Convention, Day One

Lately I've been even-handed toward the Democrats, but on the first night of this convention, much of that effort to be fair and objective washes away quickly.

Kerry wants to make us think two conflicting things: that he will do the same good things Bush does, and that he won't do the same things Bush does. For example, he will bring democracy to Iraq, but he will also bring in our allies (who only won't help because they disagree with the Bush goal he says he will bring about).

He says he is against Bush helping corporate buddies, but he would give five percent tax breaks to American corporations.

He says he will bring down the budget better than Bush can, but he would increase spending dramatically on health care and education and first responders and homeland defense and the military, and he is only planning on increasing taxes on the rich (incomes over $200,000). Where's the rest of the money coming from? Why, increased revenues due to a healthier economy, of course (which we are already getting now, under Bush).

I don't wish to try to paint him as a flip-flopper, changing his views; that's tired. What I am pointing out is that Kerry is sending conflicting messages and trying to have it both ways. So on the one hand I might like Kerry's message, but dislike his plan; or vice versa.

But there's one big place I can't stand his plan or his message, and that's in his socialistic ideals for wealth redistribution.

One Kerry spokesman talked about how health care is a problem in this country -- as if this originated with Bush -- and that one big problem is for people who have high health care costs they can't pay for, which employers can't or don't want to pay for. She said Kerry's plan is for federal government to pay. Not the individuals, not the employers, not the state governments, but the federal government.

So because individuals cannot pay, because businesses cannot or will not, because states will not, I will. That's right, I am paying. You are too, probably.

Heck, and you won't just be paying for the health care of other people who have jobs, you'll be paying for people who don't have jobs. She showed a 40-something guy who used to be a messenger and then in the tech boom became a "communication specialist," and now he can't get a job doing that anymore, so he stays home feeling miserable and taking my money.

But Kerry's spokesperson said that if we want a flexible workforce, we should take the benefits that come with that and "share" it with the people it hurts. I don't think it can reasonably be called sharing when you take it from me, but whatever: it's the very thinly veiled language of the socialist, and it's something I could never support.

I am not saying there are not problems. But the first answer in solving the problem should not be to take from Jill to give to Jack. This is especially true with health care. I know it is heretical for a conservative to say it, but perhaps we should consider some sort of price controls, for example. It's not the best capitalist solution, but what else is there? Government price controls are better than government paying for someone else because the prices are too high. Government price controls are better than -- kill me now -- single-payer health care.

And I am not against helping people who can't get a job, but when you are employable and you spend over a year trying to get a job in a specific market that doesn't want you, you shouldn't be paid by me for it. And it shouldn't be done at the federal level, clearly (the fact of the Tenth Amendment is completely lost on the Democratic party ... at least the Republicans know it exists, despite ignoring it).

And when it is done, it should be with the goal not of making the worker happy, but of getting him into a job. This guy sent out hundreds of letters in over a year of collecting my money, and he got not one reply. Dude, take a hint. You're wasting my money, and I don't like it. I'd rather give you money for retraining in something else.

Don't want to retrain? Tough. That's the price you pay to get my money. This guy was a horrible case study for the Democrats to use, because he is part of the problem: someone who shouldn't be in a particular industry and sucking off us while he stubbornly refuses to see thet fact. Maybe I am wrong, and he is a genius at whatever he does, but if he wants to pursue it, he should do it on his own dime.

One last thing: Bill Clinton noted in his talk that Kerry is willing to listen to people with other views, even when they disagree with him, as though Bush is not. I don't know why so many people believe this. His cabinet is fairly diverse of opinion (even apart from Powell) on many issues. But what this reminded me of was how Bush is often bashed over "stacking the deck" on his committees that brief him on issues related to science, such as in regard stem cell research and the Council on Bioethics.

I don't know if Bush did fudge the Council to get the result he wanted -- it wouldn't surprise me -- but the Council had been sharply divided and its report was a balanced one, especially compared to Clinton's own National Bioethics Advisory Committee, which unaninmously recommended that stem cell research, including cloning, be allowed to move forward unfettered. I don't recall cries of stacked decks then, let alone complaints that Clinton wouldn't listen to other views. "Listening to other views" to most people means "agreeing with me in the end."