This page was last updated on April 14, 2011.
Obama will get his one-term reward; Stephen F. Kislock, III; Beaver County Times; April 13, 2011.
Most of Mr. Kislock’s 60+ letters over the last seven years have been Republican-bashing exercises, though he sometimes goes after Democrats for his pet causes. Sometime during 2009 Mr. Kislock became an in-house commentator for Beaver County Reds. Please follow this link to learn more about Beaver County Reds.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“President Barack Obama, a bipartisan. How wonderful, a Democratic president who is willing to give away all social advances that American workers fought for and richly deserve in the name of bipartisanship.”
[RWC] Mr. Kislock doesn’t describe the “social advances that American workers fought for and richly deserve” allegedly being “give[n] away.”
“I believe that Obama, once elected, changed into his true persona, a man of the rich and powerful. He is as transparent as lead.
“He has done nothing for the poor or middle class; he now has more poor (and poorer) and no middle-class American citizens.”
[RWC] It’s not government’s job to do anything for a specific group of people. In any case, what were the alleged goals of “jobs bills,” Obamacare, cap-and-tax (in the House), the takeover of the student loan industry, et cetera?
“Change you can believe in? Wall Street is doing great with billions of dollars in bonuses. Obama breaks bread with CEOs, while the CEOs are breaking unions.”
[RWC] If “CEOs are breaking unions,” why didn’t Mr. Kislock provide examples?
“Social Security: Obama signed off on a small tax cut on premiums that will mean hundreds of dollars less every month for all Americans hoping to retire - change you can believe in.”
[RWC] As you will read below, the “small tax cut” actually turns out not to be a cut, but instead it’s a shift from one group of taxpayers to another. In any case, using lefty “logic,” Mr. Kislock should be in favor of the “small tax cut.” Here’s why. First, the “small tax cut” benefits “the poor or middle class” Mr. Kislock mentioned above by putting more dollars in their pockets today. Second, lefties always tell us flat-rate taxes like SS are “regressive,” placing a greater burden on “the poor or middle class.” Therefore, shouldn’t Mr. Kislock support a two percentage-point reduction in a “regressive” tax, even if it’s only temporary? Third, as you’ll read below, any reduced SS tax revenue is to be made up by transfers from the federal general fund. The vast majority of the general fund (which excludes at least SS & Medicare tax revenue) comes from corporate and personal income tax revenue, taxes paid disproportionately high by “the rich.” Based on 2008 income tax data, the top 1% of filers paid 38% of the total and the top 5% paid 59%. Therefore, the effect of the SS tax “holiday” is to shift some of the SS tax burden from “the poor or middle class” to “the rich.” Shouldn’t Mr. Kislock support this redistribution of income?
Here’s what Mr. Kislock didn’t mention. First, the payroll tax “holiday” is temporary and only for calendar year 2011. Second, to compensate for the projected reduced SS tax revenue, “Transfers are to be made from the General Fund of the Treasury to the Trust Funds” and “The Office of the Chief Actuary estimates that the projected levels of the OASI and DI Trust Funds will be unaffected by this provision.” In other words, the “small tax cut” will not “mean hundreds of dollars less every month for all Americans hoping to retire.” Does Mr. Kislock know this? Probably, but why let reality get in the way of a good rant?
“Obama’s dream of democracy is for the oppressed people of the world. If you have oil or American interests, you keep the despot except for Gadhafi. Be a poor black African county and the thousands of deaths and their dreams mean nothing.
“The people will give him his one term he so richly deserves.”
[RWC] Mr. Kislock has been criticizing Mr. Obama for about a year, with his most recent letter entitled “Obama should run as a Republican.” Why would one far leftist claim another far leftist is “bipartisan” and “the Republican that he [Mr. Obama] is?” I have two potential reasons.
First, Mr. Kislock may actually believe what he writes. In this case, we have the equivalent of a Leninist and a Marxist accusing each other of being less of a communist. That’s how lefties justify portraying Nazis (National Socialists) as being on the right.
Second, Mr. Kislock may know better but feels a need to present Mr. Obama as the equivalent of a so-called “Reagan Democrat” because he knows a far lefty has little chance at winning, especially in Western Pennsylvania. Remember, all during his 2008 campaign we were told constantly how Mr. Obama was some kind of “moderate/centrist” and Mr. Obama still lost (barely) in Beaver County. As I’ve described before, the left uses the terms “moderate/centrist” to describe very leftist politicians but hopes when we hear “moderate/centrist” we hear “Reagan Democrat” or something similar. Some examples of this tactic in Times op-ed pieces are here, here, here, and here. A fellow Beaver County Reds member declared on his Facebook wall (8/22/10), “Obama’s never been a lefty.”
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.