A piteous political strategy foments alarm and trepidation among voters. It seems to work. Many Americans think of themselves as vulnerable to life — and they expect the nanny state to take care of them.
The fear tactic might be justified if real threat existed. But even with the prospect of imperial Japanese forces invading America’s West Coast and Nazi Germany storming our eastern shores, President Franklin D. Roosevelt told us, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Although the threats were real then, we rallied and conquered our fears.
So, what makes political scares different from real fear?
H. L. Mencken, provocative commentator on culture and politics, wrote, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
Thus, candidates and incumbents invent political bugbears. Some politicians desperately want to lead us to imaginary invulnerability. They cry wolf when none is around. Wannabe shepherds, who deal in promises, assert false alarms so many times, one would think they’d be embarrassed. But they’re at it again.
Take the case of Democrat Erskine Bowles and Republican Elizabeth Dole campaigning for senator to replace the irreplaceable Jesse Helms.
A Democrat TV campaign ad tells us that Mrs. Dole “wants to take a trillion dollars from Social Security.” This ridiculous charge is designed to frighten “seasoned citizens,” who vote. The heartless woman, how could she?
Incidentally, some people have been led to believe Social Security taxes go into a trust fund. Folks, trust me, there is no Social Security trust fund.
Congress stirs FICA payroll taxes taken from today’s workers into a $2 trillion federal spending pot called the federal budget. The Honorables pay current Social Security and Medicare recipients from the pot and spend the surplus. Democrats trust that we won’t recognize the Ponzi scheme. It works, as long as the amount people pay into the program equals the amount recipients take out of it. But soon it won’t.
In 15 years Social Security payouts will exceed payroll taxes. But Democrats have no plan to protect the system from bankruptcy. During the 1990s Democrat leaders voted to spend surplus Social Security money in several Clinton administration budgets. Now, they mislead and scare people about the Republican plan to preserve Social Security for future retirees.
Bowles’ TV ad alludes to Mrs. Dole’s support for a plan that would allow workers themselves to invest in their future. Under the plan, workers could personally invest some of the 15 percent of their wages now taken by government. Isn’t that scary? People actually being allowed to choose how to save some of their money for retirement — with higher returns.
Why is this plan opposed by Democrats? Because if individuals have more control of their money, politicians will have less. It’s simple, but deceitful. Less money to distribute means fewer votes for Democrats.
In addition to scare tactics, Democrats use another ploy to control voters: They try to make us think they are not tilted to the left in the political spectrum — most Americans are on the right side.
It is said that Bowles wants Tar Heel voters to believe he’s a moderate — whatever that is. But he supports carpetbagging liberal Hillary Clinton, currently living in New York and Washington. She is about as far left as an American can get, and be elected to public office. Mrs. Clinton, strongly aligned with far-left northeasterners such as Senators Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Charles Schummer, D-N.Y., wants to repeal the meager Bush tax refund. She also opposes the estate tax repeal, and still longs for a national health care entitlement, which would do serious damage to our economy. She and her socialist gang are not inclined to let earners keep their own money.
So, who is more likely to “save” Social Security, from increased taxes and/or lower benefits, and let working people choose to invest some of the mandated FICA tax, Bowles or Mrs. Dole?
I think Dole is likely to support individual responsibility rather than government control of worker’s money from Washington. She is more apt to side with citizens rather than with Big Government.
It would be a little scary if I’m wrong about her, but it’s quite frightening to think of Bowles joining our wealthy, trial lawyer, presidential aspirant Sen. John Edwards on the Ted Kennedy-Chuck Schummer-Hillary Clinton team. If that happens, we will have reason to be fearful.