I haven’t gotten around to describing my disappointment with Bush’s speech last night, but he just reminded me, as I listen to his speech in Grand Rapids, that the difference between “compassionate conservatism” and big-government liberalism is getting harder and harder to discern.

I just heard him say that if some aspect of health care (I think that it was prescription drugs) was good enough for Congress, it was good enough for our senior citizens. Ted Kennedy made exactly the same argument back in the eighties, and the argument was just as stupid then.

Let’s extend it to its natural conclusion. If chauffeur service to and from the Capitol is good enough for our Congressmen, it’s good enough for our senior citizens. If free haircuts is good enough for our Congressmen, it’s good enough for our senior citizens. If large staffs and offices are good enough for our Congressmen, they’re good enough for our senior citizens.

A chicken in every pot, and chauffeurs, haircuts and office staff for everyone!

While I’m all in favor of cutting back on some congressional perks, that’s beside the point. It’s absurd to think that perquisites of office, or even benefits of employment, of elected officials should bear any relationship to government handouts to private citizens. If you think that our tax dollars should go to pay for prescription drugs for the chronologically challenged, then put forth a rational case for it, but don’t expect me to give it to them just because it’s part of the compensation of a Congressman.