Have you noticed the direction that political ads have taken?
Recently, Grandma P and I visited our former home state to attend a wedding. In that state, the political races are a little closer than in our current home state. The political ads ran 24/7!
The mudslinging! The accusations! The character “assassinations!’ Those were just the political commercials running on Cartoon Network! Holy Crap! If even 25% of the accusations are true, all of these candidates should be in prison, not in Washington, D.C. (Now that is a unique concept!)
I hate election season. It wrecks my television viewing! I miss my commercials for expensive cars, body lotions, perfumes, and soda drinks. They don’t stand a chance against the venomous, biased ads run by political candidates.
What really gores my bull is the misinformation spewed during these commercials.
If you have read any of my blogs, you know that they have a conservative tone. What really, really upsets me about most of the liberal candidate advertising is the continuation of the ‘class warfare’ element. Being ‘rich’ is being pandered as being synonymous with being a ‘crook.’ It is being used as a 4 letter word by the Democratic party. The inference is that if someone is ‘rich,’ those evil people got there by nefarious means, and no doubt on the backs of the poor! Those ‘rich’ people obviously achieved everything they have by using the backs of the poor as their stepping stones to success. (Interestingly enough, the Democratic candidates in our former home state are out-spending the Republicans approximately 3:2. Apparently there is a lot of money available to ‘buy’ votes.)
As stupid as that last paragraph sounds, it is the underlying tone of much of the liberal advertising. Never mind hard work, getting an education or taking chances in the business world – it is all for naught, because the government will take care of you. You can have what those ‘rich’ scoundrels have without the effort. You are entitled to what they have! Why work for it?
The reason I find this upsetting is that this attitude contradicts the spirit in which this country was founded. Independence – to do or achieve what you want without government intervention. Freedom – to be all you can be. Responsibility – to yourself and to your family to ensure the continuance of freedom and independence. The liberal agenda seems to be to cast aside these founding principles and, instead, adopt the assurance that you can feed at the bountiful udder of the government teat. That cow will eventually go dry!
Here are some examples of specific claims I saw in some of these advertisements.
“Candidate X wants to privatize social security.” This was presented by a 30-something as if the world would end if Candidate X got reelected. Have you polled anyone under 40 lately about the likelihood of them receiving social security? I have. I can assure you that everyone that I have talked to about this does not believe social security will be available once they reach retirement age. The smart ones are preparing for that eventuality by saving and contributing into their retirement accounts. Wow! What a novel idea! These people are taking responsibility for preparing for their own future retirement. According to the liberals, these people need to be eradicated, or at least reprogrammed. Of course, the liberals also like to scare the bejesus out of the elderly by convincing them that social security could be taken away tomorrow. This will not happen. That 30 something that was castigating candidate X should have been jumping up and down for joy, as should all the younger members of our society. Privatization would mean that you could keep all your money and invest it as you see fit! Again – individual responsibility. It takes discipline to save. Yes, it could be taxed to fund the existing social security system until its termination. But, I believe, most of the younger generation would accept that as a tradeoff.
Why won’t it happen? Privatizing social security takes the money out of the hands of the people that covet it most – the government of the United States. Yup, ever since the Johnson administration and the burdening cost of the Viet Nam war, all presidents have used social security funds to balance the federal budget. This worked well when there were 20 workers for every retiree. We are now down to 3 workers per retiree with the skids greased to get to two workers per retiree. What started out as a supplemental income became a permanent retirement plan, with most people convinced to not save because ‘Uncle Sam’ will take care of them. It has become a Ponzi scheme that cannot be funded permanently. So what do you think of candidate X now?
Here was another observed advertisement. “Candidate Y accepted campaign monies from companies that outsource American jobs to foreign companies.” On the surface, this would sound like another nefarious act on the part of Candidate Y. Let’s string the unpatriotic bastard from the highest tree, just like they did to cattle rustlers in the old west! But wait just a darn minute, buckaroo! Before I slap my trusty steed, Old Blueballs on the butt and leave Candidate Y swinging in the breeze, let’s think about this for a second. If you were to check the labels on the clothing you are now wearing, how much clothing would you be wearing if you only wore ‘American made’ clothing? If you were to rid yourself of all computers and televisions in your home that are not American made, how many would you have? Here is my wild guess as to the answers to the two previous questions: You would be standing nude, looking at a blank wall! Most of our goods are foreign made. In the 80s, I bought a new Cadillac. You can imagine my surprise when I found out it was assembled in Canada! I was further surprised to learn that half the nuts and bolts on that car were ‘American’ sizes and half were metric. I found that out when I had it serviced. Most large American manufacturers have a foreign facility. We are dependent on these foreign goods. It is safe to say that practically every candidate that accepts campaign funds from a large company is also accepting funds from a company that has outsourced labor to a foreign country. Of course, we could always lower our world high corporate tax rate from 40% down to the world average 22%, but that would mean reducing federal spending. This has been done previously, and it resulted in increased tax revenue because of the higher revenues received from a lower unemployment rate. It stimulated the economy. That would be a smart move on the part of Congress, so don’t expect to see it anytime soon.
The most venomous ad I observed went like this; “Candidate Z supports tax cuts for millionaires!” There we go again. Go get Old Blueballs out of the stable, because we got another galoot to hang from a tall oak tree! Those darn millionaires got there on the backs of the poor and they are not paying their fair share of taxes! Get the rope! Maybe we should delay that execution for just a moment. In 2010, the top ten percent wage earners paid over 70% of the total amount collected in federal income taxes. The remaining 90% bore just under 30% of the tax burden. Forty-seven percent of all Americans paid hardly anything at all – a fact that got Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney into political hot water during the 2012 political campaign. In 1986, the top ten percent wage earners paid 55% of the total federal taxes. In 1986 there were just two tax rates – 15% and 28%. (Ahhhh, the good old days!) Now there are seven income tax brackets, ranging from 10% to nearly 40%. (So much for simplifying the tax codes!) Now someone needs to educate me as to how the top ten percent wage earners, those people paying over 70% of the federal government taxes, are not paying their fair share? Their tax burden has gone up 12% since 1986! Maybe Candidate Z deserves not to be hanged today. He probably understands that if we decrease government spending, maybe those darn millionaires do deserve a tax break, getting us back to the tax rates of the ‘good old days.’
Of course, no election campaign would be complete without referencing Obamacare. I am against this plan simply because it was forced onto the American public by a Democratically controlled Congress that had not read the act or put any forethought into its administration. It was a hair-brained Democrat scheme to purchase votes, once again trying to get the masses onto the seemingly endless government teat. So far, Obamacare has appeared to do more harm than good. Its overall administration has been a disaster. It proves once again that private enterprise, not the federal government, is more efficient at administering large scale programs.
So there you have it. Our upcoming midterm election – that time of year when television revenues are going through the roof because of political advertising, and ad agencies sink to an abyss of lost ethics by making their candidates’ opponents look like political derelicts and crooks.
What don’t we see in any of these ads? Spending cuts. Established sunsets on all welfare benefits. Term limits. Drug testing for present and future welfare recipients. Corporate tax reductions. Income tax reductions. A flat income tax. Social security/retirement revision. Somehow, none of these very important items makes the final cut in any of these ads.
I can’t wait until the elections are over so I can get back to my favorite ads.
Go vote! Or as the Bayou Mauler, editor at large, would say, “Geaux vote!”
“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics, is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato