Bush's plan -- bold, audacious, daring, gritty, ambitious -- will do more than light a fire underneath the economy: If adopted, it holds colossal, far-reaching implications politically, enough to reshape the landscape for generations. Tax-and-spend Democrats know it, and it's why they're reacting (or pre-acting) with frenetic, delusional, mad-as-a-hatter hysterics.So why is Bush driving them wacky Democrats wackier still?
The White House proposal, which calls for eliminating taxes on stock dividends for individual investors, doing away with unfair double-taxation altogether, is by far the stimulus plan's gutsiest, most aggressive ingredient, one which threw media pundits -- even some advisors -- completely for a loop, and, despite the shrill, panicky 'Tax-breaks-for-the-rich!' mantra shrieks from class-war Democrats and media marionettes, will resonate with Americans across the political spectrum, in all walks of life.
That's right -- all walks of life.
Bush's much-anticipated speech, delivered Tuesday afternoon from Chicago, was more than just agenda-setting, it was a powerful, dynamic, tour-de-force proclamation of Vision -- Bush's vision, a manifesto bursting with hope and resilience, flushed with promise and expectation. The bubbly optimism flowing gracefully from Bush's *recapture-our-destiny* spirit in his message was downright infectious. The address was, plain and simply, vintage America, embodying all the core values, the principles and ideals, the virtues and mores which gives America its gloriously unique place in this world.
If Americans share one thing in common it's the belief in the basic dignity of the individual and that, through hard work, perseverance and effort, everyone has a fair shot at 'making it' -- no, no guarantees, just plenty of opportunities for success to all willing to seize them. In America, stick-to-itiveness isn't just an attitude, it's ingrained in our very make-up.
That's the President's plan. Besides its *grow-the-economy*, sweeping investor-class provisions, other features of the tax-relief package include making the child tax credit more generous, accelerating the phase-out of the 'marriage penalty' tax, accelerating the phase-in of the 2001 income tax-cuts, large rebate checks for middle-class families, re-employment accounts of up to $3,000, extending unemployment benefits, and billions earmarked in new emergency aid to state governments.
All told, the President's plan, if enacted, amounts to a 10-year, $674 billion shot-in-the-arm for the economy, which, notwithstanding the gloom-and-doom reportage, grew a respectable 3% average rate this past year. Not bad, given the corporate-sleaze-driven stock market collapse, looming war in Iraq, and, of course, the lingering impact of 9/11.
The President, flush from a resounding midterm victory and fresh mandate, enters the second half of his term in total command of the agenda, with majorities in both houses of Congress, sky-high approval ratings and a floundering opposition party in full retreat. Democrats -- stumbling, staggering, blundering along -- still don't quite know what hit 'em November 5.
Party leaders, reeling from the shock, unable to grasp the extent of the blow, can't chart a comeback or set a new direction. Their implacable, insatiable hatred for Bush, who's out-maneuvered them at every turn, is a total turn-off for voters who still give this President extraordinarily high marks on performance and bonded with him personally.
For the haters, nothing -- absolutely nothing -- seems to 'work'. Enron, corporate scandal, melt-down on Wall-Street, vanishing 401(s), "sagging" economy, the "failure" to produce Osama bin Laden -- all have failed to gain Democrats any traction.
Democrat strategists are especially worried. With Republicans now buoyantly in full control of Capitol Hill, and scowling Democrats more divided than ever, such popular measures as expanding prescription drug coverage to Medicare beneficiaries, an issue Democrats have used to hammer opponents with in campaigns, may actually pass and get enacted into law, depriving Democrats of yet another potent weapon.
They view with horror the prospects of economic recovery, boosting Bush's re-election chances, thus their stink-in-the-nostrils spleen over his sweeping tax package. Even the thought of falling unemployment, a raging bull market and a booming economy in '04 makes their blood run cold.
At a more fundamental level, and compounding their problems further, Democrats seem fixated with process.
Indeed, with Democrats, process is everything. Cutting taxes is no good, because the "wealthy" might benefit. War against Iraq is no good, unless it gets U.N. backing. And even with U.N. backing, removing Saddam from power is no good unless we use force against North Korea. No military action against Kim Jong-Il means we're being 'inconsistent' and if being 'consistent' here means sparking a bloodbath on the Korean peninsula, well, so-be-it. 'Consistency' is more important! (Notice the absurd self-refutation of that last 'point': Democrats claim they can't fathom why Bush is willing to apply force in Iraq, where the risks of mass casualties, both among U.S. troops and civilians, are lower, but not as willing to use force in North Korea, where the risks of mass slaughter -- carnage of unspeakable dimensions across-the-board -- are perilously higher. Small wonder Americans, on matters of security and defense, don't generally take Democrats seriously.
