Barack Obama’s “Julia” is the perfect symbol for liberals: a woman who depends on government as husband, father, and caretaker. Even if government really works that way: who would want that? And what would happen if those who really pay for this vast meta-program decide not to?
‘The Life of Julia’
“The Life of Julia” is the Barack Obama campaign’s picture essay on how government works for you (at least, if you’re a woman). Each slide shows a particular program that affects Julia at a different stage in her life. The slide text describes the program, gives credit to Obama either for creating it or extending it, and says how his presumptive opponent would cut or drop it. This hypothetical woman goes to college, then to work as a Web designer. Somewhere along the way, she needs an operation. (What for?) At age 31, she “decides” to have a child. (Who is the father? When did she get married?) At 42, she starts her own business. At 65, she enrolls in Medicare. (Does Obama mention that he cut Medicare to pay for Obamacare?) At 67, she retired, knowing that Social Security somehow will not run out of money.
Julia’s parents bear only oblique mention, and her hypothetical husband, none at all. Her son bears mention only because he, too, takes something from the government. This is deliberate and calculated. Julia, in effect, has no husband, nor parents either. She is a ward of the state, and even the wife of the state.
I could say it…
Barack H. Obama. Photo: Pete Souza, January 13, 2009
Ayn Rand created two heroes who each, when answering back at some absurd demand from someone in authority, said,
I could say it, but I won’t.
Each man meant this: The conventional wisdom does not work even on its own terms. But even if it did, it would not offer free and rational people a life proper to them.
And so it is with Barack Obama’s Julia. Rich Lowry of National Review, and Michelle Malkin of Hot Air, have each shown that “The Life of Julia” does not work. Lowry says flat-out that the programs that Julia “benefits” from, do not work as advertised. Whatever any program gives, real life takes away, if it lasts at all. (To take one example: any help the government gives to help a student pay for college, will only enrich the college. How? The college will raise tuition, knowing that the government will pay! And pay, and pay.) Malkin does Lowry one better. She gives example after example of real women who do not see the benefits that “Julia” sees. (By the way: she includes herself, as she has every right to do.) Malkin also accuses the Obama campaign of lying. The campaign implies that without government, Julia would have no help at all, from anyone. Part of that is that Julia might as well have been an orphan, and almost certainly had her son out-of-wedlock. The other part is that the campaign ignores, or denies, the kind of support that Julia can find privately.
…but I won’t.
What kind of life does Julia have? Answer: at every life stage, she depends on government. The government “entitles” her to Head Start, “Race to the Top,” student debt limits, Obamacare, Social Security, et cetera. What the government gives, the government can take away.
And it might have to. Does Julia pay taxes? The Obama campaign doesn’t say. That suggests that she doesn’t pay taxes to pay for those programs. Someone else must. (And it’s not the man who loved her and left her with a son to raise. It’s the one who offered her a job when she graduated, and many others like that person.)
What if that someone goes on strike? (Wayne Allyn Root says that the biggest taxpayers are already striking; see the video below.) So one of two things might happen. Maybe Julia really is paying more in taxes than she gets in benefits. (If those benefits turn out to be frauds, that might be true!) In that case, she should go on strike, and kick over the traces. If not, the forgotten taxpayers, the ones that Obama blanks out, should go on strike. As they seem to be doing.