I had a small revelation the other day listening to some Michael Medved podcasts. It is not the job of government to pick winners and losers.

A common battle cry of Democrats is that Republicans are the party of the rich, but I’ve come to see what a downright lie that statement is. This was evident at the end of last year as they discussed extending the bush tax cuts. Republicans wanted them extended for all, while Democrats only wanted them extended for people making less than $250,000. So it’s pretty simple, Republicans want something for the rich, Democrats don’t, so Republicans are the party of the rich, right?

That’s the lie they want you to believe, but it’s false. For one group to be favored over another, there must be unequal treatment. When one ethnic group is given priority over another to meet an affirmative action quota, you have unequal treatment. When a teacher gives one student more time on an assignment than another student, you have unequal treatment.

The liberal lie that conservatives are the party of the rich is absolutely not true. Liberals might despise the rich and want to play robin hood with their money, but that says far more about liberals and their views on freedom than it does about conservatives and their treatment of the rich.

The last political post about abortion got sidetracked to government assistance to the poor, so instead of continuing the discussion there, I’ve decided to start a new thread here. Consider a new post in a series about “the issues.” From Mike in the previous discussion:

For me the biggest issue is caring for what Jesus calls the “least of these.” I would argue that would involve issues such as healthcare as millions of Americans are left without adequate access to the care they need. You are also right that it shouldn’t be the governments responsibility to care of the “least of these.” I would love to see the church in America come along side and help these people out in their time of need without the government. But in the present state of the church, that simply isn’t happening with our time or our finances. For example, only 17% of Christians tithe off their income and on average they give 2%. How can the church make a difference if its people aren’t doing their part? Additionally, only 20% of believers in the average church serve in any capacity outside of attending Sunday morning. So then do we as Christians ignore the issue? No I believe that we can partner with our leaders and help them accomplish what the church isn’t.

There are a number of questions that should be asked and answered. “Government Assistance” is a really generic phrase, so I’ll speak in fairly general terms.

1) Do people give enough money to charity?

According to Mike, the answer to this question would be no, but I’m not sure it’s as simple as that. For one, the above is only an analysis of giving within the church. It doesn’t include money given to Habitat for Humanity or money donated to a local charity. A better indicator of giving to charity can be found here. Total charitable giving in 2007 was $306 billion (2.2 percent of GDP). Of that, $229 billion came from individuals. Religious organizations received just over $100 billion

2) How much is enough?

Mike said it’s hard for the church to make a difference because they don’t have enough money, but the question then is, how much? Should the government (or Mike) be able to decide, and force you to give that much?

I would say no, and not only because the money belongs to me, but because I want to decide how that money is used. In the past tax money has been used to put a cross in a bottle of urine. I’m supposed to trust that after the government takes my money they will use it in ways I approve of? No thanks. If I want to donate money, I will give it to the organizations I trust and believe in (none of which are the government).

3) Is the government any good at helping “the least of these”?

I made a post back in May that talked about the war on poverty. In case you don’t want to read it, we currently spend around $600 billion a year on the poor, and since the war on poverty began in the 1960′s, the poverty rate has remained unchanged. So much for making things better. No one really disagreed with that post though, so it must have been a good one.

I’ll look for a post from Mike about how the government is good at helping people.

4) What does government “giving” do to people?

I’ve made this point over and over, but I’ll make it again. When the government gives people things for free, it saps them of the energy to become better. When the government picks you up for making stupid decisions (like buying a house you can’t afford), people don’t learn their lessons. When the government offers to pay for your child’s lunch everyday for their whole life, it’s amazing how “poor” some people immediately become. When people expect the government to support them until they’re dead through social security, people stop saving money and making good choices. When the government gives handouts, it makes things worse. Government programs are bankrupting our country.

5) If the left loves the poor more, they must give more money, right?

Conservatives give 30% more to charity every year despite having a lower average income than liberal families. Do liberals recognize this, or do they just turn a blind eye and champion more leftist causes?

6) Is life all roses?

No, it’s not. Life is a struggle at times, and surviving those hard times make us better people. You don’t become a country with a strong work ethic by believing that the government can fix every problem. No, you tell people to learn to take care of their own life, to better themselves through education, and to make wise choices. If you think more government involvement is the answer, then you have learned nothing from history.

Those are some questions I came up with…what about you? Keep your comments focused on the topic at hand. If you want to talk about guns or war or something else, we can have a new issues post for that.

I realize that since the baby has come there are more people reading this site than before, and some of you haven’t read my many posts over the past 3+ years. I’m a Conservative through and through, and while my posts regarding politics and discussions of principles will most certainly decrease now that the baby is here, don’t be surprised to find a post every now and then that you may disagree with. It’s not meant as an affront to anyone’s intelligence, but as fuel for meaningful debate. And if you prefer not to read posts without cute pictures of the baby, then don’t feel like you have to. Most people don’t leave comments on this kind of thing anyways. And with that, here is my post.

While reading some comments about the movie Stop-Loss (which is doing terrible, surprise huh?), someone posted a link to the following video. His name is Evan Sayet, and he used to write for the Bill Maher show I believe. It’s a very long video at 48 minutes long, but if you have the time it’s well worth the viewing. It has some revealing insight into why Liberals think Bush is the Devil, War is not the Answer, and why having an opinion automatically makes you a bigot.

How Modern Liberals Think

Edit: You’re welcome Judy, and I should probably add that he was a former Liberal who saw the light. People like this with a gift for speaking and conveying complex thoughts astound me.

