Tags: Social | Security | Media | Bias | Mean-spirited | Democrats |

Social Security, Media Bias, Mean-spirited Democrats – and Jesse

Thursday, 03 May 2001 12:00 AM

President Bush has appointed his study commission for Social Security reform, and the Democrats aren't particularly happy about it. Who can blame them? One of their principal election vote-buying tools could be taken away!

What are the Dems afraid of? Privatization. They are afraid that people might actually end up with their own private Social Security accounts that aren't subject to being taken away by evil politicians!

Those of you with a room temperature IQ or better know how Democrats have been using Social Security for decades. Before each and every federal election – usually just days before – Democrats start bleating that evil Republicans are poised to "take away your Social Security benefits" if they get the power to do so. Anxious wizened citizens – who frankly care about little else on a national scale – rush to the polls to keep their Democratic friends in office so their Social Security checks will keep arriving on schedule.

So – where is the danger from any privatization? It's not hard to figure out. If you have your own private Social Security account you will know just how much money is in your account, how much is being earned, and what type of benefits those funds will generate at your retirement. It's yours! It's a private account! It can't be taken away! If it can't be taken away, then how are the Democrats going to frighten you with the loss of your Social Security just prior to each federal election?

I'll make it simpler.

Private Social Security accounts create independent workers, near-retirees and retirees. Independent people don't need to rely on politicians to protect their retirement income. Independent people don't need Democratic politicians.

How does the public feel about the idea of privatization?

Clearly this is an idea that has widespread appeal. So how do the Democrats attack it? Simple: They prey on Americans' fear of all things insecure. Dick Gephardt used the recent volatility of the Nasdaq stock index to make his point that, if you'd invested money in Social Security a year ago, today you'd be better off than if you'd put that same money into the Nasdaq.

How silly is that argument? Apparently everyone except Dick Gephardt knows that investing is a long-term activity. Okay, so the Nasdaq hasn't been doing well over the past year. But look at its growth over the last 10, even 20 years! You can't judge the Nasdaq's overall performance by looking at one year's worth of data.

What Gephardt and the Democrats want you to think is that it's risky and irresponsible to invest in such a turbulent stock market. There's no guarantee you'll come out ahead. Just keep giving all of your money to Social Security, and your Imperial Federal Government will take care of the rest. It's so easy, isn't it? Leave the thinking to the government. There's no need for you to do all that investing yourself.

Remember, the Democrats have their own idea of Social Security reform. That idea is to relieve a huge number of middle- and-lower income Americans of any responsibility to pay for their Social Security benefits. They want to use "tax reform" to make upper-income Americans pay all of the Social Security and Medicare taxes for the rest. Then the Democrats will not only be able to frighten voters with threats that their Social Security benefits are in jeopardy – they'll be able to warn voters that a vote for a Republican might mean that they'll actually have to start paying Social Security and Medicare taxes again!

Which reform do you want? Democratic or Republican? Or … how about Libertarian?

Democrats are an interesting lot. They speak in such glowing terms of "a woman's right to choose." Choose what? Well, to choose whether or not to have an abortion. But after a child is born, what happens to this precious "right to choose"? For instance, what happens to a woman's right to choose where to send her child for an education? Gone. That's one form of choice that the Democrats are most decidedly against. Oh – and so are quite a few Republicans.

President Bush's idea for school vouchers is dead. Tango Uniform. His idea was simple. The parent of a child in a "consistently failing" government school would get a voucher worth $1,500 to move that child to a private school or for private tutoring.

Let's put the plan in simpler terms. The average money spent on each child in a government school is about $6,500 a year. Bush was just trying to tell parents, "If your child's government school consistently fails to educate your child, we will give you $1,500 of the $6,500 we're spending on your child and you can use that money to send your child to some other school that might do a better job."

Simple idea, isn't it? Well, it was a deadly idea to the most powerful union in Washington, the National Education Association.

Give the victory here to the left and the teachers unions. The left wants your children in government schools because they are oh so much easier to indoctrinate with leftist ideology while in the hands of government than when they are in the hands of private schools. The teachers unions want to trap your kids in government schools because that's how they save teachers' jobs.

So are you, as a parent, ready to make the sacrifices necessary to get your child, and your child's education, out of the clutches of the teachers unions and the government?

