Posted on 04/27/2005 4:59:46 AM PDT by beaureguard
Yesterday afternoon I did what I usually do after finishing my program; I checked in with the Godfather to see what was on his talk radio agenda. The Man was engaged in a riff about the partisan warfare between Democrats and Republicans and, as usual, doing a sensational job. One problem though. I could have sworn that I heard the words "The Democrats have no agenda." I'm probably mistaken there .. but just in case I wasn't driving through an area of high interference and actually heard him right .. I now offer an alternative opinion.
The Democrats most certain DO have an agenda. It's just not an agenda that they are anxious to promote. The Democratic agenda can be succinctly stated in just a few words: Make Americans ever more dependent on government, and thus dependent on Democrats. There's bandwidth to fill, however, so we'll use a few more words to explain just what the Democrats want to accomplish.
A significant part of the Democrat agenda is the war on individuality. This was is no fig newton of my imagination. Master Democrat Ted Kennedy has made reference to this war in just those terms. Following a New England Patriots Super Bowl win several years ago Kennedy stumbled up to the microphone to share in the celebration, there to praise the teamwork of the Patriots, so welcome at a time that we are engaged in a "war against individuality." So ... his words, not mine.
The war on individuality goes hand-in-hand with the Democrats goal of increasing dependency on government. People who celebrate their individuality are people who are far more likely to become successful and independent. They follow their own dreams, not those of the masses; and in so doing they become more self sufficient and less dependent on government. In case you haven't noticed, Democrats aren't particularly fond of the idea of people becoming less dependent on government.
There's another nasty little problem with the concept of individuality ... at least its a problem for Democrats. When you recognize (dare I say celebrate?) the concept of the individual, you then have to recognize that individuals have rights. Individual rights, not group rights. This would include the individual right to life, liberty and property. Democrats haven't yet made any objections they might have to the right to life apparent, but they take a back seat to nobody on their lack of respect for concepts of individual liberty and property rights. The one property right most troublesome to Democrats? That would be the right an individual has to the fruits of his labors.
More of the Democratic agenda? Look to government schools. Our children must be "educated" (indoctrinated) by the government. All possible means must be pursued to keep these children out of private schools where the influence of government is muted. Now the Democrats know that they can't attempt to outlaw private schools, at least not yet; but they certainly can make it as hard as possible for a parents to pursue that option. School choice is a dead issue with Democrats. Vouchers? Forget it. It's just not going to happen. The government gets to decide where and how your children are going to be "educated," and that's that. Our children must be taught that American is great because of its government. If these children are allowed to escape the government schools for a private education there's that chance that they will be taught the dangerous notion that America is great because of the dynamic of free people working cooperatively and competitively in a system based on individual liberty and economic freedom. The concept of individual liberty is incompatible with the goal of making people more dependent on government.
More of the Democrat agenda? How about socialized medicine? This is part and parcel of the effort to make people dependent on government. Personally, I think the Democrats have one this one. Socialized medicine in the United States is inevitable. Most Americans now believe that it is either the government's or their employer's responsibility to take care of their health needs. Last week I read you a story about some young high school athlete in Canada being put on a three-year waiting list for simple arthoscopic knee surgery. I had this surgery done five months ago. My waiting period? I saw the doctor for the first time on a Monday and the surgery was performed the following Thursday. Give the Democrats a chance to bring their socialized medicine to pass in our country and the wait will be months, if not years here. Socialized medicine is vitally important to Democrats. When you control a person's health care, you control that person. Besides .. .just think of the powerful election rhetoric socialized medicine will bring to Democrat politics: "If you elect Republicans or Libertarians they are going to make you pay for your own medical care."
Then there's "soak the rich" tax policies. How can you say that the Democrats have no agenda when they have made it abundantly clear that they would like nothing more than to see taxes raised on the evil, filthy, nasty, ugly rich. These government dependency programs take cash, and what better way to raise cash then to appease the gods of envy by raising taxes on the hated top 1% of income earners?
Is there more? You bet. Much more than I have time to present here.
Social Security. People must not own their own retirement accounts. The government must be in control. Control retirement, control the individual.
The United Nations. Weaken American by subjecting us to the whims of the international community through the world court and other UN institutions.
Talk Radio: Bring back the Fairness Doctrine to browbeat radio station owners into dropping conservative and libertarian talk radio shows.
Wealth confiscation: Levy a one-time tax on the outstanding balances in privately held retirement and pension accounts.
Control pension fund investments through government regulations ... a ploy to reward Democrat-friendly unions and businesses.
Shift more and more of the tax burden to the wealthiest Americans. Now that one-half of Americans have been relieved of the responsibility of paying any income taxes, give them a free ride on Social Security and Medicare taxes as well.
Paid "Family Leave." Make employers continue to pay the salaries of employees to take the 12-week family leave for a new baby, to care for a sick relative or just because they don't like to work on Mondays.
Government paid child care for all. Make the taxpayers pay for something that should be the responsibility of the parent.
Repeal the Second Amendment. Only the government should have guns.
No agenda? That sounds like quite an agenda to me, and one that I'm not particularly comfortable with. All they need now is the power to enact their agenda .. and with continued Republican missteps, like their interference in the Schiavo matter, they may soon realize that goal.
Boortz Ping!
If you want on or off the Boortz ping list, FR mail me!
Excellent article. Boortz is the man.
I think he misheard... the Democrats have a "NO!" agenda.
Yes he is. Suprised I missed this yesterday.
Wealth confiscation: Levy a one-time tax on the outstanding balances in privately held retirement and pension accounts.
Anybody know what he means by that? Is that just a really clever way of describing the death tax?
BTW, this is a great way ("war on indivuality") to express what is happening with the judiciary. Individuals get to vote, and it is the individual votes, averaged among all the individuals, which decides the direction of our country (That's democracy).
The Democrats want the judiciary to make the decisions for our country, rather than individuals through their votes. And to ensure they keep the judiciary the way they like, they refuse to allow individual senators, elected by individual people, to vote to confirm nominees who are more likely to defer to the democratic process.
I thought this was a harsh way of looking at it until I listened to their floor speeches yesterday. Chuck Schumer was on his rant about process, but then he switched to a message I have heard rarely before but now with increasing frequency:
1) A vote not to end cloture COUNTS AS A VOTE -- so by voting NOT to vote, they have given the nominee a vote.
2) That makes sense because, with a lifetime appointment, you should have to get more than just a majority.
Up to now the argument is that the Senate makes its own rules, and if it wants to have a rule that it takes 60 people to stop a debate before a majority vote, and a majority are willing to enact such a rule, that it is constitutional.
But the new argument is that the constitution is wrong to only require a simple majority, that judges are too important (THEY SHOULDN'T BE, BUT THEY HAVE MADE THEMSELVES TO BE TOO IMPORTANT), so we should need 60 votes.
Actually, most of the democrats have gone a step further. Their arguments aren't that you need 60 votes, but that you need a substantial support of the minority party, to provide a "check" against the majority party.
Note there is no basis in the constitution for political parties, nor are the checks and balances related to factions, but rather to branches of government.
The democrats have given up on democracy, since it isn't working that well for them lately. Having gone to the american people with their ideas, and having been rejected in the national election (president), the state election (senate) and the people's election (house), they now insist that the minority party should have rights simply because it is a minority.
In other words, they no longer trust that the american people have any idea what they are doing, so they will fix it for them.
I think he's referring to the death tax. But Gorbachev did the same thing to Russians just before the Soviet Union imploded by canceling certain currency holdings.
We don't get Neal here. Who is the Godfather? I assume it is Rush.
Yup - he calls Rush the Godfather.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.