Opinion
 

Democratic pomp rings hollow

By Ken Stocks

This week, at the Democratic National Convention, John Kerry and Co. plan to show their vision of the future for this country. They'll make grand, sweeping (and misleading) claims as they try to convince America that they have the answer; that they can make each American's life better.

In everything from sports to horse racing, past performance is used to predict future behavior. Batting averages in baseball and scoring averages in other sports are used to measure an athlete and predict future prospects, a method that can be applied here. While watching the DNC and hearing the promises of their vision for the future, ask if the promises of liberals and Kerry reflect the reality of history. 

Kerry will promise to be more financially responsible and will rant about deficits and unfair tax cuts for the wealthy. Kerry will promise to reduce the deficit and lower taxes to the middle class.

But in the past, Kerry has voted five times against a balanced budget amendment, and three times against lowering overall spending. He voted against the Bush tax cuts, and on 10 different occasions he voted against taxpayer relief. Of course, he also voted for the largest tax increase in history under the Clinton administration. Does this sound like the record of a party or candidate that is likely to balance the budget or reduce taxes?

Democrats will claim to have the best interests of our children in mind, and that learning is a priority for their party. Democrats will make grand promises for hypothetical programs.

In actuality, liberals have spent years fighting the conservative plan to provide federal vouchers to parents of children in schools that are not providing adequate education. Former Houston Independent School District superintendent Rod Paige has worked with conservatives on a plan to use federal money to help children to attend the best school available, whether public, private or charter.

Kerry and the liberals will propose higher taxes on the rich and promote bigger government, trying to convince the nation that the money is needed to care for the millions of poor people in this nation. They want everyone to believe they support the "little guy."

Liberals have created a dependency on big government, forcing the disadvantaged to survive on meager handouts with no real plan to help pull them out of the downward spiral of poverty.

While liberals will claim "family values," they are fighting against even the word "God" and are fighting religion at every turn. Liberals are trying to remove religion from every part of our lives.

They have opposed conservative plans for faith-based community initiatives. Conservatives want neighborhood churches, mosques and synagogues to be able to request federal money to help the people of their own communities to escape the crippling effects of poverty.

Conservatives understand that help is help, whether it comes from religious organizations or not, and that many times the religious leaders of a community can better tell who needs help and what kind of help they need than the federal government. Conservatives understand that help is not just money handed out from afar, and that there is value in allowing people to get help from people who are involved in their lives and communities in a way that the government is not, can not and should not be.

Kerry and liberal Democrats will tell you they have plans to save Social Security and protect the elderly in America, but Kerry has personally voted five times to raid the once-protected Social Security Trust Fund.

Kerry will portray himself as a war hero who is qualified to lead this country's armed forces.

However, Kerry nominated himself for three Purple Hearts under questionable circumstances, knowing that the third Purple Heart would rotate him back to the states (where he promptly asked to be released from his military duties). Then he participated in anti-war rallies and was actually photographed throwing away his medals.

Kerry voted against the first Gulf War and now opposes the second. If Kerry had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power and in control of much of the world's oil supply. Evidence proves that if we hadn't fought the first Gulf War, Saddam would now have nuclear weapons.

The 2004 election is more important than perhaps any in this country's history. Don't just believe the press or the candidates, but look at their history and make informed decisions that are best for this nation's citizens.

Stocks, a columnist for The Daily Cougar, 
can be reached at conservative_columnist@yahoo.com
 

Send comments to dccampus@mail.uh.edu