American Thinker | AWR Hawkins | May. 8, 2008
In an election year such as this, the responsible voter must assess the “glorious” ends of the Left’s various offers of a life without edges: an existence free of the normal dangers, struggles, and consequences of life.
For example, when the candidates on the Left tout universal healthcare as an end, the voting public should recognize that the means to that end will be higher taxes with less medical choices for all patients, as well lower pay and less treatment options for doctors.
It should be evident that universal healthcare will ultimately be disastrous instead of beneficial, crippling instead of healing any current problems in the healthcare industry. Will the candidates on the Left take time to assess the end in the same way and, considering the train-wreck that universal healthcare has caused in Canada and other countries, abandon their course and opt for sticking with private healthcare as we have today?
If we rely on history as an indication of how politicians on the Left have frequently operated since the mid-1930s, then the answer to this question is “no.” In fact, empirical evidence argues that the candidates on the Left already know that universal healthcare is a sham, but that will not stop them because they are not really seeking access to better healthcare for the citizenry, but rather a means to more control and government involvement in the everyday lives of citizens. If history is right, the closer we get to November 2008, the louder the politicians on the Left will proclaim their efforts “for the public good.” They will promise us a life without edges in so many words, yet deliver a life without liberty.
The Left’s offer of a life without edges began when Franklin Delano Roosevelt pushed Social Security as a kind of investment without risk in 1935. Through payroll deductions, which are simply taxes by another name, Social Security was created with the understanding that the working class would have guaranteed retirement savings. Today, we know that this grand promise of investment without risk has amounted to investment without return. It is impoverishing rather enriching for the hard working people who gain approximately two percent annual interest on their retirement savings in Social Security, while private savings accounts pay eight percent or more annually.
And where is the Left on this issue when a Republican Senator or Congressman calls for privatization of Social Security? They are aligned with Hillary’s and Obama’s position of refusing to look at the facts when people point out the bankruptcy of leftist contrivances like universal healthcare.
In 1947 the Left discovered the Separation of Church and State in the Constitution. This eventually led the benevolent Left to protect us from too much exposure to religion by prohibiting prayer in public schools. Ironically, this new separation from religion “for our own good” has resulted not simply in schools without prayer, but education without morality. But of course, the problem is that the Left is still teaching a morality; it is simply not a Christian one.
. . . more