May I introduce you now to the good Reverend Wyatt Tee Walker. He's pastor of the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ. Walker, a former top aide to Martin Luther King Jr., allowed Jesse Jackson to appear before his congregation on January 23. Walker, who did not attend the event, insisted that Jackson must apologize for having an extramarital affair that produced his love child. Jackson agreed to repent during the service.

Instead, according to Al Sharpton, Jackson turned his appearance into a political speech. Sharpton said, "He did not repent. He did not apologize. He made a political speech. He never referred, even remotely, to the scandal."

Walker viewed a videotape of the service 10 days later and was furious. He fired off a letter to Jackson saying that the church's credibility had been damaged. He added, "Your addiction to the need of media attention seems to be fatal and you have fallen into the practice of using people for your advantage and personal aggrandizement. ... Please know that your relationship with me and Canaan cannot be repaired until you make a public or written apology. I will not allow you to disrespect my person or the people I serve. Until such time, please do not call me or ask for my assistance in any manner."

So, because Jesse Jackson can't resist using a church service to promote his own politics, he's banned from one of the biggest churches in Harlem.

But then again, did you expect any better from the Sloganmaster?

According to Newsweek magazine, George W. Bush is "dim and perverse."

You won't find that line in Newsweek's domestic edition. It's in an article written by Carlos Fuentes for Newsweek International. Fuentes wrote, "[American leaders] have been intelligent and good (Truman, Carter), good and dim (Ford, Eisenhower), intelligent and perverse (Johnson, Nixon), brilliant and sacrificed (Kennedy), dim but obsessive (Reagan). Now the United States has a president who is at once dim and perverse: George W. Bush."

Fuentes goes on to say that Bush "has resuscitated the Cold War," "torpedoed reconciliation" between North and South Korea, escalated the arms race with China, and denounced the Kyoto Treaty. He doesn't believe Bush will be elected to a second term because voters won't have forgotten that he was "chosen by five judges of the Supreme Court."

The story isn't labeled as opinion, either. What a paragon of objectivity, that Carlos Fuentes!

The media's campaign against George W. Bush doesn't stop at our borders, my friends. They're trying to convince readers abroad that the United States has just elected the Antichrist to the highest office in the land.

You call this "bipartisanship"? I call it infantile behavior.

Yesterday, Senate Democrats threatened to block all of George W. Bush's judicial nominees unless they get veto power over appointments in their home states. Tom Daschle said there is "absolute unanimity" among the Democrats, and they'll filibuster if they have to.

Which means California's Christopher Cox could be in for a rough ride. He's the first sitting member of Congress in line for a Bush appointment to a federal judgeship. But Dianne "Give Me Your Guns" Feinstein, whose support Cox is seeking, told the Washington Times, "Chris Cox comes from probably the most conservative district in the state. It isn't the mainstream in the state of California by a long shot."

Bottom line: The Democrats don't like the idea of Republicans getting federal judgeships back home. They want Democratic judges they can count on to toe the party line ... and so they're hell-bent on stopping Bush.

Never mind that, during the Clintonian reign, Republicans were discouraged from filibustering the Senate to oppose nominees. Republicans approved 240 out of the first 241 Clinton-appointed judges in 1995. In eight years, 377 of Bill Clinton's judicial appointees got the green light from the Senate. That's comparable to the 382 judges Ronald Reagan appointed in his eight years.

Apparently it's not a two-way street. Then again, we knew those promises of bipartisan cooperation were hollow as soon as they left the Democrats' lips.

This is equivalent to a 5-year-old throwing a temper tantrum because he didn't get what he wanted for breakfast.

Gillham Middleton is a third-grader at Walker School in Marietta, Georgia. As part of a class assignment Gillham had to write a poem that describes something in detail appealing to all of his senses. Here's what he wrote:

Cancer

Cancer is grey

Gillham is being treated for leukemia. He'll be OK. It's too bad he had to grow up so fast.

© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
Pre-2008
President Bush has appointed his study commission for Social Security reform, and the Democrats aren't particularly happy about it.Who can blame them?One of their principal election vote-buying tools could be taken away! What are the Dems afraid of?Privatization.They...
Social,Security,,Media,Bias,,Mean-spirited,Democrats,–,and,Jesse
1679
2001-00-03
Thursday, 03 May 2001 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved