Submitted by Michael J. Belzer, Jun 1, 2007 15:34

To understand Sen. Clinton's message, you should read FDR's 1944 State of the Union speech in which he declared that the rights set forth in our original Constitution were no longer adequate and he set forth a long lists of "rights" that every citizen should be guaranteed, from a good paying job, to a home, to health care, education, not having to compete against unfair competition, etc.

The problem with reading this agenda is not that any single idea is so offensive. Rather, it is an agenda which should be seen as frightening because, if taken seriously, it would require that a centralized incredibly powerful federal gov't would take on all pervassive power over the lives of the citizenry. This country was born by virtue of a contracts which recognized a very significant level of sovereignty to the individual states, and their municipalites. The Democratic Party's agenda really makes the concept of cities and states an anachronism for the citizens.

Since 1933, we have been caught up in a contentious debate in which the oligopoly holding gov't power, the Dems and Reps have ripped and torn at each other over the role of the federal gov't in our lives. Sen. Moynihan in 2000 spoke of the need for the Congress to respect the limits of the federal gov't's role and get itself out of areas where it really does not belong as a necessary step to dealing with out budget problems. Yet, as you read FDR's speech, and listen to what the Dems talk about: common good and the role of the federal gov't in public education, jobs guarantees, etc., what comes across to me is that while we have a lot of imperfections in our national life, it is likely a terrible mistake to believe that a better nation would emerge if we collectively handed over the level of power and control of our lives that the democratic Party's agenda invokes. No entity can be trusted with that kind of power.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.