TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

If Not An "Ownership Society," Does Obama Want A Nanny State?

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tampa Tribune

Published: September 4, 2008

People are better off if they take responsibility for their lives, finances and futures, without the expectation of a government handout. That's what President Bush espoused four years ago when he called for the creation of an "Ownership Society" that gives people more choice, more control and more ownership of government benefits such as education and Social Security.

But instead of supporting the values of personal responsibility and accountability, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has taken and twisted them.

Here's what he said about Republican Sen. John McCain at the Democratic National Convention:

"For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own.

"Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own."

The rhetoric may sound good to people down on their luck, but Bush's call for an "ownership society" was not about abandoning people. It was about enabling citizens to take charge of their lives while helping shrink the size of government.

"If you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country," Bush said in June 2004. "The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is ... and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country."

Home ownership, for example, is known to build strong neighborhoods, civic involvement and wealth for future generations. It's unfortunate that the mortgage mess allowed some people to buy homes they couldn't afford, but generally speaking, when people live in homes they own, a community is better off.

If you doubt it, consider a neighborhood of renters. Do you like how the homes are maintained? Do you feel safe?

With Congress, the president has created programs to give residents more opportunities to buy homes - a key ingredient to the society.

Health insurance is another major ingredient. Although millions of Americans remain uninsured, the federal government under Bush has worked to expand health-care options. These include the ability to establish tax-free health savings accounts and participate in "association health plans" that provide coverage to groups of people and their families.

And under Bush five years ago, Medicare began offering seniors prescription drug benefits for the first time. It's far from perfect, granted, and far more costly than predicted, but Bush certainly didn't leave seniors on their own to pay for expensive drugs.

And the president tried to ensure that Social Security will be available well into the future by offering the option of personal savings accounts that people would own. McCain favors a similar proposal. Bush's effort was unsuccessful, but you can hardly say his administration left people on their own as they consider retirement.

Plus, consider two of Bush's biggest domestic initiatives this year: Billions in "economic stimulus" checks sent to taxpayers struggling to pay bills and a housing law that helps people keep their homes during the housing slump. That's definitely not leaving people to fend for themselves during hard times.

The next time Obama criticizes the "ownership society," he should get his facts straight. Yes, the president has encouraged people to take more control over their lives, as he should, but he and Congress have been there when circumstances are dire. And that's what government is for.

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT