There Are No Guarantees

It never ceases to amaze me how effin' ignorant some of the bleeding heart Liberals can be. I touched upon this briefly in yesterday's post, mentioning an editorial in the Sunday Citizen (Laconia, NH) that boldly declares that “Government cannot and should not guarantee success.” (Sorry, still no link available. It appears that their website is running a few days behind in the Commentary section.)

Pop quiz: Name the basic human rights.

If you answered Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, you are only partially correct.

If Massachusetts Se, Ted Kennedy has his way, federally mandated sick leave will join the growing list, which according to Sen. Hillary Clinton, should also include the right to a living wage.


Of course, Kennedy makes no offering as to how businesses will pay for this perk or how employees who abuse the mandated benefit will be disciplined, especially of courts wind up holding the right sacrosanct by ruling that it falls under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Of course, Kennedy doesn't see it as his responsibility to actually find a way of implementing such a horrid and, in the end, economically destructive plan. It's not like he or his leftist cronies will actually have to worry about living up to the requirements such a mandate would impose on the rest of us.

You don't believe such a mandate will have a negative effect on our economy? All one has to do is look at France's economy, and particularly their unemployment numbers, to see what a mandate like this will do to us. Yet somehow the so-called do-gooders seem to think that is of little consequence, that it's necessary to “Do something!” The problem is that all too often that something is the wrong thing and then someone else – meaning the taxpayers – has to pay to clean it up, and those that the do-gooders were ostensibly trying to help are now worse off than before.

Of course, if the damn Liberals had their way we could count on even more 'rights' that are nothing but wrong, such as:

- The right to a living wage.

OK, who decides what a living wage is? Should every job be entitled to a living wage, even one that is part time? Would it be adjusted depending upon the cost of living for a given area? Again, who would decide? And who would support those folks that lost their jobs because their employer wasn't willing to pay them a 'living wage' for taking orders at a fast food restaurant or running a cash register at a convenience store? Of course, that could be cured by...

- The right to job security

This means you could never be fired. It has worked oh-so-well in places like France and Germany, which is why businesses rarely hire new employees during an upturn in the economy because they will have no way to shed them should a recession hit. It's also why the unemployment rates in those two countries for younger workers is at 20% or higher. Gee, sounds like paradise to me!

- The right to a home

As the editorial explains, it means more than just fending off eminent domain. “Those who can't afford a home should be given the money to buy one. Just think of the boom to the building trades!”Yeah, and how many of those homes would be in disrepair in short order and uninhabitable in only a few years? All it would be is public housing writ large, and from what I've seen of public housing, I wouldn't want any part of this.

A guarantee of success is a lie. It can't be done. Everyone that has attempted to do so has failed miserably, usually to the detriment of the very people that were meant to be helped.

It may sound corny to the likes of Ted Kennedy, but the United States of America was founded on a guarantee of opportunity, not a guarantee of success.

Few can rightfully argue with the need for safety nets for those who fall through the cracks. But to guarantee success in every phase in life is impossible. History has proven that governments that try are doomed to failure and, in the end, foster oppression and tyranny – the direct opposite of their intended goal.

An unfolding lesson exists in Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is trying to do what so many here think would create a paradise. But if Chavez goes the route of others, like Robert Mugabe, his social reforms will eventually end in a police state and will make Venezuela a living hell. A once wealthy nation will fall into poverty...except of course for those in power. They will still have their Mercedes and mansions and plentiful food and drink. But the regular people will have nothing but memories of how good they once had it before all of the social reforms “saved” them.

It is a lesson to which Ted Kennedy and others like him should be paying attention.

Unfortunately, they won't.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are welcome. However personal attacks, legally actionable accusations,or threats made to post authors or those commenting upon posts will get those committing such acts banned from commenting.