As we ponder the lengthy (and growing) list of promises candidates are already on record pledging to voters (and, remember, we are still a year away from the next Presidential election), it should give us all a moment of disquieting pause. If the government does implement - and with the same party controlling both the White House and the Congress, which seems highly likely from my vantage point - we very well might, we should all cast a furtive eye to offshore for Bahamian bank accounts. [Unsolicited word to the wise: never trust unnumbered Swiss accounts.]

While I am old enough to understand that political promises, like vows of celibacy, are meant to be broken, I remain uneasy with the prevailing political rhetoric. We seem to be passing back into the unsavory cycle of "government is the answer to each and every social ill" that we briefly broke free of in the 1980s. Candidates of both parties are cantillating the same ill-defined recipe ("tax the wealthy, build-up the middle class and assist the poor") to the degree that it is now almost a Gregorian chant. And this particular conjuration summons the demon I fear most - the leviathan of even bigger government. This Hobbesian incubus frightens me far beyond anything Stephen King could imagine. We should all tremble at the prospects of this beast lumbering about America yet again.

Sadly, it is virtually impossible for me to see any variations in the political platforms of any of the candidates from either party. They all, to my tin ear, seem to sing lyrics from the same sheet music and, for the most part, in the same key. But there are a few prima donnas (in the operatic sense, of course) that stand out.

For instance, John "Aw shucks, folks! It ain’t like I can’t afford $400 for a haircut?" Edwards estimates his health care package will cost $90-120 billion per year. And if the well-coiffed John says $100 billion, factoring in for inescapable government waste and layers of obligate bureaucracy, you can count on it being closer to $300 billion per year. If he is elected and successfully implements his proposed health care sink hole, I predict he would likely be - voluntarily - a one-term President. After he serves a quick 4 years, he can leave the White House and go back to what he truly does best: winning lawsuits, particularly against the medical profession. I can see it now: He gives his "If reelected I will not run, if elected I will not serve" farewell in 2011, leaves office and quietly rejoins his law firm. Within the first month, he files a class-action lawsuit against the government’s overwhelmed health care system (i.e. the one he sponsored as the erstwhile 42^nd President) on behalf of all the families’ whose loved ones died waiting for health services. He can dust off his down home homily and cry (literally) in court (again) and earn his money the way he always had: from the tears and tragedy of his clients. It just might be enough to buy him another 28,200 square foot house, perhaps on the North Carolina coast this time.

Let’s look a little farther afield: Barack Obama has made, among his many, many promises:

"As president, Obama would further raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit] to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage [one of my favorite political catchphrases] that allows them to raise their families out of poverty and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing -- things so many people take for granted."

And this little item:

"The Child Tax Credit allows parents to receive $1,000 per child and has been an important financial resource for working families. Unfortunately, the credit is skewed such that many families who need it the most cannot get it. Because of high income limits that are indexed to inflation, parents who work full time at the minimum wage are not eligible for the credit. As a result, nearly 17 million low-income children get less than the full credit. Barack Obama worked with Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) to introduce legislation lowering the income limit so that 600,000 more families can benefit from the credit." [Emphasis mine]

And this from a September 19, 2007 speech before the Tax Policy Center:

"In the speech at the Tax Policy Center, Obama promised to give 150 million American workers a tax break of up to $1,000 and reduce taxes for some 10 million lower income homeowners. Also, the Illinois Democrat said, he would eliminate all income taxes for the estimated 7 million seniors who make less than $50,000 a year."

