Did You Vote in ’06? By CavalierX

by John Hawkins | November 2, 2006 6:30 am

A win for the Democrats in the 2006 election would be a loss for not just the Republicans, but Americans in general. If you’re one of those who think Democratic control of Congress will only last for two years — and that the Republicans will rediscover their Conservative roots while “wandering in the wilderness” — you haven’t thought the matter through. If the Democrats take control, they will take steps to entrench their position by expanding their voter base, none of which will be good for the country… and the effects of which could last a decade or more. That’s not “fear-mongering,” that’s taking a serious look at what Democrats could do to ensure they keep their hold on power, using threats of holding up legislation and blocking nominees to get their bills passed.

It’s certain that Democrats will raise both the minimum wage and taxes. All they really have to do is sit tight and let the Bush tax cuts expire. NY Representative Charles Rangel, who will chair the Ways and Means Committee if Democrats take the House, has said he “cannot think of one” of Bush’s tax cuts worthy of renewal[1]. Higher taxes won’t affect “the rich,” at whom high taxes are supposedly aimed — they’ll simply pull money out of their investments and tuck it away where it can’t be taxed. The poor don’t actually pay income tax, leaving those who make money — but not enough to hire expensive tax accountants — to pay ever higher taxes.

Investor pullouts will cause the stock market to drop, taking a toll on retirement funds like 401(k)s. Consumer confidence and spending will fall, while interest rates and inflation rise. Companies will have to lay off employees and raise prices to keep showing a profit. The higher minimum wage will accelerate the layoffs as small companies struggle to stay afloat. Larger companies will relocate more of their operations abroad to save money. The middle class, which will have to shoulder more of the higher tax burden, will begin to shrink, increasing the gap between rich and poor — and leading to more demand for government support and income redistribution. Unemployment will rise, the welfare rolls will once again increase, and so the Democrats, by playing the old “Republicans want to stop your benefits” card, will gain voters for the 2008 campaign and beyond. Those who are dependent upon government handouts will almost always vote for the politicians who promise to continue or increase them.

Democrats frequently attack Wal-Mart,[2] one of America’s largest employers, for its lack of unions and healthcare plans — ignoring the fact that Wal-Mart employees consistently vote against unions, and that Wal-Mart offers a healthcare plan at a reasonable per-month cost. Forcing the retailer to accept unions would be a great coup for the Democrats, as a huge percentage of mandatory union dues inevitably find their way to fund Democratic campaigns. The Democrat-controlled Maryland legislature, for example, recently voted to force Wal-Mart to pay for expensive health insurance for its workers, a union-driven move designed to make signing a union agreement (despite the wishes of its employees) look cheap[3]. The unions — with the help of their old partners, the Democrats — would expand their Wal-Mart corporate union campaign to the rest of the country. Naturally, Wal-Mart would have to increase employee wages in order to comply with union demands… which would lead to store closings, layoffs, and even more unemployment and welfare recipients to swell the Democratic voter ranks.

The Senate passed an immigration reform bill that gave what amounts to total amnesty as well as special privileges to illegal immigrants[4]. It would have allowed all current illegal immigrants to stay in America while awaiting legal status, after which they could bring in their extended families. It also included no provision for making workers who would come to America under its vaunted “guest worker” program return home when their time was up. The Senate bill, if signed into law, would have resulted in up to estimated 100 million new immigrants over the next twenty years[5] — far more than we could possibly assimilate in so short a time. Only the Republican majority in the House of Representatives prevented this nightmare from becoming reality, with their staunch insistence on an “enforcement first” bill. HR 4437 (passed by 92% of Republicans, opposed by 82% of Democrats[6]) insisted that the government try to stop the flow of new illegals before dealing with those already here. The House Republicans also issued a flat refusal to consider blanket amnesty[7]. If Democrats take control of the House, that barrier will vanish like mist, and the Democrats will have a flood of uneducated, largely ignorant new low-class workers to turn into good little Democrat voters, all demanding a piece of the government pie.

Democratic control of Congress could last for years, crushing this country under the burden of nanny-state social programs paid for with ever-increasing taxation upon the only productive members of society. Soon, like most of Europe[8], we could be mired in a demi-Socialist hell as jobs are guaranteed by the government, causing corporate reluctance to hire new workers, leading to a permanent underclass of angry unemployables [9] with whom the dwindling group of Old Americans can’t even communicate. The only way any party could win back control of the government would be to move as far Left as they can, in order to capture those votes. Even if Democrats lose Congress again in a few years, the damage will have been done — benefits and rights granted are almost impossible to take away. Conservatives will no longer have a party at all. We might not even have a country.

And when people complain about what America has become, my response will be, “Did you vote in ’06? Did you ‘teach the Republicans a lesson’ by staying home? Then you got what you wanted.”

This content was used with the permission of Guardian WatchBlog[10].

  1. he “cannot think of one” of Bush’s tax cuts worthy of renewal: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aRYptWMsTqqk
  2. Democrats frequently attack Wal-Mart,: http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/08/02/divided_democrats_unite_to_criticize_wal_mart/
  3. a union-driven move designed to make signing a union agreement (despite the wishes of its employees) look cheap: http://www.mises.org/story/2016
  4. gave what amounts to total amnesty as well as special privileges to illegal immigrants: http://guardian.blogdrive.com/archive/cm-5_cy-2006_m-5_d-25_y-2006_o-0.html
  5. estimated 100 million new immigrants over the next twenty years: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1076.cfm
  6. HR 4437 (passed by 92% of Republicans, opposed by 82% of Democrats: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-4437
  7. flat refusal to consider blanket amnesty: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200603/NAT20060330a.html
  8. like most of Europe: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4307303.stm
  9. permanent underclass of angry unemployables : http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2006/10/10/chirac_aims_to_lower_france_unemployment/
  10. Guardian WatchBlog: http://guardian.blogdrive.com/

Source URL: https://rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/did-you-vote-in-06-by-cavalierx/