I don’t like painting with broad brush strokes. That tactic is often a province of the extreme left wing. They push crazy ideas like: all Blacks are liberal; all Latinos are a bunch of progressive, open-border proponents; anyone who makes money is evil, that sort of thing.
That’s why “The Chris Salcedo Show” on TheBlaze Radio exists: To beat back these erroneous conceptions that far too many, courtesy of incessant dishonest dialogue in the biased press and other outlets, have come to believe. But despite my reticence to making blanket statements, the facts compel me to make the following analysis: The Democrat party is the party of the lazy.
I recognize that not all Democrats are lazy. Though exceedingly rare, there are some who identify as Democrats, yet have not forgotten the value of hard work and earning rewards in life. However, official positions and favored policies endorsed by the Democrat party suggest their aversion to pulling their own weight.
The Democrats’ Obamacare train wreck continues to barrel through Americans’ lives with cold, calculated, and brutal efficiency. In February, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office concluded that the equivalent of 2.5 million jobs will be lost due to Obamacare, Democrats loudly proclaimed the loss of jobs as a victory for the American people.
Upon hearing the devastating job loss news, the leader of the House Democrats – California’s Nancy Pelosi – proclaimed that Obamacare would “enable more than 2 million workers to escape ‘job-lock’ – the situation where workers remain tied to employers for access to health insurance benefits.”
It’s not the first time Pelosi has gone down this road, favoring a “do what feels good,” approach to productivity. In 2010 this extreme leftist suggested that Obamacare would allow artists to leave their jobs so they could devote their lives to perfecting their craft.
This liberal attempt to institutionalize lethargy inspired the Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker to write:
Today, knowing what we know, we are left with what we used to call a million-dollar question, though it is much more expensive now: How does one defend spending $1.2 trillion for a health-care overhaul that disincentivizes people to work, and that leaves us with 31 million uninsured?
It isn’t good enough for Nancy that she gets paid an exorbitant amount of money for a minimal “contribution” to America? She wants that to be the norm, by allowing people to shift the cost of their health care to their fellow citizens. The proverbial grasshopper has nothing on Nancy.
It’s no secret that Democrats, and their current extremist leadership, favor raising taxes instead of curbing unprecedented spending. Cutting taxes would lead to less power in Washington, where raising taxes has the opposite effect.
There are several other consequences to liberal taxation policies. It robs the private economy of much needed capital to grow and create jobs. After an initial surge, government revenue dries up as fewer people are working and paying taxes.
It also impacts charitable giving. The era of Obama has seen a myriad of stories outlining the decline in charity as Obama’s government seeks to grab the money from the affluent in America for itself. Not only that, survey after survey finds that conservatives are more generous than liberals when it comes to charitable giving.
This fact prodded a liberal New York Times columnist to lament:
Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, wrote a book titled “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” In it he outlined how lazy liberals behaved like hypocrites when it came to charity.
Vice President Al Gore’s charitable giving in 1997 was only $353. Then Senator John Kerry, presidential candidate in 2004, gave nothing to charity in more than one year when he was a U.S. Senator. Contrast those examples with George W. Bush, who gave $28,236, $31,914, $31,292 in 1991, 1992 and 1993 respectively when he was a private citizen.
I’ve always considered left-wing inspired high taxes to be, “charity for the lazy.” It allows treacherous Democrats to pledge public money – money that isn’t theirs – to give the appearance of generosity. This also has a side effect of burdening the population with the mindset of, “I was forced to give to government. They’ll make sure it helps those who need it.”
History shows that government can’t hold a candle to private charities in their ability to stretch a dollar and make sure it gets to where it’s needed. Government was never designed to be the charity lazy liberals want it to be.
It’s a familiar refrain sung of the Hispanic community. We have a great work ethic. Again, this rule has its exceptions. Those who don’t work hard can most often be found on the liberal side of the ledger. But as a recent poll among Hispanics found, only 47 percent now favor Obamacare. That’s down from 60 percent in September.
More and more Americans are getting the clue that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for a party that has lost its way. It’s a party that now runs counter to the American ideal of dogged hard work yielding abundant success.
Instead, the Democrats value the path of least resistance. They tell lies, the bigger the better, in an effort to keep their cushy jobs funded by the very people they seek to ensnare in their slothful web. If the polls hold true, America will reject the party of the lazy come November. If that happens, these United States will be one step closer to getting back to work.
TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.