How can a candidate for a major political party in this country continue to propose Key Campaign Ideas without giving specifics? This is mid-August--of the election year. A candidate could have made vague promises about immigration or taxes or education last August. But it's getting close to D-Day now.
How can a candidate be so slipshod at rallies? A serious nominee would stay on message. And not invite questions about whether certain proposals are serious, or just political productions to feed the cheering crowd.
But sketchiness is easier, isn't it? Always has been. Quick! Call the techs! Have them put up something on the website. Then have them take it down again. Let's not get too specific. Folks might hold us to it.
Of course we're talking about Hillary Clinton's proposal to provide "free" tuition to college students. Or haven't you heard much about that?
For a woman who is as wonkish as they come, she provides few details about the idea. Maybe because she's been pushed way to the left on the subject. The Wall Street Journal reports that this newest--and more ambitious and expensive--scheme was added to her agenda back in July when her campaign was negotiating to get Bernie Sanders' backing. Well, she got it. She also got a new and more expensive campaign proposal.
How much would it cost, this free ride at college? It depends on who you ask, and maybe when you ask. You can't find the expected costs on Hillary Clinton's website anymore. But folks around her say We the People should count on, oh, about $500 billion over the next 10 years in additional government spending. (Others say this idea will cost much more.)
How would she pay for it? Well, when she mentions it at all, she says she'll just raise taxes on the wealthy. Again. Isn't that the standard fall-back whenever somebody on the left wants a new, expensive program? How long before that golden goose is killed, plucked and gutted?
So when will we get more details? Her campaign told the Journal that now that school is back in session, and younger voters are paying attention, she'll start talking about her college plan in more detail.
Now that school is back in session, younger people have the time to study . . . her campaign promises.
The silly season just gets sillier.
Back during the primaries, Democrat/socialist/crazy uncle Bernie Sanders had this brilliant idea to make public colleges free. Like public high schools.
(One one-thousand. Two one-thousand.)
Like public high schools?
Folks, laughter is free. Rain is free. The view from a mountaintop during an Arkansas autumn is free. Public schools are most definitely not free. They cost bundles. Billions.
To twist something P.J. O'Rourke once said about health care, you're not going to believe how expensive college will be in this country once it's free.
Taxpayers will have to pay the professors, keep the lights on, buy the Bunsen burners, hire the landscapers and provide the books. Tuition-free isn't the same as free. No matter what Bernie Sanders once said on the campaign trail, nor what Hillary Clinton says, on occasion, today.
But the worst, the absolute worst, part of the story was an aside by a campaign aide to Hillary Clinton who was quoted in the Journal. It may say all you need to know about leftish thinking in this country.
Toward the end of the story, the aide said the newest plan would pay for college for about 80 percent of American families. But not to fear: Students would still be expected to have a job to help with expenses . . . but that government should pay its fair share.
Fair share. The government.
Forget about Pell Grants and government-backed loans and all the government money from the states and feds that flows to colleges and universities already. You, Gentle Taxpayer, aren't paying your fair share. Yet.
But elect Hillary Clinton, and you will.
Once again, a news story shows the best thing going for the candidates in this year's presidential race . . . is the other campaign.
Editorial on 08/19/2016