Democratic candidates in '04 bad for America

By Jason Wadlington

A depressing fog has descended upon many citizens of this great country. This fog is clouding their thoughts, altering their vision and destroying reality. Replacing it with an alternate reality—a reality where weapons of mass destruction do not exist, where socialized heath care is a legitimate possibility and where tax money is used like a water faucet.

This fog has already gripped a frightening number of Americans—it is liberalism. And it has the power to bring on levels of social and economical destruction that hard-line terrorists only dream of.

It is apparent that most of the democratic candidates running for office would not have gone to war with Iraq if it were up to them. Rather they would have sought a peaceful resolution that would have undoubtedly lead to world peace—maybe—probably not. If we had not gone to war with Iraq we would have proved that America was no longer willing to back up demands made by itself and the United Nations. Iraq would have served as an example that defiance of the UN and the United States was possible. Now Iraq serves as an example of why not to defy the UN and the United States.

Ask Libya if they received the message. Before the war, Libya made no mention of the fact that it had advanced WMD programs. Now it is allowing inspectors to disarm them. If it had been up to the current democratic candidates, rogue nations would continue to trade WMDs like Pokemon cards during recess without fear of military action. Now that fear has been firmly instilled in their minds and 25 million people have been liberated.

WMDs are frightening. But so is the thought of allowing the government to run our health care system. This is exactly the idea that is being proposed by most liberals. It seems that even though the government is notoriously inefficient with time and money, we want to give them the opportunity to run the health care system.

Governments are set up to provide for the defense of a country and to keep financial stability within that country. By nature, government is large and impersonal, seeing citizens as numbers—not as people. Government is not the entity you want overshadowing your doctor’s decisions, because sometimes cuts have to be made. Hopefully those cuts will be life-saving surgical incisions and not budget cuts.

I hope someday someone will explain to me why liberals view American taxpayers as ATM machines. Anytime a program is not properly funded or a new social program “must” be created, taxpayers are hit up for more money. Each democratic candidate has said they support raising taxes, but only on the wealthiest Americans of course.

To them it seems the wealthiest Americans are those who have worked their whole lives to make it into the middle-class of our society. The only people who are not affected negatively by an increase in taxes are those who do not work. Rather they benefit from the increase because more money will be funneled their way to support dubious habits and addictions.

Raising taxes creates further class warfare, as more and more tax money ends up in the pockets of drug dealers and addicts. Hard work should not be penalized in a free country.

Voting for President Bush will not solve all your problems—most of which you should solve on your own. But it will solve some of them, which is far better than the barrage of problems that will be created if a liberal is elected president in 2004.

— This columnist can be reached at collegian@csufresno.edu