According to the Associated Press via Fox News, a South Carolina Democratic Party mailing warns recipients to vote or be drafted:
South Carolina's Republican Party Chairman calls the mailing a "deceptive, despicable tactic:"The first page of the mailing shows a draft notice with orders to report to a military induction center. The next shows a helicopter with troops in the foreground beneath a headline that says "Officials in Washington are calling for more troops in Iraq." Below, the mailing asks "Which form would you rather fill out?"
South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Joe Erwin doesn't dispute that the mailing is despicable saying:"In a time of war, to use that piece of mail, I think speaks volumes of where they are as a party."
Unfortunately this isn't the first time Democrats have engaged in such draft fear mongering. In December, Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic National Committee chairman, upset city officials during a visit to Portsmouth High School. In his usual inflammatory style, McAuliffe told a social studies class that if the war in Iraq continues, there could be a reinstatement of the draft."I can understand why they think it's despicable, but, sorry, we really do need to get potential voters' attention," he said, adding that the mailing strives to let people know that "their vote impacts what our role in the war may be down the road."
City Councilor Bill St. Laurent called McAuliffe's comments "scare tactics."
Rumors that the government is secretly planning to bring back the draft have become so rampant that the Selective Service Administration has posted this notice on it's website:
Notwithstanding recent stories in the news media and on the Internet, Selective Service is not getting ready to conduct a draft for the U.S. Armed Forces -- either with a special skills or regular draft. Rather, the Agency remains prepared to manage a draft if and when the President and the Congress so direct. This responsibility has been ongoing since 1980 and is nothing new. Further, both the President and the Secretary of Defense have stated on more than one occasion that there is no need for a draft for the War on Terrorism or any likely contingency, such as Iraq. Additionally, the Congress has not acted on any proposed legislation to reinstate a draft. Therefore, Selective Service continues to refine its plans to be prepared as is required by law, and to register young men who are ages 18 through 25.
The Chicago Tribune reports that there is no truth to the rumors:
Two bills introduced in Congress in early 2003 have fueled these rumors. One, introduced by Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.) would require all men and women 18 through 25 to "perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security." The second, sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), would similarly require draft-age men and women to perform military or civilian national security service.Lt. Col. Franklin Childress, spokesman for the Army's personnel branch, said he knew of no change in the Defense Department's policy of maintaining an all-volunteer military.
"We haven't done any preparations for a draft," he said.
Asked at a Pentagon town meeting with military personnel last month if there would be a draft after the election, Rumsfeld replied, "I don't think so.
"We don't need a draft," he added. "We're able to attract and retain all the people we need. . . . So I can't imagine that this country would go back to a draft."
According to Michigan's Flint Journal:
Snopes.com, the debunker of urban legends, says "probably not" to claim that the draft will be reinstated by Spring 2005. The concern generated by the mailing is indeed a despicable deception. It will cause untold and needless concern amoung paernts of young men and women. This is exactly what Hollings and Rangel wanted when they introduced their bills in 2003. Shame on them.Those measures, introduced by Rep. Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ernest F. Hollings, D-S.C., were meant to try to stir opposition to the war in Iraq but have no chance of being passed into law.
UPDATE: The article about the South Carolina Democrats' mailing received a good deal of coverage throughout the blogosphere.
At Cranial Cavity, Marc also takes the Dems to task over their shameless draft fear mongereing.
At Daly Thoughts, Gerry says it is hard to think of a dumber tactic the Dems could use.
At In the Bullpen, Chad Evans posts this is politics at it’s lowest level.
Strange Women Lying in Ponds posts that the Dems mailing is a deceptive trade practice.
At Power Line, Hindrocket posts that the Dems mailing is a perfect example of the Dems preying on ignorance.
At Heretical Ideas, Alex Knapp posts that the implication that voting Democrat means no draft is a bald faced lie.
The Dems mailing reminds Digger's Realm's Digger of PETA's ambush marketing by throwing blood on fur wearing people while they themselves are wearing a leather belt.
At Perry on Politics, Tim calls the mailing a scare tactic implemented by panic struck Dems.
Jeff Quinton is also covering the draft mailing story at Backcountry Conservative.
Inez Tenenbaum may or may not win South Carolina’s Senate seat, but she may very well take first prize in the competition for the most dishonest campaign in the country.
The inexperienced Tenenbaum, who has no experience anever beens as a legislator and who’s whose first foray into elected politics came only in 1999 when she became Superintendent of Schools, has shown the slipperiness of a master politico as . Sshe has bent, twisted and manipulated the truth with Clintonian ability.... Her skill at dancing around the truth would make Fred Astaire jealous.... She has been effective in making the opposite of what is true seem accurate. .. And s. She has used her opponent Jim DeMint’s courage in calling for fundamental tax reform for our troubled system against him, and while at the same time cleverly masked masking her desires to raise taxes.
Tenenbaum was repeatedly asked to fill out the FreedomWorks Candidate Survey to let people know where she stands on critical economic issues. She refused, unlike Jim DeMint, who did not try to hide his stances. Fortunately, Inez Tenenbaum has done and said enough in her short career in politics for us to get an idea of what sort of Senator she would be.
