March 8, 2001

Democrats Need to Get On Board
by Carl S. Ey

It wasn't Ronald Reaganesque, it wasn't super but it was solid.  President Bush addressed the nation on February 27th and provided direction, hope and a sound plan that 82 percent of America approved of according to a CNN poll.

President Bush stood behind his presidential podium and addressed Americans telling them that he understood our nation's challenges and in a very convincing fashion laid out his administration's plan to ensure that we meet those challenges together.

"We all have things we want to accomplish, and promises to keep," said President Bush. "Together, we can share in the credit of making our country more prosperous and generous and just."

Notice that our current President is constantly hammering home the concept of togetherness. His message constantly reeks about bringing our nation closer to work with the people to ensure that the economy regains its zeal, that our military gets a face lift and that we pay back our national debt. There is a very sincere concern on the part of our Chief Executive Officer to develop a nation that isn't split by politics.  Instead, he wants to use the checks and balances system developed by our forefathers, incorporating all of our elected government regardless of their party affiliation to keep America on the straight and narrow.

Because Dubya has such a compelling desire to bond this nation's political divide and move as one into the future, the Democratic response after his comments was exceptionally disappointing.   Furthermore, they interrupted arguably the best program on television, NYPD Blue, for almost 30 minutes to dole out their slanted "spiel" on how they want to work together as well but not at the expense of hard-working Americans.

"When President Bush proposes ideas that bring us closer -- like his literacy initiative or increases in military pay -- we will work with him," said Sen. Tom Daschle, (D-S.D.). "But when he insists on proposals that threaten the prosperity of all Americans, or that harm Social Security or Medicare, we will fight, and fight hard to put the interests of working families first."

Sen. Daschle's words may have sounded nice but reading between the lines, it is obvious that he has some issues with President Bush's plan and issues with 82 percent of Americans that took a moment to throw their support to the President. Sen. Daschle's comments divide our nation into two parties again.

Furthermore, didn't President Clinton make a campaign promise to make health care affordable to all Americans and then follow-up by appointing the First Lady as the director of that initiative? It didn't happen.

Why will Sen. Daschle, now support increases in military pay? What happened from 1992 to 1998 as the Armed Forces dwindled in stature and power?

Finally, does the good Senator from South Dakota really believe that the only Presidential proposals that bring "us closer" are increases in military pay and the literacy initiative? After 59 minutes of addressing the nation, Sen. Daschle agrees with only two points. Does that sound like "togetherness?"

Representative Richard Gephardt, (D-Mich.) followed Sen. Daschle and focused on the tax plan that 85 percent of Americans agreed with following the President's speech.

"Our [Democrat] plan enables us to keep paying down the national debt, the debt we ran up in the '80s, so we can keep interest rates low and keep our economy growing," said Rep. Gephardt. "The President touched on many of these goals tonight, but we can't accomplish any of them if we spend the entire surplus on the President's tax cut. If what the President said tonight sounded too good to be true, it probably is."

Notice that Rep. Gephardt takes a "shot" at the Republican White House leadership in the Ronald Reagan era. He reaches into the past to ensure that any bonds that "W" may try and establish are quietly obliterated.

Next, he focuses on the negative using the word "can't" when referring to accomplishing goals for our nation. Why can't we? He backs up his negative comments by saying that if it sounds too good then it probably is.  Probably is...?

The Sunday, March 4, 2001 edition of the New York Times disagrees with Rep. Gephardt. President Bush's tax plan actually provides larger percentage cuts to those that have a lower income in our nation. A couple making $20,000 per year will have their taxes cut by 41 percent from $990 per year to $580 per year. Furthermore, a couple with two children and an income of $55,000 would get a 56 percent cut in taxes.  Finally, that same couple making $400,000 per year would have their income taxes lowered from $104,877 to $91,424 or a 13 percent reduction.

So, Rep. Gephardt, who really does get an advantage under President Bush's plan?

It seems like the working and middle classes get the largest cuts. That six-figured income family doesn't get near as much as the five-figured income family. However, when a young couple with no children saves only $480 per year in income taxes, the Democrats seem to think that is unfair because the $400,000 annual-income family saves over $13,000.  Socialism doesn't exist in America and let's hope it never does.  But, if you aren't watching, the Democrats might actually try and make the "average Joe" believe that it should.

Remember, America, we have a surplus in government. That is our tax dollars sitting in a government community chest. The Democrats didn't lighten our loads while they ran the White House.

Maybe, President Clinton should have pardoned the American taxpayer before he left, instead of pardoning Mr. Rich.

© 2001 Carl S. Ey

Join the Debate!
Click here to enter the discussion!