|
And then there's the economy. If you're anything like Mitt, I bet you're worried that if the liberals take over, "economic neophytes would layer heavier and heavier burdens on employers and families, slowing our economy and opening the way for foreign competition to further erode our lead." Of course, since 1960 the federal deficit has averaged $131 billion under Republican presidents, while Democrats have kept it at about $30 billion; on average a Republican year sees the deficit grow by $36 billion, while under Democrats it shrinks by $25 billion, blah blah blah. As the great, great, great, great Ronald Reagan used to say, "facts are stupid things." Yeah, yeah, national debt has increased more than $200 billion a year under Republican presidents and less than $100 billion a year under Democrats, but so what? Rich people sure get a lot richer under Republicans. According to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, the only taxpayers whose share of taxes declined in 2001 and 2002 were those in the top 0.1 percent -- Americans earning more than $10 million a year. The following year their tax share declined by another million. These same lucky folks now pay a lesser share of their income in taxes than those who make between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. Meanwhile, the average chief executive of a Standard & Poor's 500 company took home $13.5 million in total compensation in 2005, a year in which the top one percent of Americans earned nearly 22 percent of all income. Believe it or not, by 11:02 a.m. of the first day of work on the first day of the year, one of these average CEOs will make more moola than a minimum-wage dweeb on the payroll will make in the entire year. Is this a great country or what?
Don't forget the terrorists (though liberals would love it if you did). Mitt told it like it is when he tore back the curtain on liberals. They want to give the country away to terrorists. "Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror," he said. "They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child's play." About this, Mitt had no doubt. And why should he? The liberals plan to surrender to terror.
Of course, Mitt and his five sons, together with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and just about everybody who planned and executed the Iraq war, managed to stay out of combat. And that war, according to our own intelligence agencies, has made us far less secure. And we've sent our boys to fight it without body armor, and we've cut their VA benefits, and we're losing soldiers even faster than Greenland is losing glaciers, and now we're accepting the ones who fail the toe-counting tests, when we're not forcing the others to stay for "stop leave" after "stop leave" -- well, there I go again, getting all confused by that liberal claptrap. But hell, it's tough. After all, fully 55 veterans -- many of whom served in Iraq and Afghanistan -- signed up to run for office as Democrats in 2006. Imagine that: Veterans who want to "retreat, declare defeat" and invite "attacks on America." Remember: They want to surrender to terror. If Mitt doesn't scare them, maybe they'd like to go hunting with Cheney.
Eric Alterman is author of Why We're Liberals.
To read more Playboy Forum articles, access the entire May 2008 digital issue right now »
|
|
