President Trump needs to be reelected in 2020, but the Republican Party makes it harder to do so when they mimic the lunatic Left.

As a grassroots conservative, the most frustrating thing to have to deal with come election time is to promote a candidate or back a Republican for reelection to gain or maintain a majority, when you know darn well that candidate or incumbent could backslide into the stupid and inexplicable positions owned by the Left.

We actually have a president who has identified the problem when he famously said, “America will never be a socialist country.” We are at a point in time where the Left is no longer hiding the fact that they are socialists and unfortunately too many of the American populace are already, or on their way to being convinced, that top-down government control of their lives is exactly what they’ve been waiting for.

But why oh why do we have to sit here and watch the Republican Party champion socialism while we have the winning message that socialism will destroy America?

I could not believe my eyes when I read that Senators Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, actually proposed a paid family leave act with the acronym “CRADLE.” Who read that and didn’t think, “cradle to grave?” And as we are trying to point out how terrible socialism is, the senators, their aides and their mouthpieces in the media are trying to make the program less terrible by saying it’s “revenue neutral.”

It’s no problem, they tell us. See, the money will come out of the person’s own Social Security account and it’ll be like taking some vacation pay early, that’s all. And besides, the American people want it so we should make sure we’re out in front on this issue, you know, to show we care.

They’re going to build another socialist program off of another socialist program. A double-decker.

And here I thought the SSA Trustees had been telling the American people that Social Security will be depleted by 2034 and Social Security Disability Insurance sooner than that? I thought that as conservatives we’re supposed to encourage people to rely on themselves and not the federal government? I thought that Social Security was the first big socialist program that the progressives foisted upon us and we are still trying to figure out how to keep the promises those lying progressives made? I thought that this socialist program was in trouble the minute people started living longer and the Boomer generation reached the age of 65?

What about the fact that most people who would need the money are the ones least likely to have any to speak of?The example put forth to sell this plan discussed new parents in their 30s who would be able to draw from their Social Security for three months to be with their newborn. But wouldn’t it be more likely that the people in their late teens and early twenties would be the ones that would be less established and need the money? They would be the ones who also haven’t worked enough to build up much of a Social Security bank either.

Provided there were such a thing as a “Social Security bank,” which there isn’t.

The Washington Examiner points out that particular concern of mine isn’t going to be a problem for the couple in their teens and early twenties.

Benefit levels would be determined using the same formula used to determine Social Security Disability benefits. For instance, someone making $50,730 a year would get roughly $1,861 a month. Someone making the poverty level of $16,910 would get $960 a month.

So it’s another welfare program. But I thought the Republicans are saying it’s not another welfare program?

Just saying, why do the people who put considerably less into the system automatically get more out of it percentage-wise?

Why do Republicans do this? Does any of this help people take care of their own responsibilities? We already have numerous nutritional programs and healthcare programs to help the young parents who struggle. We, as Republicans, get beat on the head every single time the Left brings up our aversion to entitlements, but we never fight back with the fact that we have so many programs between the federal and state government intended to be used as safety nets when they are needed and then gotten the hell off of when people can do it themselves.

But this whole program is a welfare program on top of an extremely shaky welfare program and some Republicans are gleeful because it doesn’t start up a new tax.

It will tax our Social Security system, which just last year became insolvent when the total cost of the program exceeded its total income. Yet Republicans think starting up another progressive social program on top of it will benefit future generations.

How so?