Subscribe to BrookesNews’ Bulletin
The Republican dilemma: No ideas
Dick McDonald
There is no dearth of articles on what went wrong with the Republicans in 2006. A good summary is noted here. The article ends with a challenge: “Ultimately, Connerly sees the Republican defeat as a good thing for conservatives and Republicans. It is, he said, a chance for Republicans to rediscover real conservatism. But will they do so?”
If Republicans went wrong, why? An unscientific post-election poll concluded as follows:
OnMessage Inc. did their own poll in an attempt to determine what happened to Republicans and it matches our poll (soon to be released) on many counts. Excerpt:
1. Voters trust Democrats more on fiscal issues cutting taxes, controlling spending, reducing the deficit. This may have happened sometime before in modern history, but we are too young to remember it.
2. When asked which Party they believe would cut taxes for the middle-class 42 percent said the Democrats while only 29 percent chose the Republicans.
3. When asked which Party will work toward reducing the deficit 47 percent chose the Democrats while only 22 percent chose the Republicans.
4. Again, when asked who will keep government spending under control the Democrats held a 17 point edge (38 percent Democrats, 21 percent Republicans).
Clearly Republicans have lost their way. The voters believe the Tax and Spend Party has turned into an elephant that believes in lower taxes, limited government and securing the homeland before foreign adventures. What is the party of Lincoln and Reagan to do? Presently it needs a defibulator.
To this writers way of thinking we should confront Democrats on two fronts: smaller government and lower taxes. These are money issues and perfect territory for a blistering attack on the socialist, collectivist, village people. And while we are at it why don’t we incorporate these two planks of the conservative Republican platform into one so that we reduce both the size of government and at the same time enact the biggest tax cut in American history?
We need such a plan to avoid being skunked in 2008. We need something the people already believe in. We need a plan that flies in the face of the Democrat’s belief in higher taxes and bigger government. As was illustrated in the 2006 election we can’t propose a plan the Democrats will steal and make their own. We need a plan that Democrats will fight tooth and nail to defeat. A plan the people will see as a plan designed to benefit them not politicians and party power. A real barnburner that gets the public's juices flowing. A real 21st Century Boston Tea Party.
It just so happens there is an issue that Democrats will fight to their dying breathe to defeat. An issue that if we play our cards right will incinerate the last vestiges of central planning and the command economy the Democrats so sorely need to retain power. That issue is Social Security and its replacement with personal accounts. Democrats have already telegraphed their intentions to keep personal accounts off the table. The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee won't even hold a hearing unless the mention of personal accounts is banned from the agenda. That provides Republicans with two years in which to educate the public that money in their pocket is worth a damn site more than it is in the government's.
In 2005, President Bush failed in his attempt to promote personal accounts. The simple reasons for his failure were his incrementalist approach and his lack of selling skills. He supported a 4 percent to 6 percent plan instead of the entire 15 percent Americans pay in Social Security, Disability and Medicare taxes. On top of that he failed the 3-part test of any sale. What am I getting, what does it cost and what are the risks.
Do you remember him claiming that close to half the National Budget would disappear if we enacted personal accounts? Did you hear him say that enacting personal accounts would result in the biggest tax cut in history (if you don’t need half the budget, you don’t need half the taxes)? Did he mention that retirement checks would soar and that poor people would get the capital they need to escape endemic poverty? Did he mention the poverty-stricken Wal-Mart worker’s measly $19,000 a year would mushroom into a $1.5 Million nest egg at retirement? Did he mention that we could afford the transition because we are so bloody wealthy that we only owe foreigners a paltry $2.2 Trillion and we have a county worth $120 to $250 Trillion?
No President Bush didn’t sell it. And I would leave it like that but for the fact of the criminal hypocrisy embedded in this issue. President Bush, his administration, all Senators and all Congressmen, the Democrat-infested Federal bureaucracy and 3.3 Million government workers ALREADY HAVE PERSONAL ACCOUNTS. It’s all wrapped up in what is called the Thrift Savings Plan and it has been operating since the 80’s. If we had a fair and balanced government they would surely see the unfairness of this situation and correct this hypocrisy.
Unfortunately our media is controlled by Democrats and they have no incentive in doing anything for the poor or for that matter for the people . The people on the other hand are led around by the nose by the media. If you have forgotten the above poll where the Democrats are trusted more on Republican issues than Republicans are you can easily gauge the power and effectiveness of media lies, deceptions and omissions.
Hopefully I will get my book Make the Poor Rich: The Way to end Poverty, Social Security and save Medicare published and read soon. It blueprints how this issue can be turned into the issue Republicans fly into office with in 2008. If you are tempted to call it “privatization” don’t. In this instance, the taxpayer’s money remains his and no profit or other benefit accrues to anyone other than him.
Dick McDonald can be found at
The Right Scale
Brookes: Unfortunately the Australian media is every bit as morally and politically corrupt as the American media. The following articles are about the media transgressions of Stephen Ellis and Roy Eccleston, two Australian media lowlifes employed by Rupert Murdoch’s Australian to report on American affairs. These ideologically motivated hacks epitomise the pathological hatred that leftists have for President Bush in particular and conservatives in general.
The Bush tax cuts, capital gains and growth
Murdoch journalist slimes President Bush
Murdoch journalist libels Bush and his Texas record
A lying journalist v. President Bush.
Condoleezza Rice branded a liar by journalist
Roy Eccleston, a Rupert Murdoch journalist, is another Bush-hater
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 18 December 2006