Change we don’t need to see again

The temptation is to dwell on the politics in Denver, where Democrats tried to heal wounds and bring Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters into their warm embrace to normalize Barack Obama in the public's mind. The Democrats made history Thursday. Once the Clinton crowd calms down, Democrats as a whole will take great pride in that achievement.

We later can assess the successes or failures of the just-ended convention. Policies, not personalities, should drive this election. Republican Sen. John McCain is in Dayton today, where he might name his vice presidential candidate, and then we're on to the Republican National Convention, so the country is going to get a little more of the personalities for the time being. After that, however, the campaign would best be focused on policy proposals.

Obama and vice presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden will be in Ohio and the Midwest this weekend, including a possible stop in Lima, so we might hear abut "hope" and "change" up close. Obama supporters (and other Democrats, if you factor in the Clinton camp) already have begun touting these vague terms. So, today, let's consider what the Democratic vision means in policy terms. The touted "hope" and "change," in fact, are calls to return to big-government ideals of FDR and LBJ.

As buzzwords, personality and celebrity wane, the campaign inevitably must focus on real life under an Obama administration and Democratic-controlled Congress.

The Bush tax cuts would be eliminated, effectively increasing millions of Americans' tax bills, and reducing their spendable incomes. Taxes would increase on people earning more than $250,000. That might sound like a lot of money if you're a cashier at a mom-and-pop store. But if you own and run that store, it's your taxes that are likely to increase, given that many small businesses elect to be "Subchapter S" corporations, whereby the income is taxed as personal income. That means the cashier won't get a raise, or maybe even a paycheck, as the owner adjusts for increased costs. The effects of government siphoning money out of productive private enterprises that grow the economy won't stop at the corner store.

The likelihood of universal preschool and universal health care would increase dramatically. That may sound nice, but before applauding preschool paid for by the government, take a look at how government fares in teaching your children in grades K-12. Ask yourself: Is another year of public school what your preschooler needs? And, don't forget, someone must pay to provide it. That someone would be you.

Before celebrating universal health care, look to Europe and Canada where socialized medicine is in full flower. You'll see waiting times for routine treatment getting longer. You'll find obstacles thrown in your way if you try to work around the rigid rules, such as Canada's law against private insurance.

"Hope" and "change" on just these few economic issues are more properly identified as the New Deal and the Great Society redux. From a purely self-interested perspective, the questionable short-term gains are more than offset by the devastating long-term repercussions.

There's nothing new here. The Obama "change" is merely a retreat to failed policies of the past, which is ironic considering he claims to be campaigning against failed past policies.

There's little "hope" here. There's no need to look to history to know how these top-down, tax-heavy approaches have the opposite of intended effects. Just look around the world to see failures in action.

Even if it were more economically beneficial than harmful, it is wrong. This country was established on principles of limited, not ever-expanding, government. The idea the federal government should increasingly heap taxes on the populace was foreign to the founders. The concept of government in everything from school to health care was equally alien. We hope these changes don't come about, both because of good practical and excellent philosophical reasons.