But all those are 'process' questions.
Why the liberal obsession with process? Because, simply stated, Democrats lack vision -- that is, they lack a compelling paradigm or model by which to forge constructive solutions to problems.
On tax policy, the Democrat *no-vision-thing* approach surfaces as divisive class-warfare, pitting income-groups against each other. Capitalism, rather than a dynamic engine of prosperity and growth, is really nothing more than an "evil", rich-against-poor conspiracy, a scheme which primarily benefits the "wealthy" and corporations, liberals hiss.
No-vision, process-driven Democrats can't -- or won't -- debate ideas on their merits. Instead, they hurl accusations. Issues are framed around the notion of power and the struggle for power.
Bush's tax cuts? 'Ha!', liberals scoff. They're only a sop to "wealthy" contributors! Bush is a crook, and that tax-cut package of his is a fancy-shmancy kick-back 'scheme' for "rich" buddies, they'll tell you. It never occurs to these sociopaths that Bush might genuinely believe offering private-sector incentives is ipso-facto good policy -- no way, no how, 'Bush's a crook!', they scream.
Outgoing Senate "Majority Leader" Tommy Daschle, responding to Bush in a weekend radio address, demeaned all dividend earners as the "wrong people".
Quick -- when you say *tax cuts*, what's another typical initial liberal reaction? After a 'Dracula-eyes-crucifix' convulsion, they'll blurt out words like 'deficits!', 'fiscally irresponsible!', 'risky!' -- but not a word about growing the economy nor job creation.
Again, process -- not the big picture -- is everything to *No-Vision-Thing* Democrats.
Yet, interestingly, under the Bush proposal, an average, middle-class family gets much bigger/quicker tax relief than under any Democrat plan.
By the way, I find it hilarious watching Democrats, who not long ago vowed repeal of Bush's 2001 Tax Relief Act, do such a brazen 180 -- a testament to Bush's prowess at setting the agenda.
Democrats, in this sense, remind me of Saddam Hussein.
Only under pressure from Bush did Saddam allow the return of U.N. weapons inspectors -- he would never do it voluntarily. And only under pressure from Bush are Democrats now offering tax relief -- they would never do *that* voluntarily.
The Democrat rival "plan", in this vein, is like Saddam's 12,000-page weapons "declaration" -- lots of smoke and mirors, too many gaps and omissions. Democrats had, like Saddam, a chance to 'come clean', put constructive solutions on the table. They failed miserably, and voters will, politically, hold them in *Material Breach.*
Meanwhile, the Democrat presidential campaign is off and running -- or is it? Alas! the crop of White House hopefuls resemble more the Return of the Living Dead, than anything. These guys make the Seven Dwarfs look 10 feet tall.
Indeed, things have gotten so bad, some tin-foilers may start to wonder if some of these clowns are secretly on the White House payroll. The problem with that theory is that, when it comes to self-immolation, Democrats rarely need assistance.
This is, after all, the party which just elected a certifiable wingnut, who didn't think the Soviets went far enough, as the face of their party in the House. And she hails from San Francisco, to boot. This is, moreover, the party whose idea of 'moderation' boils down to 'heavy petting' 2 instead of 5 interns.
The Democrat Field -- if you build it, you'll be sorry
Gebhardt, oops, Gephardt, flameout from '88, has raised many eyebrows, especially among voters who notice that, well, the Missouri Dem doesn't have any eyebrows. Announcing he's forming an exploratory committee this week, Gephardt accuses Bush of 'failing' to provide leadership. This from the doofus who just got canned from his "leadership" post in the House for, er, failing to lead. The party's *Minority* status, under *Minority Leader* Gephardt, just kept shrinking and shrinking.
Blink-o-rama-Millionaire-Regular-Guy John Edwards bombs again. His interview Sunday with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's This Week was as bad -- or worse -- than the Meet The Press fiasco several months ago. This, despite the flurry of softballs from Georgy boy.
I chuckle at reports these Lilliputians will increasingly "challenge" Bush on national security/the War on Terror -- making it a major theme of campaign 2004.
Yep, I can just see it now:
Yeah, so what if Dubya defeated Saddam in 30 days -- big deal! We Democrats could wrap it up in 20!
So what if John Ashcroft nabs 1,500 terrorists -- Big deal! We Democrats would have 1,600 by now!
So what that Bush toppled the Taliban in 3 weeks -- Big deal! We Democrats could do it in 2!
Folks, you know a party is in trouble when strategists ask people, 'who is leading the Democrat Party today?' and Mullah Omar tops the list of responses.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
