Cong, McCain does not take lightly the responsibility of sending his fellow Americans into battle. Nor does he underestimate the threat of terrorism and the importance of national security.
Regarding Palin, some say she is too inexperienced to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. (By the way, McCain's mother is still alive and kicking at 96.). In any event, as a former mayor and current governor, Palin has more executive experience than Obama, Biden, or McCain -- and remember, the President heads the executive branch of our government. Besides, no President is an expert on all issues. That is why they have advisors and Cabinets. Frankly, I was leaning toward voting for a 3rd Party candidate, but then I saw the vicious, vile personal attacks and baseless smears hurled at Palin and her family by hateful Leftists. I believe that Obama has better manners than the orchestrators of, and participants in, this smear campaign, but I resolved not to do anything that would help hand these shameful haters a victory. And McCain would not have picked Palin if she were not honest and if her principles were not consistent with his, the essence of which are noted in the following editorial excerpt from the Oct. 19 Philadelphia Inquirer:
". . . McCain understands that raising taxes to 'spread the wealth' is not a form of patriotism, but a burden -- to Joe the plumber and other Americans trying to make ends meet.
A President McCain would work across the political aisle. He's done it before, often angering fellow Republicans. And his character is unassailable . . . He'll go against his party if he thinks it's in the best interests of the country. And his word is good. He promised to stick with public financing in this year's campaign and did so. Ask people to describe McCain and the first response often is, 'He's honest.' What you see is what you get. There are no mysterious associations to dance around. No 20-year attendance of a church whose pastor preached anti-American sermons. No serving on an education reform panel with a domestic terrorist. No financial support from a convicted felon. No ties to a group currently under investigation for possible voter-registration fraud. America needs an honest president with experience, common sense, sound temperament and good judgment in the Oval Office. Those qualities will make it easy for many to vote for McCain."
I understand why some people are leaning toward a 3rd Party candidate. Both major parties have been leading us astray, but McCain and Palin do not represent the status quo. Both have fought corruption in their own party. Also, keep in mind that Socialist sympathizers already control the House and Senate; do you really want to help put one of their comrades in the White House?
It is also easy to understand why some people are swayed by Obama's many promises. But before you cast your vote Nov. 4, ask yourself not what your government can do for you; ask yourself how dependent on government you want to be and how much of your essential liberty you are willing to trade for a momentary handout. And never forget what wise men from history have warned, and what too many people around the world have learned the hard way: "A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take from you everything you have."