In the Iowa cornfield, the youthful Obama has stirred the cauldron and spoke the magical words that will enable his plan to be implemented: "tax increases on the wealthy!" One is left, of course, to wonder just who and how "the wealthy" might be defined. Is the junior Senator from Illinois conjuring up the spirit of Lyndon Johnson? After all, LBJ tried the same thing and his failed "War on Poverty" cost Americans billions and accomplished nothing. At least nothing other than reducing FDR’s brand of socialism, in retrospect, to Social Darwinism. Barack Hussein Obama, if you can believe his smooth baritone (and who can resist?), declares "We can ‘cure’ poverty in our time." Yeah, right. I believe that with the same scepticism that I do his vow that he really would turn down being Hillary’s Vice-President. While he is doing his best to summon up the fallen (and, possibly, still inebriated) spirit of LBJ, he should remember these words - spoken but not heeded - by the greatest socialist President since FDR:

"What you are being asked to consider is not a simple or an easy program. But poverty is not a simple or an easy enemy. It cannot be driven from the land by a single attack on a single front. Were this so we would have conquered poverty long ago. Nor can it be conquered by government alone." [President Lyndon Johnson, March 16, 1964]

Speaking of Hillary... Hillary "Two for the price of one" [obviously, the pregnant question is: two what?] Clinton apparently has a government chicken for every pot. She proposes to solve everything from global warming to welfare dependency to genocide in Africa. She has, to her credit, even told us how she expects to do all this. Americans must - according to the Senator from New York - accept the cold hard truth: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Ouch!

To eliminate poverty, provide health insurance free to all Americans, protect our borders, fight terrorism, end the conflict in Darfur, strength overseas alliances and cure the lepers and the lame, is it too much to ask about specifics? Are we going to slash defense spending while we are being besieged by terrorists? Are we to cut back on border security as we are being over run by illegal aliens? Perhaps, we could raise a little cash by selling California back to Mexico. (On second thought, the Mexicans are too smart to go for that). Perhaps, we can borrow from the Social Security account...wait...forget that one too.

I think we all know from whence the funds will flow: specifically, from you and I. No, this is not the ranting of a greedy, selfish "fat cat" who "should be giving a fairer share" to the tax man. I actually do work for a living. I already "give" a great deal to the bottomless national hope chest. Maybe it’s time we started looking for even more inventive sources of revenue. Let’s brainstorm a bit: Perhaps, if we could tax charitable contributions above a certain amount - such as the billions of dollars the Gates and Buffets are sending to Africa - perhaps we could, at least, make a down-payment on the projected fiscal shortfall. But let’s be even more imaginative: Charitable contributions that help American citizens would remain tax free; those that go out to the world community (where we have always been and remain universally loved and respected) would be taxable. How would that be? I fear that, in the halls of government, that idea would not be, in P.C. speak, "the proper thing to do."

[As a rhetorical question, I submit: Has any philanthropist voluntarily just donated his largesse to the Federal Government? Did Andrew Carnegie ever think to himself: "Gee, the government does such an efficient job with spending our tax dollars, I think I will just donate my billions to them!" And, if not, do you think there might be a reason that has never happened?]

So, we're back to the reliable chumps, you and me. As I recall the halcyon days of January, 2007 and the endless series of tax payments, license payments (city and county business licenses, car tag, medical license, DEA and state prescription licenses, ad infinitum), mandated insurance coverage, I shudder. The annual and quarterly "hands-out" posture of the city, county, state and federal governments leaves me no recourse but to shrug my shoulders and await another shearing of the sheep in January, 2008. My only solace is that, as socialism continues to seep out of the swamp that was and remains Washington, D.C., I will soon fall below the poverty level myself and qualify for a hefty "hand up and not a hand out." After all, the income level decreed by the government as "poverty" keeps rising and my net income keeps falling. The lines are destined to cross sooner than later. I can’t wait. For now, though, I suspect I should simply order some extra lubricant and assume the "hand-to-ankles" ready posture.

Gentle reader: a socialist ("From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need" - Karl Marx) state is at hand. The hoof beats of the riders bringing it to you are not as distant as you might like to think. And, the riders bring no bouquets and scant goodwill, at least to the ever-silent majority of Americans. And, if you are curious, there is no K-Y in their saddlebags. You must, as in most ways of the American life, provide your own.

2008: VOTE!