Last week, the Democratic congressional leadership transported dozens of people they said were long-term unemployed to plead for more unemployment benefits. Where did the money come from to bring them to Washington? Wouldn't Speaker Nancy Pelosi have done better sending these people the money it cost for their travel, housing and food? Even better, why didn't Democrats offer the businesses that had fired or laid them off a tax break if they re-hired them? The longer someone gets a check for not working, the less likely that person is to feel motivated to look for work.
The idea that one can't succeed without government ought to pose several questions: How many anti-poverty programs have emancipated the poor from an addiction to government? Why should government be trusted with more of our money when it has done such a poor job of spending what we've already given? At what time in our country's existence have higher taxes on businesses and individuals created prosperity and more jobs (other than government jobs), especially for the middle class? Please don't say, "during Bill Clinton's administration," because Clinton arrived at a surplus by cutting defense spending and without two wars and before the first wave of baby boomer retirees. Clinton admitted at a fundraiser in Houston in 1995: "Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too."
Don't look for liberal Democrats to become supply-siders when lower tax rates again produce jobs. That's because they prefer to continue the class war, a war that finds them fighting on the wrong side. Most people would like to be rich, or at least better off. Increased debt and acting as the welfare equivalent of a drug pusher, addicting people to more government, will not help them achieve that goal.