Sibby Online

Dems are for keeping the poor, poor

There have been a number of times that I have came to a certain conclusion, but only to hear Rush Limbaugh echo that very same conclusion. That happened again Friday:

This program is designed specifically with low-income people in mind, and keep in mind that the group that we're going to call low-income, fixed-income, is the Social Security crowd. The people in this country who have nothing but that, you don't see them out on yachts. You don't see them on cruises. You see them in their old folks' homes or in their condos or whatever, and they're worried about whether they can buy medicine or dog food, I thought. I thought it's so bad out there, some of them are foregoing food in order to get medicine, and we gave them Medicare benefits, prescription drug benefits, and nobody likes that! Okay. Can't do that. Now they're going to be forced to have prescription drugs or over-the-counter drugs and if it's over-the-counter, "My Medicare won't pay for it. Oh, woe is me!" No matter how you say all this, no matter what it is, it adds up to one thing: People who have only Social Security don't have much, and the idea that we've got to preserve that, we've got to preserve near poverty; we have to preserve near subsistence levels because it's good if it comes from the government? Well, screw that! And that's what the program's all about. You better look at every Social Security recipient only the same way you're looking at the poor, because they're the same people.

So why would the Democrats want to preserve a program that creates poverty? Because without the poor, they could not promote their Marxist class warfare. Nobody will find prosperity with the current social security program. For the working poor, who have no discretionary income, they end up totally dependent on the Social Security system. The last thing the Democrats want is to give the poor an opportunity to own a sizable nest egg at retirement and no longer dependent on government. As normal the Democrats mislead by saying they are for the poor. The truth is the Democrats are for keeping the poor, poor. If the Demcorats have their way, more Americans will be joining the poor.

Limbaugh, Gannon expose Washington Post bias

Rush Limbaugh discussed today inaccuracies that the Washington Post printed regarding President Bush’s Social Security reform plan:

Many of you people often suggest to me the White House doesn't do enough to fight back when it's attacked by political enemies. Well, the White House is fighting back and they have succeeded. The Washington Post ran yesterday a 100% totally erroneous assertion in a story about the president's Social Security reform. The White House has responded. Not only did they respond. The White House demanded a retraction and correction, and they got it on the website.

Now, the first story, which was published yesterday, probably still survives, with a lot of people. Here's the basic thing that the Post said that is totally wrong, it was on Page A-13. It headlined: "Participants Would Forfeit Part of Accounts' Profits." And this is totally flat wrong. The article says that workers who opt to go for these personal accounts, "would ultimately get to keep only the investment returns that exceed the rate of return that the money would have accrued in the traditional system." That statement is also flat-out wrong. Both the headline and this assertion are completely inaccurate. The White House is seeking a correction from the Washington Post and they did get a correction on the website later in the day yesterday.

Limbaugh then explains how Jeff Gannon exposed some insight on the author of the inaccurate Washington Post report, Jonathan Weisman:

Now, who's the author of the article? The author of the article is a man named Jonathan Weisman. And guess who my source for this is? My source for this is Jeff Gannon of Talon News. Jeff Gannon tells us that Jonathan Weisman, "recently posted an article on a journalism web site, PoynterOnline.com discussing his dissatisfaction with how the White House dealt with him. He complained that in exchange for special access to administration officials, the White House wanted to approve attributable quotes for accuracy. He wrote, 'I think it is time for all of us to reconsider the way we cover the White House.' Last August, Weisman wrote an article for the Washington Post titled, 'Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle' which reflected a theme of the Kerry campaign's 'middle class squeeze.' It sited conclusions in a Congressional Budget Office report that had been requested by Democrats on the Capitol Hill. At the time, the Bush campaign suggested the results had been 'shaded' by the questions asked by Democrats."

