Jane V. Delanko – 9/19/04

This page was last updated on September 21, 2004.

Nation needs a good leader; Jane V. Delanko; Beaver County Times; September 19, 2004.

This letter is version 1,000,001 of Democrat talking points. As usual, it is clear no independent research or thought went into this missive.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“Our president claims he has created jobs for the American people. The jobs we are talking about are $8 an hour jobs. A family can’t survive on this.”

[RWC] Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan doesn’t buy the claim that new jobs are of lesser quality than lost jobs. Testifying before Congress, Greenspan said, “We’ve not been able to find a significantly meaningful change in the quality of the jobs being produced relative to the quality of jobs being lost for the nation as a whole over the last year.” Is that true for Pennsylvania? I don’t know.

The real disposable income of American workers has increased every month since at least January 2003 with the exception of September 2003. Home ownership is at its highest point in history and climbing. These facts don’t support Ms. Delanko’s claim.

“President Bush keeps saying strong and steady. It’s more like weak and very shaky. This man has no consideration for the poor or middle class. He doesn’t even know we exist. He gives tax breaks to corporations that send jobs to foreign lands.”

[RWC] Don’t you love how Ms. Delanko provides so much fact to back up her bashing?

Jobs lost to outsourcing amounted to about 2.5% of all jobs lost during the first quarter of 2004. That’s a pretty small figure and indicates outsourcing is not a big problem. Don’t get me wrong; outsourcing is a big problem if you are the person whose job has been outsourced. For the country as a whole, however, outsourcing is not the boogey man Democrats want us to believe. Even economists at the liberal Brookings Institution agree.

Regarding the business “tax breaks,” these laws have been on the books for decades. President Bush did not enact them. Did Ms. Delanko write letters criticizing Bill Clinton on this topic?

With that behind us, let’s look at the tax provision in question. The U.S. tax rate tends to be higher than those of foreign countries and the United States collects taxes on income earned in foreign countries. The reason for the tax code provision is to help U.S. companies remain competitive when doing business in foreign countries. The provision doesn’t tax business income earned in foreign countries until the income is brought back to the United States. Without this provision, U.S. companies would be at a competitive disadvantage because they would have to pay full taxes to both the foreign country and the United States. The provision is not – as depicted by Democrats – a “tax break to corporations that send jobs to foreign lands.”

“Another subject: U.S. Sen. John Kerry wouldn’t know how to pursue the attack. Well, Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney weren’t exactly gung-ho after or before Sept. 11, 2001.”

[RWC] About half of the anti-Bush crowd claims President Bush and VP Cheney were “cowboys” looking for a fight from inauguration day, while the other half tells us Bush and Cheney weren’t “gung ho” about terrorism. Which is it folks, you can’t have it both ways? In Ms. Delanko’s case, it appears she read the Times editorial entitled “Scare Tactic.”

I don’t know that anyone claims Kerry “wouldn’t know how to pursue the attack.” I believe most Kerry critics believe Kerry simply would go back to the failed law enforcement approach to combating terrorism. Based on his Senate voting record, Kerry has not been a big supporter of our defense and intelligence communities. Leopards don’t change their spots.

“I’m sure he was informed by our special agents as to what’s going on in our country and to expect perhaps terrorism may strike. He failed to take heed.”

[RWC] Are these the same “special agents” whose budget John Kerry wanted to gut in the 1990s? The Kerry proposal was so bad even Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) would not support it.

According to media darling Richard Clarke, the Bush administration took terrorism very seriously. The following points come from a 2002 background briefing given by Richard Clarke.¹

· No plan on al-Qaida was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

· The Bush administration decided in mid-January 2001 to pursue vigorously the existing Clinton policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings.

· The Bush administration decided to initiate a process to review issues that had been on the table for a couple of years in the Clinton administration and get them resolved.

· The Bush administration decided in spring 2001 to augment the existing Clinton strategy and increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after al-Qaida.

· During summer 2001, the Bush administration developed and approved implementation details. They changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, and changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance. [This prep work is what allowed the United States to enlist the aid of Pakistan, the Northern Alliance, et cetera, so quickly when we attacked al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan.]

· The Bush administration changed the strategy from one of rollback of al-Qaida over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al-Qaida.

The plan was finalized on September 4, 2001, and was presented to the President on September 10th. Does this sound like the Bush administration “failed to take heed?”

“The Medicare prescription drug bill he signed for seniors is too far-fetched. The pharmaceutical companies immediately raised the prices of drugs. Medicare has increased. So where are we now?”

[RWC] Please explain what is “far-fetched” about the drug plan. I haven’t heard the “pharmaceutical companies immediately raised the prices of drugs” before. I guess I was lucky because my prescription wasn’t affected. Don’t get me wrong; prescription drug prices will increase because of government involvement. Price increases always result from government involvement in the marketplace.

The Medicare increases had nothing to do with the drug plan. According to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, “Medicare deductibles and premiums are updated annually in accordance with formulas set by law.”²

“America is the greatest country in the world. We need a good leader who will keep it that way.

“The deficit today is so high that it’s frightening for future generations. Right now, we are in deep trouble.”

[RWC] I don’t defend budget deficits by anyone, but partisans of both parties seem to care about deficits only when the other party is in power. Did Ms. Delanko worry about the deficits run up during four years of the Clinton administration?

1. Transcript: Clarke Praises Bush Team in ’02; Fox News Channel; March 24, 2004.

2. HHS Announces Medicare Premium and Deductible Rates for 2004; U.S. Department of Health & Human Services; October 16, 2003.