When primary battle ends, actual policy war begins

*First appeared in the Laurel Chronicle newspaper on May 14

The Republican primary battle between incumbent U.S. Senator Thad Cochran and state senator Chris McDaniel will end when voters go to the polls on June 3. I suspect those who set out to cast a ballot will do so with phrases like “trial lawyer” and “establishment Republican” seared on their brain.

However the chips may fall on June 3, Republicans ought to keep another phrase in mind – “liberal Democrat agenda” – when the general election rolls around in November.

During this primary process, we (Republicans) have channeled a lot of energy into defining each candidate – and, perhaps, rightly so. It’s the nature of elections, particularly primary battles in which campaigns live and die by the nuance. This primary battle, like so many before it, adheres to the rules of Thunderdome: Two men enter; one man leaves.

And so it will be on June 3. Senator Cochran may maintain his seat or lose it to challenger Chris McDaniel. Either way, the real threat to conservatism in America is – and always has been – the liberal agenda being pushed by our President and his Democrat colleagues.

He campaigned on the promise of change and ooh boy did he mean it. We’ve seen America change all right. Let’s look at some of the changes to the tax code in 2013: Payroll taxes increased on all workers regardless of income (so much for that promise of middle class tax relief); top marginal tax rates increased; certain personal exemptions and itemized deductions were phased out; investment taxes went up; the death tax rate increased; and even business investment taxes went up.

Obamacare – the largest tax increase in my lifetime – called for a slew of tax hikes, including yet another increase in investment taxes, another payroll tax hike, a medical device tax, reducing income tax deductions for medical expenses, eliminating the corporate income tax deduction for certain healthcare expenses, and limits on the corporate income tax deductions for certain compensation health insurance companies pay.

Obamacare is the biggest, most aggressive change agent of the Obama administration. It has fundamentally changed the way in which the government views healthcare: As a necessary expense for which taxpayers ought to foot the bill. Forget personal responsibility; forget your doctor; forget community and faith-based organizations. The government will now have its hand in your healthcare – your options, your insurance, your costs, and even your quality.

It’s a giant lurch in healthcare policy, for sure, but it’s also something else – a giant cost that, like tomorrow’s sun, keeps on rising. Even the Congressional Budget Office under the direction of an Obama appointee recognizes the harmful effect of this monstrous law.

CBO has estimated that Obamacare will result in 2.5 million job losses by 2024 due to a decline in the number of full-time workers in the workforce. This is because Obamacare will actually incentivize people to work less, “given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive.”

The employer mandate to provide health insurance will dramatically impact new hires, as “some business also may decide to reduce their hiring or shift their demand toward part-time hiring.” CBO notes that even the botched roll-out of Obamacare has probably kept some employers from hiring employees they would have otherwise.

In essence, Obamacare isn’t about healthcare. It’s about saddling the American public with new taxes; crippling the economy; and rendering citizens so dependent upon the government that we have no choice but to rely on the government for our basic needs – starting with a strategically planned healthcare law.

Think I’m joking? Consider Obama’s stimulus package, which included a provision known as the “Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act.” States could qualify for a temporary infusion of federal funding if they’d just liberalize unemployment insurance programs. Obama wanted states like Mississippi to increase unemployment taxes to pay for an expanded program, such as paying UI benefits to individuals who only worked part-time.

This goes against the very idea of unemployment insurance; it’s designed as a stop-gap while individuals look for a full-time job that will lead to self-sufficiency. That’s a goal shared by many policy wonks I know. The fewer people on the government rolls, the better.

Yet Obama and his colleagues don’t seem to want self-reliance. They want government reliance.

That’s why I hope Republicans – regardless of who they support on June 3 – will channel their primary election energy into fighting the liberal agenda pushed by President Obama and his followers.

We simply can’t afford to give Obama and the Democrats a pass this go-around…unless, of course, you want the government handling your personal affairs.

That certainly doesn’t sound very “free state,” does it?