But if Americans truly have fallen in love with the idea of expansive federal government, so be it. Let's all start chipping in to pay for the costs associated with Hope.
As Joseph Thorndike, a historian with the Tax History Project, explained to USA Today recently, a broadening of the tax base would be healthy for the nation. "If you ask people to pay something then they have an ownership stake in it," Thorndike said. "The narrow, soak-the-rich approach is real short-sighted politics."
Washington, as we know, is about free lunches rather than measured policy. Health care reform is free ... no, no, even better, the president claims it will save you money. (Which is true if you subtract, for starters, the trillion dollars needed just to implement the plan.)
There is, of course, another radical -- and, many claim, mythical -- solution in dealing with the tremendous burden of government: cutting spending and dependency rather than nurturing them. But then again, most of you are past such jejune thinking.
These days, Democrats suggest that the American people are clamoring to see rationed health care out of Washington.
There is a way to find out just how much we value the idea.
Would a proposal that forced every taxpayer to shell out the true cost of this legislation ever get out of committee -- or any politician's mouth, for that matter?
If voters believe that health care reform, as the president maintains, would offer savings and an improved level of medical care, surely they would be willing to take a stake in the game.
Let's all ante up and see.