Limbaugh then gives his analysis of whatis going on regaridng the lack of bias coupled with the MSM’s lack of honesty in regard to their lack of bias:

Jonathan Weisman publishes a story in the Washington Post yesterday full of two false assertions, blatant lies about the president's Social Security system, after it has been learned that he posted an article on a journalism site complaining and discussing his dissatisfaction with how the White House deals with him. He complained that in exchange for special access that the White House had granted to him, to talk to administration officials, the White House wanted to approve attributable quotes for accuracy. And he didn't want anybody looking at his quotes. We now know why the White House wanted to look at his quotes. This guy, Weisman, got it wrong on purpose, and appears to be a Kerry campaign sympathizer and opposed to the president.

Now, all that is fine. He can be a sympathizer with whoever he wants. He can be for or against anyone he wants. The problem you people in the mainstream press have is you want to continue to lie about your objectivity. You want to continue to try to tell everybody you have no bias, you have no prejudice, you have no interest in the outcome of these events. You're just trying to do your job. You may go so far as to say, "Yeah, well, we're supposed to be confrontational. This is supposed to be a confrontational process up here as we're talking to people with power," and blah, blah, blah, blah. Well, fine. Well, go all the way. Why don't you say you don't like these guys and you're doing everything you can to defeat the president's programs? If you would just do that, there would be no complaints with you, other than you're wrong. But then you harp out and start investigating this poor old Jeff Gannon guy as somehow White House friendly as though that's some kind of a crime. The Boston Globe unleashes a big investigation of this guy to find out who he is. The bottom line here, the Post did not get away with it. It's another example folks, the mainstream media's monopoly is long gone. They don't get away with it.

Marxist propaganda in SD schools

Remember the outrage from Democrats toward the taxpayers’ money Armstrong Williams was paid to promote the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind program? Many referred to it as propaganda. I wonder how many of those Democrats would be outraged by the taxpayers funding anti-Bush propaganda. We now have proof that is happening right here in South Dakota. The proof is in this letter from today’s Argus Leader:

I am a sixth-grader at Harrisburg Middle School and I was upset to learn at school that President George W. Bush spent over $40 million on his inauguration. That seems like a lot of money to spend on a celebration that only lasted a few days.

I'm not saying he should not have spent any money on his inauguration - he worked hard to be re-elected and so certainly deserves a day full of festivities - but I don't think it should have cost so much. Sometimes less is more.

Think how many people could have been helped with this money. Just look at all of the people in our country who are homeless and would greatly benefit from some of that money. Or, some of that money could go to buy more books and supplies for our schools here at home, or help rebuild schools that were destroyed in the tsunami. There are people who really needed this money.

I'm disappointed in our president.

Allie J. Beaner, age 11

Sixth grade, Harrisburg Middle School Harrisburg

There you have it. Democrats anti-Bush talking points are being pushed down eleven-year-old elementary students in taxpayer funded public schools in Harrisburg South Dakota. The last paragraph is almost straight out of Karl Marx’s chapter on class warfare. Hopefully Allie’s parents can point out the ninth commandment teaching about coveting thy neighbors’ property and that much of that Inaugural money was donated.

It’s a shame that public education no longer educates students on the principle of under God the people rule, instead of the far-left’s principle that under government, what God says does not matter.

Democrats con game continues

The Democrats continued to use deception to attack the President’s plans to reform Social Security. They even used FDR. Excerpt from the New York Times:

As Mr. Bush traveled to North Dakota to begin a five-state tour to sell his idea for personal retirement accounts, the Democrats engaged in a bit of political theater of their own, trekking across town to the memorial to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Social Security's creator, to denounce the White House plan.

There, they unveiled a letter calling any proposal that would boost the deficit "immoral, unacceptable and unsustainable." Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, whose heavily Republican state is on Mr. Bush's itinerary, was the only Democrat who did not sign.

But Duane Freese points out that the Democrats are the ones that are wrong about FDR’s plan in regard to Social Security: Excerpt:

Franklin Roosevelt, the same man whom Bush quoted as saying that "each age is a dream that is dying, or one coming to birth"; the same man who gave birth to Social Security in the midst of recession; also said, in his Message to Congress on Social Security on Jan. 17, 1935:

"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities that in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Those are the same principles Bush is upholding today, and those Democrats who booed Bush derided them with the same exhalation of breath.

