Is A “War On Women” The Best That President Obama Can Do?

From Forbes:

Democrats taking the stage this week in North Carolina will make their case for why Americans should hire them to go to Washington. Democrats plainly see women as their most promising pool of potential supporters, and their most effective sales pitch as portraying Republicans as an unacceptable alternative engaged in a “War on Women.”

Women should consider what it says about the administration’s record that such scare tactics are the best Democrats have to offer. Four years ago, women overwhelmingly supported candidate Obama based on his promise of a robust economic recovery and a new tone in Washington. Today, Democrats can’t brag about greater civility or prosperity, only of an expanded safety net that helps Americans weather the never-ending economic storm.

Indeed, the Obama Administration has succeeded in expanding government so today more Americans depend on Washington for basic sustenance. One in seven Americans now receives food stamps. One million more than when President Obama took office receive Social Security disability checks. As the new health care law is implemented, millions will come to depend on taxpayers to cover their health care bills.

The substance to Democrats’ “War on Women” charge—to the extent there is some—is that Republicans seek to reduce government spending and roll back aspects of this safety net. Women evaluating this claim should start by weighing the benefit of government freebies against the costs they create. After all, Democrats may sell new programs and regulations (such as those that require insurance to make contraception “free” to users) as manna from heaven, but their costs reappear elsewhere. We pay for government’s generosity through higher insurance premiums, more government debt, higher taxes, lower economic growth and fewer jobs.

(Read Full Article)