View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Democrats operate on bias

Posted: November 1, 2013 2:00 a.m.
Updated: November 1, 2013 2:00 a.m.
 

I am often asked by my liberal friends how it is that I could care so little for my fellow man by being registered and voting as a Republican.

This, of course, is an oversimplification of a series of questions I have received over the years, but it boils the issue down suitably enough for the purposes of this column.

Rather than being an honest question, it asserts the notion that in order to care about others, you must adhere to the idea that government is the solution to society’s ills.
This thinking is a good example of the low information and unrealized bias that many Democrats operate on.

Democrats have done a fine job controlling the narrative on a whole host of issues over the decades. The greatest example of this involves the question of who cares more about the little people.

By “little people,” Democrats mean non-corporate interests. Sadly, they fail to see that many of the groups that hold liberal positions and use their resources to put those positions into law are bigger and more dangerous to the little person than any solely-U.S. company.

A good example of what I am talking about involves the organized labor movement’s promotion of Obamacare as the solution to the problem some have had accessing health insurance.

We were told in glossy union mailers, television commercials and campaign visits from union business managers that the very existence of affordable, accessible health care hinged on passing the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

However, no sooner had the law been passed than a large number of union workers were exempted from the law, and shortly thereafter those non-exempt labor unions were demanding to be given immunity to it as well.

What went wrong? Well, it’s likely that unions, like the vast number of low-information voters who blindly supported this 2,500-page monstrosity (not including 20,000 pages of government regulations), never took the time to understand the law.

Foes of the law that was written and passed with no Republican input or votes, however, found it suspicious from the very beginning.

But despite the fact that the law was written and passed in a heated rush in order to avoid a filibuster, Democrats characterized criticism of the law as playing partisan politics.

They never even considered that the public relations campaign used to sell the law was a complete fabrication.

They simply believed that what Republicans were against is what they should support.
Unfortunately, now we’re now beginning to see the repercussions in the form of cancelled plans and increased premiums.

Similarly, we’re told that Republicans oppose certain forms of welfare and advocate for Social Security reform because we don’t care about the poor and older Americans.

Of course this logic holds water only until one examines the history of the issue. Despite massive amounts of money being spent to fight poverty since the dawn of the Great Society, the U.S. poverty rate hasn’t budged from 15 percent, exactly where it was in 1965 when President Johnson declared a War on Poverty.

The debate over Social Security has been similarly misconstrued by Democrats. Despite the well-documented fact that Social Security trust funds will run out by 2023, Democrats have been loathe to allow for any alteration of the program.
Ignoring the poor return on investment that Social Security has been plagued with, along with inflationary and interest rate pressures that have decreased the amount Americans save personally for retirement, the Democrats continue to claim that attempts to bring the program up to date are merely disguises to undo it.

Then there is the biggest Democrat smokescreen of all: that what they do is “for the children.” With their radical support of abortion, Democrats tell us that snuffing out innocent life is a better option than having more unwed mothers.

Yet the very way that welfare is distributed is a motivation for young, unwed women to bear more children.

Worse, it encourages women to stay unwed by severely limiting access to welfare by married couples who work.

The message appears to be: Have more babies, don’t work and whatever you do, don’t get married or try to rise out of poverty or we’ll cut you off completely.

The brief sanity of Bill Clinton and his signature of landmark welfare reform legislation in the 1990s looked to be a departure from the suicidal hypocrisy of liberal social policy. Unfortunately, that brief period of intelligence and reality-based thinking was short-lived, as Obamacare seems to be proving.

Kevin Korenthal is a Canyon Country resident. “Right Here, Right Now” publishes Fridays in The Signal and rotates among Santa Clarita Valley Republican writers.

 

Comments

Commenting not available.
Commenting is not available.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...