Taking A Stand: I think Democrats want to raise taxes
As I was watching the Democratic National Convention last week, I kept feeling like something was missing, besides a credible Democratic candidate for the presidency.
No, it wasn’t the Al-Jazeera sign appearing right behind the speaker’s podium which was moved minutes before they went live (true story). And it wasn’t the Clintons, who were both there with bells on doing their Democratic duty while both secretly hoping John Kerry tanks it Nov. 2 so Hillary can seek the Oval Office in 2008.
Actually, after awhile, it hit me what was missing – any talk about taxes. In a normal election year, there’s a big stink raised about taxes as both sides claim they will not raise taxes. Hey, remember “read my lips” which is arguably the most famous tax statement of all time, a statement which cost the first President Bush his job.
So, I wonder why among all these issues on the table like Iraq, national security, health care, Social Security and various programs, that the word “tax” was hardly ever spoken during the DNC last week. It was almost like a dirty word.
The truth of the matter is the reason the word tax was not spoken is because taxes will undoubtedly go up if Kerry takes office. On the other hand, we’ll hear about taxes a lot during the Republican convention since George W. Bush made good on his promise to cut taxes.
Sometimes it’s more important what a candidate doesn’t say, than what he does. This is the case when it comes to taxes. If Americans don’t mind higher taxes then, by all means, get rid of Bush and bring on the guy who talks like the Ghost of Christmas Past.
Face it, to finance all the entitlement programs Kerry wants to do, there must be more income into the federal coffers. And, as is normally the case, you’ve got a ton of people with their hands out, hoping a Kerry victory will mean something free for them.
Wonder why people aren’t concerned about taxes this year? Hmmm, might have something to do with that bait and switch where the Kerry camp is dwelling on Iraq, trying to get the electorate into tunnel vision. This, coming from the same party which cut national defense massively during the Bill Clinton administration. Ever wonder why so many of our local guardsmen are being activated? That would be because Clinton depleted the standing military to save money, which he did by downsizing the volunteer force. However, by the same token, he left us short on the field, leading to the call up of guard units such as ours to fill the gaps left in a military one-third the size it was during the first Gulf War. Just ask most full-time military men who they support for president, despite the fact they are being sent into harm’s way by Bush.
Face it, Kerry is locked into Iraq right now so if you’re looking for a pull out, you’ll be just like the folks who turned on Johnson (who did not run for re-election) to elect Richard Nixon back during Vietnam. Nixon merely increased our force there.
A pull out now would be wrong on many levels. Just look at Spain. They would have been better off not to even participate in the first place. They’ve shown they have no backbone, so now every time someone wants them to do something, they’ll just blow up a train. However, I guess it should be expected out of a country who played both sides of the fence during World War II. Thanks for coming.
Bottom line is that we need to wonder why certain topics are not being discussed. Same goes for the upcoming Republican convention. If a major issue is left out, you can bet it’s because that party is weak on the issue and knows it.
Duane Sherrill is a reporter for the Standard. He can be reached at 473-2191 or by e-mail at [email protected].