A crazy Democrat up in Sacramento is running wild! Sally Lieber wants to make it against the law to spank your child. Even a poll of people in the bay area think this is crazy! In case you don’t see the significance of a bill like this, think about the role the government is playing. A bunch of politicians in Sacramento are reaching out into your home and telling you how to parent. Luckily there are a few conservatives up there that understand this:

“Where do you stop?” asked Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, who said he personally agrees children under 3 shouldn’t be spanked but has no desire to make it the law. “At what point are we going to say we should pass a bill that every parent has to read a minimum of 30 minutes every night to their child? This is right along those same lines.”

I’m very puzzled by this. First liberals excuse people for being crappy parents by giving their kids free lunch and after school programs. But now they’re telling people how they should be parenting?

Governor Schwarzenegger might have an (R) by his name, but there is very little about him that is conservative. The latest example is his determination to have universal healthcare coverage.

I’m curious to hear what my liberal friends think about this idea. On the surface universal health coverage sounds like a beautiful thing. Poor families living in cardboard boxes can’t afford vital medicine for their 7 babies. They’re all dying from influenza and big evil health insurance companies won’t help them!

Please excuse my flair for the dramatic, but the above is far from reality. Liberals, like the Governor, see legislation like this as some magical fix. People don’t have healthcare/high wages/money? Well lets make a bill and give it to them, just like magic! Unfortunately that’s not how it works, here is why.

1) The Role of Government – Use your imagination and transport yourself to Philadelphia in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention. Next to you is Benjamin Franklin and a discussion on the different branches of government and balance of power has just finished. This important discussion on government power has just ended and you stand up to bring a new issue to the floor. You say "I think everyone should be able to go to the doctor, even if they can’t pay for it." Ben looks at you through his spectacles, and without skipping a breath, says "You, be quiet."

The government should not be regulating something like healthcare. Present-day liberals can bring it up and unfortunately people listen, but the founding fathers would have looked at you like you were a moron. As the role of government is expanded there is a snowball effect. If everyone should have healthcare, then how about everyone should have a toothbrush? Or everyone should have shoes? Or toilet paper? If you think it’s ridiculous for the government to concern itself with any of those items, then you should find it equally silly that it concern itself with universal health coverage.

2) The Cost – The problem with "magical" fixes like this is that they aren’t magic, and they cost real money. According to the article the Governor wants to spread the cost between "businesses, individuals, hospitals, doctors, insurers and government." The myth that it’s magic and free is just ridiculous, but I think most liberals will at least admit there is a cost. What I fail to understand is why they think it’s a justified cost. Why do liberals think the government should be able to take away money from the above listed groups for something the government shouldn’t be regulating anyways? Not to mention the negative effect this forced cost will have. Think hospital related expenses are too high right now? Wait until they have to start subsidizing individuals. That money won’t appear magically, so costs go up. Doctors have to subsidize patients? Costs go up. Insurers have to subsidize people? Costs go up.

And here is the rub that Arnold and liberals don’t understand: regardless of how affordable healthcare really is, under Arnold’s bill families don’t have to make the tough choices. If you’re poor and the government offers to take money from other people to pay for your healthcare, you no longer have to make difficult decisions about how you spend your money. How about we stop with the free handouts, stop the gluttonous expansion of government, and get back to a time where people actually took care of themselves.

I believe the following is a perfect example of why the liberal mindset is so dangerous.

Social programs that are created with the intent of helping people often have the opposite effect. To a liberal that thinks with their emotions the choice is simple: When someone is in need, you give them the resources to fulfill that need. If a person is poor, give them money. If a person is homeless, give them government subsidized housing. If a family can’t afford to feed their children, give them free lunch at school. But is any of this actually helping people? Feeding starving school children couldn’t possibly be bad, could it?

It’s all a matter of motivation and responsibility, which are two things the liberal mental disorder never considers. It is pathetic and disheartening that parents are no longer required to feed their own children. Do you realize the magnitude of that statement? Parents do not have to feed their children because the government will do it for them. How low have we sunk as a society that something as basic as feeding your children is no longer expected of people? If you tell someone you’ll do something for them, they have little motivation to do it for themselves.

"Oh but Mr. Blarg, the poor children are starving because they’re below the poverty line. How can you be so heartless?" School lunches here cost $1.25 a day, and at five days a week, that’s a whopping $6. When I was growing up, buying lunch was a luxury. How much would it cost to bring PB&J everyday? I bet you could get the weekly cost down to $5 if you really tried. But instead, liberals would rather play Santa Clause with other people’s money. You’ve probably paid for a kid’s lunch whose parents drive a leased Navigator. You’ve probably paid for a kid who has cable at home, or Jordan’s on their feet, or an Xbox 360 in their room. Not only have you had to pay for it, but these "needy" people have not had to make the tough decision between lunch for their child and a big screen TV.

What liberals and this mentality have done is excuse people from taking responsibility for their own actions. You no longer have to rise to the occasion, work harder, get an education, make sacrifices, plan for your future, or be responsible. When the government does that for people, the people won’t do that for themselves.

What a response time! It appears that Islamo Facists needed less than one week after the Pope’s comments to start killing people! A nun was gunned down in Somalia in what is most likely a response to the Pope’s recent speech.

I didn’t comment on it at the time, but the day after the Pope’s speech, Henry Kissinger warned that we are facing a "war of civilizations." This didn’t get much air-time, because after all, pointing out the violent and dangerous nature of Islamic states is taboo. This killing is just another example of the stark difference between civilized democratics nations and Islamic countries.

Time and time again Islamic countries and Islamic terrorists are showing what a danger they are to the world. This is not something that will go away if we simply ignore it. What liberals and most people don’t understand is that this battle is much bigger than just fighting terrorists. People with the same ideals as the terrorists are running entire countries. Women are stoned to death for adultery and the President of Iran wants Israel wiped off the map. As we sit around trying to appease Iran they are busy developing nuclear weapons. Let’s not forget the failed appeasment of Hitler in the 1930′s, because history is repeating itself.