Only those with a very short memory will forget that Inez Tenenbaum was supporting the largest tax hike in South Carolina’s history just last year. Tenenbaum held a rally on April 16, 2003 outside the South Carolina State House to unveil her plan to raise state taxes by as much as $2.3 billion. Gina Smith of The State reported the next day: “Tenenbaum says she and some state legislators are working on a plan that would increase either the sales tax, cigarette tax, gasoline or beer/wine tax…Also being considered is eliminating some sales tax exemptions.” The Greenville News quoted Tenenbaum speaking about the tax hike at the event saying, “I know it’s the right thing to do.”
And now “Tax Hike” Tenenbaum wants us to believe she won’t raise taxes if she is sent to Washington, DC?
Tenenbaum also told the Rock Hill Herald’s editorial board that she would like to raise taxes. That paper quotes her as saying that she, “like Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry would favor rolling back the [Bush] tax cut.” That A Tenenbaum-Kerry tax increase would hurt everyone by reducing incentives to work and decreasing the number of new available jobs. Raising the top tax rate would damage millions of small businesses that are taxed at the individual income tax rate—and small businesses provide the economy with 75 percent of net new jobs.
And now “Tax Hike” Tenenbaum wants us to believe she won’t raise taxes if she’s sent to Washington, DC?
During her brief tenure in state level politics, Tenenbaum also showed questionable judgment as the steward of South Carolina’s education system. As everyone in South Carolina knows, the schools were having funding difficulties and being forced to lay off teachers. Meanwhile, it was payday for Tenenbaum’s education bureaucrats. While teachers were loosing losing their jobs, Tenenbaum doubled the number of bureaucrats—not teachers—making more than $50,000.
Fewer dollars for teachers while protecting bureaucrats? And now Tenenbaumshe wants us to believe she would be a good leader in Washington, DC?
Under Tenenbaum’s leadership, South Carolina’s Education Department was audited by the Legislative Audit Council (LAC). The LAC found that the Department often spent more than necessary on expenses, frequently spending between 8 and 94 percent more than federal expense limits allow. In one year alone, Tenenbaum’s Education Department spent a staggering $4 million on travel and over $675,000 on catered meals.
And now Tenenbaumshe wants us to believe that she would be fiscally responsible?
*****
When it comes to the big federal issues she would need to deal with if sent to Washington, Tenenbaumshe has shown that she either doesn’t understand them or has some motive besides what is good for South Carolina in mind.
On taxes, she has made it clear that she opposes Jim DeMint’s efforts to simplify the tax code for the American people. It is well documented that it takes Americans a cumulative 6.4 billion hours to file taxes. Does Tenenbaum really think this is a good way for us to spend our time? If not, why is she so opposed to DeMint’s efforts to reform the tax code? Is it because DeMint’s simplified tax code would end the special breaks specially written for special interests?
Billionaires like Tenenbaum’s politico-in-arms John Kerry can afford to hire teams of lawyers and accountants to decrease their tax rate by taking advantage of the complicated tax code, but ordinary Americans can’t. As a result John Kerry paid an effective tax rate of 12.8 percent last year while the typical middle class family paid 20 percent. Does Tenenbaum think this is fair? She must if she opposes a flat tax that would eliminate that disparity, something Jim DeMint has worked hard in Congress to pass.
Her stance on Social Security is even worse. It is common knowledge that Social Security is going broke—it will run short of money by 2018. Despite this looming crisis, all Tenenbaum offers as a solution is that she will “protect” Social Security. That is not a plan—it , is empty rhetoric that everyone is tired of hearing. “Protecting” Social Security in the past has resulted in over 20 increases to the Social Security tax and and repeated cuttsing inof senior’s’ benefits. Is that what she supports?
Perhaps if Tenenbaum were more familiar with federal policies she would know that her former party leader, Bill Clinton, acknowledged that there are only three ways to deal with the Social Security crisis: 1. Raise taxes 2. Cut benefits 3. Earn higher returns by allowing workers to own and invest their FICA payroll tax dollars. Jim DeMint supports only the third option, allowing workers to voluntarily save in a Personal Retirement Account (PRA) the 6 percent of their income that is currently taken by FICA taxes. Workers would own, control and be able to pass on their PRA savings. This is a plan that the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration said would bring permanent solvency to the retirement system. Tenenbaum has made it clear that she is against this commonsense solution..
If Tenenbaum is against allowing workers to save, as Clinton said, her only other options are to raise taxes or cut benefits. It would be nice if she would be honest with the people of South Carolina and say who’swhose taxes she will raise and who’swho’swhose benefits she will cut. Instead, she wants us to believe that she will be able to choose none of the three possible options and still, through some sort of magic, be able to “protect” and “save” Social Security. It is insulting that she thinks the people will fall for this.
Tenenbaum’s plan to stay with the current failing Social Security system, which will be unable to offer secure retirements to anyone, is the riskiest option of all.
*****
“Tax Hike” Tenenbaum may be inexperienced, as her poor showing on federal issues shows, ,bbut, but in her short time as an elected official, she has has created a record that shows exactly what sort of Senator she would be.
She’s has a record of:
• Supporting huge tax hikes
• Agreeing with John Kerry on raising taxes
• Proposing complicating the federal tax code
• Opposing plans to simplify federal tax code
• Spending above federal limits
• Raising bureaucrat’s pay while teachers are laid off
• Opposing allowing workers to own FICA taxes for retirement in PRAs
Is this the sort of representative South Carolina wants to send to Washington, DC?
Posted by: Justin | Tuesday, October 19, 2004 at 02:08 PM