Don Luskin provides us with graphs that show how badly we have strayed away from FDR’s true plan:

The Joint Economic Committee of Congress has published a set of great charts showing all the basic economic and demographic realities of Social Security. If you're looking for a simple package that vividly illustrates all the most important issues, you'll find this a great resource:

• Americans are Getting Older
• Seniors are Living Longer
• Fewer Workers, More Retirees
• Social Security’s Costs Exceed Revenue
• Social Security Can’t Pay Promised Benefits
• A History of Payroll Tax Rate Increases
• A History of Payroll Tax Base Increases

The BooHoo river

From Sibby’s mailbag:

I saw this phrase on a message board and about fell off my chair laughing. I think it best sums up how the Democrats have been responding to the President at every turn:

"The BooHoo River overflowed its banks tonight."

Dems hope Americans are too dumb

William Rusher has a column regarding the Iraq WMD issue. Clearly the Democrats are hoping that the American people are too dumb to realize that the Clinton Democrats also believed Saddam had WMDs:

Now, however, the gloves are off. Bush "lied us into war" is the charge, and the act is clearly to be understood as an intentional misrepresentation of the facts as he knew them.

One recent exponent of this view is former Democratic Sen. (and majority leader) George Mitchell. Mitchell has an air of urbane sanctimony, but he was widely known in the Senate as a vicious partisan. In a TV interview recently, he polished that reputation by declaring that the only true statement Bush made in the run-up to the Iraq invasion was that Saddam was a murderous tyrant – everything else he said was false, including the statement about weapons of mass destruction. When the interviewer protested that all of the leading Democrats were saying the same thing, Mitchell calmly replied, "They believed what Bush told them."

That statement is such a filthy lie that it has a certain criminal majesty. The assertion is that Bush duped the Democrats. But Bush was only the governor of Texas when Sens. Tom Daschle, Carl Levin, John Kerry and others wrote to President Clinton on Oct. 9, 1998, saying, "[W]e urge you ... to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." And Clinton himself had said, on Feb. 17 of that same year, that "We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Mitchell apparently thinks the American people are just too dumb to understand a rebuttal that complicated. We can only hope he is wrong.

Herseth shows true colors

The Aberdeen American News reports on South Dakota’s congressional delegations reaction to the President’s plan on reforming the biggest rip off ever invented, Social Secuirity. Stephanie Herseth showed here true far-left colors:

Rep. Stephanie Herseth, who won election in November, said she agrees Social Security needs to be strengthened. But Herseth said she has serious concerns about the potential impact of the president's proposal.

A broader discussion in Congress of retirement options could include personal savings plans, pensions and other ideas, said Herseth.

"But I do not support diverting money that is currently paid through payroll taxes and massive borrowing that would accompany that," said Herseth. "We can make some changes without exaggerating the problems that exist and making sure that it's a broader discussion of retirement security for all generations."

Oh yeah, the poor people can afford a pay cut in order to have a more secure retirement? Then comes Tim Johnson:

South Dakota's senior senator, Tim Johnson, said he was hoping Bush would have offered more details about his plan for Social Security during the State of the Union speech.

He said tax incentives that would encourage Americans to invest and save money make more sense, said Johnson.

"I do not support the cuts in Social Security benefits or the borrowing of $2 trillion that his proposal would apparently require," he said in a statement. "I also believe that Social Security should continue to have a defined and definite payment level that every citizen can rely on to the dime when they plan their retirement."

Johnson who sat next to John Kerry is learning the Democrats flip flop con speech. I wished Bush gave details, but we know it will entail borrowing $2 trillion? Where did they get that number? Thin air? At least Herseth adjusted the Democrats talking points to call it "massive borrowing".

MSM protecting its own

From Hugh Hewitt:

Jim Geraghty at KerrySpot is a friend, but we disagree on the amount of slack that should be cut for MSM's silence on the Eason Jordan story. Jim argues:

"Maybe I'm a big softie when it comes to issues of media bias, or a bit more patient, or maybe I'm too willing to give the mainstream press the benefit of the doubt. But I note that this story started getting serious attention yesterday afternoon, and perhaps that was a bit late for the Wednesday papers. If in another day or two there's nothing, then yes, this can be chalked up as a news blackout, with the biggest voices in the media looking the other way in order to protect one of their own."

