John Edwards has big plans if he becomes president, most of them involving our wallets. He wants Uncle Sam to underwrite universal pre-kindergarten, create matching savings accounts for the poor, and set the federal minimum wage at $9.50. And he’s only just getting started. If Edwards has his way, universal health care and an unambiguous program called “College for Everyone” would not be far behind.

Indeed, every time he opens his mouth on the stump Edwards adds to the bill that would accompany his presidency. And taxpayers, of course, would get to fund this government largesse, the likes of which we haven’t seen since the New Deal.

Channeling his best FDR, Edwards recently said, “I do not believe it is OK for the United States of America to have 37 million people living in poverty…I think we need, desperately need, a president who will say that to America and call on Americans to show their character.”

Far from inspiring, Edwards offers a discouraging call to arms. I don’t mind showing my character, but does donating to the local food bank count? Or maybe helping someone get their suitcase into the overhead bin? Apparently not. For Edwards, character is defined by how willing we are to let Uncle Sam give our money to someone else.

And are there really 37 million flesh and blood people who are so destitute that only the federal government can save them? The way Edwards paints the picture, we have a moral crisis of Dickensian poverty across the land: children with fingerless gloves and soot-covered faces begging for a farthing from passersby.

In fact, most Americans living below the official poverty level today have a telephone, color TV, refrigerator, air conditioning, microwave oven, and a car. That’s not to say that some of our neighbors don’t need help, but it hardly conjures up visions of the Cratchit family.

And the problem with counting flesh and blood individuals as a static, lump sum is that people don’t behave that way in real life. The vast majority of us change income brackets over the years, some falling in and out of the same bracket several times. A recent graduate with an entry-level job earning $25,000, for example, might only have $12,000 in income for 2007 (having only worked for part of the year). From a flesh and blood standpoint, we would hardly call this person destitute and in need of government handouts – he or she may be on the way towards a successful career. Statistically, however, that person is poor, and poor for life, when it comes to Edwards and his vision.

Edwards has set his sights on corporate America, too. “Washington protects corporate profits and hoards prosperity for the few,” he said. At the same time, however, he wants to enact government-matched savings accounts to allow people to put more money aside…for things like purchasing company stock.

So, he decries corporate profits as somehow coming at the expense of Joe Sixpack, yet wants the poor, with the help of government handouts, to be able to invest more money in company stocks that are directly tied to those same profits. (If there is one irritating aspect - and they are legion - to the traditional Democratic message it’s this notion that “Corporate America” is some villain that can be neatly compartmentalized from every other aspect of the economy. Companies that make a profit will grow: they can build new facilities, hire more workers, and yes, stock values will generally appreciate. Profit is not a zero-sum game with absolute winners and losers. In Edwards’ world, perhaps we should invest our 401(k) plans in mutual funds that don’t do too well, lest we wind up exploiting ourselves.)

For a liberal avatar like Edwards, such collisions in logic are but a minor inconvenience - it’s the emotional appeal of the message that matters, especially in a nation of short attention spans. With furrowed brow and a concerned tone, he tells us that we must tighten our belts so that others may loosen theirs and feed from the public trough.

In a moment of candor rare for political candidates discussing expensive ideas, Edwards opined that “there are no free meals.” A popular saying, but perhaps in need of a qualifier: there are no free meals…

…except, of course, for the people who get the free meal.