Dan Holler

Remember the old saying “you are what you eat?” Well, in President Obama’s America, you are what the federal government says you are.

Throughout last week’s debate, the President constantly referred to what he would do or how the government would take action. While giving lip service to America’s free enterprise system, he said “I also believe that everybody should have a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and everybody should play by the same rules, because that's how our economy is grown.”

Who defines what is a fair shot? President Obama. Who decides if you’re doing your fair share? President Obama.

His message – and arguably his philosophical core – is that the government is in a better position to help you and than you are to help yourself.

When questioned on “inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females” – a dubious and factually challenged premise – President Obama fell into a common refrain, touting federal action. He told Katherine Fenton that “this is one of the reasons why one of the first -- the first bill I signed was something called the Lily Ledbetter bill.”

As Heritage explained earlier this year, “When work experience, education, occupation, and hours of work are taken into account, the average woman makes 98 cents for every dollar earned by a man.” That not only makes the President’s government-centric answer seem absurd, but it provides the proper context for Mitt Romney’s answer, which emphasized a strong economy and “adapting to a flexible work schedule that gives women opportunities that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”

After the debate, President Obama’s former green jobs czar Van Jones told CNN that “America’s government should be a partner to American mothers” and we should “make sure by law.” Huh? I guess you can expect a knock on your door followed by, “ma’am, we’re from the post office and we’re here to help you raise your kids.”

Obviously this goes beyond how to raise our children and what type of binders we keep our women in. Just take the most recent attack on conservative Medicare reform. Heritage explains the new hit piece by the Kaiser Family Foundation essentially “assumes that an entire class of Americans—senior citizens—is insensitive to price.”

The statist argument goes like this: once seniors pick a plan, as they have done with Medicare Part D, they rarely switch even when other options are available. Now, a new poll finds that 90% of seniors are happy with their Part D coverage, but happiness be damned because the statists think seniors aren’t choosing the most cost-effective plans.

Dan Holler

Dan Holler is the Communications Director for Heritage Action for America. Previously, he held numerous positions at The Heritage Foundation, most recently he was the Senate Relations Deputy. A Maryland native, he is a graduate of Washington College.