First, this isn't a story about media bias. It is a story where a senior American news executive accused the American military of assassinating journalists, and did so before an international crowd of influential opinion-makers.

Second, Jim himself posted on this yesterday afternoon, and I posted and broadcasted on the story yesterday afternoon. So did a large number of other high profile bloggers. I refuse to believe that not a single reporter/editor/producer in MSM knew about this before deadline last night, or that AP and Reuters are unaware of the story or its significance at this hour. In fact, we have been in contact with Rony Abovitz and he is being pursued by many major media outlets for interviews etc.

Howard Kurtz has confirmed that "We are taking a look."

What's to look? Report the controversy: "The ForumBlog said ____. CNN said____. RConversationblog said ____ David Gergen, the moderator, said___. Barney Frank said ___. Eason Jordan was hiding from reporters and no one at Time Warner would comment."

So why the silence?

Also, I am reprinting the list of links I have been sent, but it is by no means comprehensive. (The FoxNews account from Brit Hume during "The Grapevine" segment of yesterday's Special Report is transcribed here.) The key point is that Jordan accused the United States military of assassinating journalists. That's the charge, and it should be reported that way. Watch and see how MSM tries hard to soften the blow to their pals at CNN.

Dems don’t get even, they get mad

Jeff Gannon has found out that conservatives, who effectively take on the left, will feel their anger. First was Randell Beck, the executive editor of the Argus Leader. Gannon wrote a series of columns detailing the pro-Daschle bias of that paper:

• Daschle Challenger Calls for Reporter to Reveal Ties to Senator
• Daschle's Hometown Newspaper Under Fire
• South Dakota Reporter Key to Daschle Strategy
• NY Times Probes Daschle Spouse Lobbying; Argus Leader Skips Story
• Daschle Mute on Argus Leader Link; South Dakota Probe Widens
• Another Daschle Link to Beleaguered Newspaper Revealed
• Argus Leader Breaks Silence, Admits Daschle Link

Then Gannon was a real thorn in Daschle’s butt when he uncovered the residency problem when Daschle signed for the Homestead deduction on his DC mansion. Chad Schult, former paid Daschle staffer, said on his blog that Gannon was a "real dickhead". The DC mansion symbolized Daschle was no longer a South Dakota guy. Schuldt certainly may be retaining a grudge against Gannon.

Last week I posted Rush Limbaugh’s reaction to the question Gannon asked at President Bush’s press conference. The MSM has come unglued because a conservative got to provide the other side of the story. Today the Boston Globe did an attack piece on Gannon. On today’s show, Rush Limbaugh showed their hypocrisy and bias:

So it still is apparently the case, ladies and gentlemen, you cannot accurately recite the words and the points made by Senate Democrat leaders or potential presidential candidates without being accused of being "White House-friendly" and engaging in "attacks," and as such, Mr. Gannon has found himself on the receiving end of an exhaustive investigation by the Boston Globe, two reporters to ferret out the truth of a man who sits right text [SIC] to them in these press conferences. Now, when this story hit, our memories here were collectively jogged. Something about the Boston Globe and the Clinton administration. We couldn't quite put our finger on it but we knew it involved their famous columnist Thomas Oliphant who was the husband of CBS reporter Susan Spencer, and so we went back to the archives, ladies and gentlemen, and here is what we found. Our old buddies at Newsmax not long ago in writing about the Armstrong Williams so-called propaganda story published this: "In a 1994 case that received far less attention, two Republican congressmen complained that senior Clinton administration official Susan Brophy had promised that the Boston Globe's Thomas Oliphant would write favorable columns about them if they, the Republicans, voted for President Clinton's crime bill. Peter Torkildsen said to the Boston Herald, 'She said if I voted yes, that she'd ask Oliphant to write something favorable about me.'

