Economic Security, but at What Cost?

Earlier this year, the battle for the Democratic nomination for President appeared to be a horse race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. In recent months, Ms. Clinton has become the clear front runner -- among the American electorate if not the party's left wing base -- by clearly distinguishing herself as the more presidential of the two.

More recently, however, in pushing to seal the deal, Ms. Clinton is showing that her intention, if elected, would be to completely overhaul the American way of life and push us toward collectivism. By claiming to offer every child a check on his or her day of arrival, lifetime health benefits for everyone, and, now, a government funded "401k plan," Ms. Clinton is showing her goal to be the failed policies of European socialism.

The Republicans had better get busy. In addition to the problem of an unpopular administration and an unpopular war, the Republican nominee will face another challenge. Someone has said that democracy would be undone as soon as 51% of the population figured out that they could require the remainder to foot all the bills. This is what Ms. Clinton is proposing, and she would wreck the country.

Of course, even an elected President must deal with an unwieldy Congress, and Ms. Clinton would be hard pressed to get such a program through. Nonetheless, giving her the opportunity to try will be asking for disaster.

Up until now, Ms. Clinton has played well to the center, and some have wondered if Republicans will be wooed to sleep. They are now forewarned. 2008 will, or at least should, provide a clear choice between economic security (as secure as one can be in a straitjacket) and economic freedom. May we choose wisely.