So the Republicans have shown themselves to be largely incapable of
spending
restraint. Given the chance, they wet the bed on
deficit reduction.
They don't respect the First
Amendment. They're unreliable friends of the free
market.
They love to stick the nose of the Federal Government
into places in which it doesn't
belong.
And they love to stick the nose of the Federal Government
into places in which it doesn't
belong.
And (did I mention?) they love to stick the nose of the Federal Government
into places in which it doesn't
belong. I could go on, but you get the point.
All this makes me say to myself: time to become a Democrat. Then
something happens to make me aware of the major flaw in that
plan, which is: Democrats.
The latest data point is the much-ballyhooed brand-spankin-new effort
by the Democrats to put forward their 2006 manifesto, dubbed
"A
New Direction for America". This being Pun Salad, the first thing we
must point out is: that title is a Emily Litella bit
just waiting to happen. It's also very recycled, having been
tried both by Dennis
Kucinich and John
Kerry during the 2004 election cycle.
(And, if you've got 95 bucks to blow, you can go here
and get a document of some sort titled
"THE NIXON ADMINISTRATION: A NEW DIRECTION FOR AMERICA." Description:
"stples rusty, pages a bit worn and soiled. SIGNED ON THE COVER BY
THEN-VICE PRESIDENT SPIRO T. AGNEW." There's nothing new under the sun.)
But it's childish to concentrate on that focus-grouped title. What about
the substance? Sad to say, it turns out the title is pretty much the
high point of the plan:
Democrats offer a New Direction, putting the common good of all
Americans first for a change …
Love the meaningless demagoguery of "putting
the common good of all Americans first" followed
by the petulance of "for a change".
… and will:
Make Health Care More Affordable: Fix the prescription drug program by
putting people ahead of drug companies and HMO's, eliminating wasteful
subsidies, negotiating lower drug prices and ensuring the program works
for all seniors; invest in stem cell and other medical research.
More meaningless demagoguery: "putting people ahead of drug companies
and HMO's". What does that mean? Do people
eye their medical bills and think "Whoa, I'm
clearly not
being put ahead of drug companies and HMOs here".
And who's not in favor of eliminating subsidies, especially
those "wasteful" ones? How about naming three of them?
Notable is what's missing: any mention of "universal coverage", let
alone "single payer". Gutless.
Lower Gas Prices and Achieve Energy Independence: Crack down on price
gouging; eliminate billions in subsidies for oil and gas companies and
use the savings to provide consumer relief and develop American
alternatives, including biofuels; promote energy efficient technology.
Let's see: Shameless pandering on "lower gas prices" of course.
Accusations of price gouging belie
economic
illiteracy.
The "consumer relief" thing
was a
stupid idea that
went nowhere
when Senator Frist proposed it earlier this year.
And energy independence?
Gee, that's a new idea.
Help Working Families: Raise the minimum wage; repeal tax giveaways that
encourage companies to move jobs overseas.
See
Jane on the
minimum wage. See
Prof
Drezner on job outsourcing. Democrats are too wedded to their old
ideas and crumbling union constituencies to offer anything innovative
in this area.
Cut College Costs: Make college tuition deductible from taxes; expand
Pell grants and slash student loan costs.
Democrats are against "wasteful subsidies", unless they're subsidizing
colleges and universities.
Ensure Dignified Retirement: Prevent the privatization of Social
Security; expand savings incentives; and ensure pension fairness.
Translation: Democrats have no plans to do anything about
runaway entitlement
spending, other than to oppose anything that might
actually let people control their own retirement funds.
And who could be against ensuring "pension fairness"? Not me. Not
you. Not anyone. Because it sounds good, and it's meaningless.
Basically, Democrats look at the problem and declare themselves
unwilling to make tough decisions, or even easy ones.
Require Fiscal Responsibility: Restore the budget discipline of the
1990s that helped eliminate deficits and spur record economic growth.
Nothing specific about raising taxes, which is probably what they
mean by "budget discipline." Guess they'll figure out the details
after the election, and let us know.
Now, what's missing? Well, terrorism, Iraq, Iran, North Korea,
Israel, … generally, that whole foreign policy and national
defense thing. Gutless.
Also nothing on privacy or civil liberties. Gutless.
[Update: geez, how could I have left out: also nothing on immigration.
Again, gutless.]
The Democrats apparently view Joe Voter
as (at least potentially) a little jangly
bag of fear and resentment against Them, as
exemplified by job insecurity, retirement insecurity,
energy costs, medical costs, college costs.
So their (vague) theme is: we'll stick it to Them, and "put you first."
We'll take care of you!
Anybody fooled? Me neither.