"Torkildsen's Republican colleague Peter Blute said that Susan Brophy had made a similar pitch to him. She said the White House could be helpful with the regional press in Boston; she mentioned the Globe; and she mentioned Oliphant. Mr. Oliphant was righteously indignant, angrily denied that he had agreed to help the White House by trading his column for House votes. 'Nothing I write or have ever written is on anybody else's authority but my own, and anybody who suggests otherwise is a scumbag,' he told the Boston Herald. But after Blute supported the Clinton legislation, the Boston Globe reporter, columnist, Mr. Oliphant, praised him in print. Torkelson's vote against the bill was denounced in a separate Oliphant column as a smarmy move, and so what Susan Brophy promised the two Republicans, happened. If they voted for the crime bill, Oliphant would praise them, otherwise he would smarm them." Now, he praised Blute but he smarmed Torkildsen. So here you had the Clinton White House trading favors with the Boston Globe for votes in the House of Representatives, and that same newspaper now has concluded its exhaustive investigation into Jeff Gannon who has committed a journalistic crime. He was friendly to the White House in the press corps, and that, my friends, was so unusual that there was somebody in the White House press corps friendly to the president, it warranted a full-fledged, two-reporter investigation paid for by the Boston Globe. Ha-ha. These people will not be denied.

Then a caller provided insight into the anti-Bush position of the Boston Globe:

CALLER: I just wanted to tie this together and see as you recall, this is the same newspaper whose credibility was shot many, many months back when they reached the conclusion then went out and sought facts to suit that. In an early edition of one of their papers they printed a pornographic picture that somebody had sent them claiming that it was -- I believe it was Iraqi female prisoners being raped by our soldiers, and they actually printed this before someone pointed out to them that in fact it was a clip from some porn videotape. And, by the way --

RUSH: I have that story right here in my formerly nicotine-stained fingers. It was a story that ran in the Boston Herald. And you could ask, and it would be a legitimate question and maybe Jeff Gannon could next ask the question this question in a press conference, and that is: "Does the Boston Globe have a predisposition against George Bush, and should there be an investigation?" The Boston Globe; this is Thursday, May 13th of last year. "The Boston Globe was reeling yesterday after graphic photos of alleged sexual abuse of Iraqi women by U.S. soldiers turned out to be staged shots from a hard-core porn website. This photo should not have appeared in the Globe said the editor, Martin Baron, in a statement. First, images portrayed in the photo were overly graphic. Second, as the story clearly pointed out, those images were never authenticated as photos of prisoner abuse. There was a lapse in judgment and procedures, and we apologize for it." This seems to be happening all over the place in the mainstream media. Forged documents are not checked; now forged porno pictures are not checked. What is the editing process of the Boston Globe? One guy just can't get this done. One person just can't get this done. These pictures have to be vetted. Of course there's a predisposition against Bush at the Boston Globe.

I covered the Boston Globe porngate with a post that still gets hits with searches on the word Iraqbabes. That scandal never did get much press, but maybe Gannon's dramatic surge in popularity might change that.

Krugman’s pounding continues

From Social Security Choice:

To follow up on Don’s most recent post and ahead of his anticipated coda regarding Paul Krugman’s article this morning, Steve Antler had this to say on his blog:

Michael Tanner’s 2003 study addresses issues raised by Paul Krugman today.

I suppose I could brag about having a basic, boneheaded attitude towards all of this. The public sector can only tax and redistribute. It can’t produce. Therefore unlike the private sector it can’t generate any interest or profit revenue.

So if the rate of return on Social Security exceeds the rate of return on private investment, doesn’t this necessarily mean it is being financed not only by interest on our collective "estate," but also through the reduction of what might be called our collective "capital?" Isn’t this just like reducing the size of an estate by spending more than the interest generated per month, in other words?

This nice and concise statement, I believe, sums up the ENTIRE Social Security debate. Do we want to have wealth-creating personal accounts or do we want to have a Ponzi scheme based on the redistribution of income? How do we want our national character to be defined? As a class warfare society where everyone legally plunders each other? Or as a just society where we increase the overall standard of living through positive-sum wealth creation?