Kevin Foley’s recent MDJ column about Paul Broun needs a little clarification. Kevin frequently applies his PR skills of bending the truth in his MDJ columns, usually to paint the GOP in a negative light, and this is no exception. Exposing these twists may expose a little bigger idea.
In the Broun column, Foley starts with a Fox News poll that he reported as indicating “66 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Republicans are doing in Congress.” Then notes a Quinnipiac poll that indicates 53 percent of Republicans are also unhappy with Repubs. I don’t dispute the numbers.
What I dispute is Foley’s conclusion: “Voters of all stripes are fed up with GOP obstructionism.” Only in Kevin’s world does one infer the broad concept of disapproval to really mean a single cause of that disapproval. Perhaps those 66 percent of Americans disapprove of the job the GOP is doing because they have not yet impeached this president. We can only conclude that Kevin is either dishonest or lacks skills in basic logic.
Reading on, beyond the straw-man where Foley connects Broun’s concerns of “out-of-control government,” “unsustainable debt” and “economic collapse” with the word apocalypse (wow, talk about hyperbole, Kev) Mr. Foley, via the quotes of Justin Barasky, refers to the privatization of Social Security as a “scheme” — implying the idea is unethical.
If one does 20 minutes worth of homework, you would find that the historic growth of the stock market yields about 7 percent per year. If a worker making a modest $25,000 per year, getting a small 2 percent raise per year, is allowed to take the portion of Social Security that is deducted from their paycheck (6.2 percent) and invest it in a mix of government-approved mutual funds, they would retire with an annuity that paid three to four times what Social Security will pay them. And, if they die, they can leave that money (over $400,000) to their family. Doesn’t sound too unethical to me.
The 6.2 percent paid by the employer could fund the needs of those who can’t or choose not to work throughout their lives. So, either Foley doesn’t understand basic financial concepts or he simply sees the truth as inconvenient and opts to promote an agenda.
The greater point is that none of this is new. Foley’s columns are filled with these types of twists, spins and ethical gymnastics every week. And, at the core, there is a fundamental observation that needs to be pointed out. Foley does not like the GOP hindering a socialist, liberal agenda — period. He paints the GOP with words like “radical” and “extremist” in order to make the weak-minded susceptible to the feel-good message of the failed ideas of liberalism.
The truth is “no” is a great answer in many cases. When you are on the wrong path, someone has to say “no” to further steps in the wrong direction. When you have the perfect model for success (the Constitution), someone has to say “no” when others want to dismantle it. When someone wants to increase our nation’s debt and spend money that is not there (Yes, Kevin, negative numbers are real), someone has to say “no” to protect our financial viability and the economic health of our children.
When someone passes a 2,000-page bill without reading it, someone else has to step up and say “no” when it becomes clear the plan was failed in concept and content.
Kevin is great at PR. He spins the truth because his arguments don’t fly and paints the GOP as the party of “no” because it works. But remember this, it is little children who don’t understand why they can’t have everything without considering the costs, and it is left to the adults to deal with the unpopular but pragmatic truth of the value of “no.”