Posted on 12/14/2001 6:26:46 AM PST by logic101.net
OSAMA'S LITTLE HELPER ON CAPITAL HILL
12/14/01
Months ago, the House of Representatives, passed an Economic Stimulus Package. However, it has been blocked in the Senate by Sen Daschle. In the Senate there are two bills, one favored by the Republicans, another is sponsored by the Democrats. If brought to a vote, the Democrat bill faces certain defeat, and the Republican bill faces likely passage. The difference? The Democratic bill features expanded unemployment benefits, while the Republican bill features tax cuts.
What Sen Daschle is doing borders on treason. Our economy was struggling, then on 9-11came an unprovoked attack on our soil that killed more of our people than we lost at Pearl Harbor, all innocent civilians. The attack put our economy on it's knees. Now Sen Daschle and his minions are sitting on it's chest, preventing it from getting back on it's feet. Why? To keep President Bush from getting credit for a good economy. Even if it means "working families", aren't working anymore.
It is not as if tax cuts are a new and untried "risky scheme". In the early 1960's President Kennedy, proposed the largest tax cut in our history to revive a sagging economy. He got them, but not until after his death. It should be noted that these tax cuts didn't center on "working families", but rather on the rich. A robust economy is centered around jobs, and I can't recall ever getting a job from a poor man. That is what his line "...a rising tide lifts all boats..." was about. This huge tax cut stimulated the economy and brought us into a boom for a number of years. We had another recession; a really bad one in the mid to late 1970's. Enter President Reagan in the early 1980's; enter tax cuts, say hello to the longest boom in US history! Tax cuts have turned around sagging economies in the past, and will do so again.
Simple economic principals have been confused in the media; here is how it works. Let's take John, a single guy who earns $50,000/year. He only gets to spend $30,000 because taxes take $20,000. Now let's give everyone, including John a huge 25% tax cut. John now has an extra $5,000/year to spend. He looks at his car; it's seen better days. With that extra money he decides to trade in his car for a new one. In fact, a lot of people do. The car salesman is happy, he made a lot of money that day and he takes his family out to dinner. So do a lot of car salesmen. The owner of the restaurant has to call back the waitress he recently laid off.
The owner of the car factory sees a lot of new orders and decides he has to call back all the auto workers he recently laid off. One of them, Jim, just canceled a family trip to Disney World because he was out of work; the trip is back on now.
It doesn't end there though, new cars need new radios, new tires, spark plugs, mufflers, and lots of other things bought from other companies. These vendors now need to call back the employees that they had let go. One of these employees decides to buy a new car....
This is what Economists call the multiplier effect, it is the force that drives a boom economy, or that turns around a sagging one.
Democrats often say that tax cuts will "bust the budget", but this is a blatant lie. While Jim was laid off, he got $250/week in unemployment benefits, and paid back $50 of it in taxes. The Treasury lost $200/week on the deal. Had he been working at his $20/hr factory job, even at a low 10% tax rate, the treasury would have collected $80 from him for that week. Refusal to allow a tax cut cost the treasury $280 that week! Which plan will "bust the budget"? Certainly not the one that puts Jim back to work! This illustrates what Economists call the Laffer Curve.
Sen Daschle and many other Senators claim to have the interests of the "working family" at heart. Yet, if this is the case, then why do they want our auto worker, Jim, out of work? Isn't his family better off with a weekly income of $800 while on the job than with an unemployment check of $250?
The answer is that Sen Daschle doesn't give a darn about Jim or his family. Nor does he care about the economy, or our war on terrorism. What he cares about is his personal lust for power and his quiet little war with President Bush, carried out in back rooms of the Senate behind closed doors. Were the economy to turn around before the next election, President Bush would get credit for it. This might mean he would loose his position if voters choose the President's party. To Mr Daschle's mind it is better that Jim and his family starve than to risk losing control of the Senate!
He is, however, a great friend to Osama. Even if it is an unintended friendship, Osama couldn't have found a better little helper on Capital Hill. No, I don't think that Mr Daschle has been recruited by al Qaeda, but their goals parallel each other. Both want to undermine the Bush presidency, and both want to at least temporarily, undermine any attempt to bring our economy back. However, even though there is probably no intimate connection, undermining the President in time of war is at least on the border of treason. I'm sure Osama is quite happy with his favorite little helper.
MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/
Tommi (Shorty) Dasshole, you've already mentioned.
Then there's old Leaky Leahy, aka Senator Depends.
And the submarine commander, Teddi Boy Kennedy.
Warms the cockles of one's heart, doesn't it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.