Many Republicans were cheered by Hillary Clinton’s victories this past Tuesday. Rush Limbaugh had even recommended that Republicans cross parties and vote for her. And this may have played a critical role in Hillary’s campaign saving victories. Even though these developments have made for strange bedfellow, this should not distract from the liberal policies Hillary’s campaign is based on. She may be preferable to Obama but she is dangerous for America.

Hillary is a committed leftist who believes in the almost unlimited power of government to solve complex economic and social problems. We should not forget that this “government knows best” approach would have disastrous consequences for our economy and way of life.

Take her proposal for a moratorium on foreclosures and a five year freeze of interest rates on subprime mortgages. Ignoring basic economics, her proposal is likely to wreck the housing market in the name of saving it.

You don’t have to be an economist to understand that lenders provide loans based on the ability to recoup their investment plus a profit over time. Hillary’s plan removes this ability. Without the ability to recoup either the necessary interest or collateral they are simply being asked to take a loss.

Lenders facing a freeze on rates for five years will have to seek that profit elsewhere. This means higher interest rates for everyone else. Higher interest rates mean fewer homebuyers, greater downward pressure on housing prices, lost equity and even increased loan defaults.

Hillary’s plan is a draconian government solution that warps the market and punishes those who have been responsible in the name of saving unknown victims. Irresponsible borrowers are bailed out right along with those who might have been taken advantage of by unscrupulous lenders. Her disastrous proposal thus would damage the housing market, place a drag on the economy, and send the wrong signals to homeowners and potential homebuyers.

In Hillary’s worldview, however, citizens are always helpless victims rather than participants in the market. Government is the solution, not the problem. This pattern plays out in her approach to energy policy as well. Hillary proposes to “take back” the profits from energy companies by closing tax “loopholes” and “invest” it in government research. She claims this will result in the creation of thousands of “green collar jobs.”

But government has a long history of doing a poor job of picking winners and losers. The Department of Energy’s entire history is filled with billions of dollars of subsidies labeled as investment and what do we have to show for it? The liberal solution to problems is always more money and Hillary follows suit with a $50 billion dollar proposed research fund.

But government involvement in energy research is not only inefficient and ineffective but leads to political favoritism and even outright corruption as companies lobby for influence and access to subsidies.

Instead of giving consumers more choices and companies more flexibility to meet their demands, which is how real innovation happens, she imposes government regulation and higher taxes. By going after the profits of the energy companies and forcing them to play the Washington game in order to be eligible for funding Hillary simply raises the cost of doing business. And this cost is passed on to the consumer. This is the worst of both worlds: higher taxes and higher energy costs.

The most famous of Hillary’s big government solutions is of course health care. Since her previous attempt at reform ended in disaster Hillary has gone to great lengths to describe her current proposal as all about choices. But the fact of the matter is that under her plan the government would mandate that you purchase health insurance and set the rules for how you do so and what qualifies under the mandate.

In order to insure that everyone has access to the system she also proposes massive subsidies for those that can’t afford it and penalties for those who don’t comply. Again, since when has government meant lower cost and better service? Government control will lead to higher costs and eventually the rationing of care.

Hillary likes to brag that she is the only candidate with an economic blueprint. She has a blueprint all right; one with higher taxes, more regulation, and less freedom. On issues ranging from energy to the housing market from healthcare to education, she proposes to restrict consumer choices and increase government regulation. This is a recipe for economic stagnation and the growth of government not a thriving economy.

Those celebrating Hillary’s latest comeback should not lose sight of the danger her policies pose to the country.

In other words, be careful what you wish for.