For whatever reason, liberals value how their views sound and feel over what the actual consequences of them might be. Decade after wearying decade, they look at a problem, identify a solution that sounds good if it were to work, and then refuse to look "under the hood" to actually study what happens when their dumb ideas are put to the test.
Check out this excerpt from a column on this topic. Paul Simon sounds exactly like my tenured university-professor, Lefty friend Paul, whose prescription for all of society's problems is to stick his fingers in his ears, loudly wail "La La La La La La La," and fire government money bombs at a problem if it sounds like a compassionate thing to do. Who cares what actually happens as a result? Democrats love children, our most "vulnerable" and "sweetest" of citizens, and Republicans don't really care about them, right? OK, then case closed.
The Liberal Compassion Mirage
By David Limbaugh
Friday, October 19, 2007
. . . . President Bush's veto of a proposed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Programs.
Standing by congressional Democrats in their push to override the veto, singer Paul Simon said with earnest indignation, "The president's veto of the reauthorization of SCHIP appears to be a heartless act. I'm here today to ask those of you who supported the veto to reexamine your conscience, to find compassion in your heart for our most vulnerable and sweetest citizens, our children."
Giving him the benefit of the doubt, the compassionate Simon is obviously unaware that the matter is not as simple as merely throwing money at the problem. To quote House Minority Leader John Boehner, "There are 500,000 kids in America who are eligible for this program who have not been signed up, yet there are some 700,000 adults who are already on the program."
Simon, unlike the Democrats pulling his puppet strings, must not realize that President Bush supports a $5 billion expansion, not reduction, of the program, or that the Democrats' plan goes far beyond providing a safety net to the needy. It would allow states to make coverage available to families with incomes greater than $60,000 a year, which would entice people who can well afford private health insurance to opt for state coverage.
Is it good for the children for Democrats to exploit them as props in their quest to force socialized medicine on this nation, one incremental step at a time? Will the inevitably long waiting lines and substantially reduced quality of care be good for the children?
Why can't congressional Democrats just admit they have a soft spot for socialism: that they believe capitalism results in too much economic disparity and that government -– the Constitution be damned –- should redistribute wealth to suit their ideas of fairness? Never mind that a command-control economy results in a smaller economic pie. What matters is they care, and by gosh, they're willing to forcibly transfer other people's money to prove it. . . ."