Letter: Stand up for facts

Is it reasonable for this writer to request that this paper banish the word liberal? The word has no meaning, and does much damage. It used to mean a spendthrift who wanted more government in our lives. Now the Republicans have preempted that territory. The liberal Democrats have governed in a more fiscally responsible fashion than the conservative Republicans.. Let’s see if we can attach some meaning to this onerous word “liberal”
 Let's look at the financial facts. Under Clinton 1.76 million jobs/ year were created, and under Bush 369,000. Under Clinton we had an increase in the median household income of $6,000 , under Bush a decrease of $1,100. Also with Republican tax cuts for the wealthy the rich have gotten richer, and the poor poorer . In 1928 just before the crash the top .01% of US families averaged 892 times more income than the families in the bottom 90%. In 2006 thanks to Republican policies, the top .01% averaged 976 times more income than the bottom 90%.
The greater the gap between the rich and everyone else, the more dangerously unstable economies become. In 2005 the top 400 wealthiest people paid a paltry 18.2% of their income in federal taxes thanks to Republican policies, and in 1955 the top 400 paid 51.2%. Even Warren Buffet finds this tax situation too favorable for the rich.. But not McCain. His policies would continue these disparities. The US Trade deficit under Clinton was $380 billion and under Bush $759 billion consequently countries are more hesitant to lend us money. McCain’s disdain for fiscal stewardship was reflected in his calling for a gas tax holiday, a move which was political pandering at its worst. Also, how does this spendthrift approach speak to our citizens. Do they think, if deficit spending is good enough for government, then it is good enough for me, then they run up credit card debt? In the financial area, the ”liberals have become the fiscal conservatives, and the conservatives the spendthrifts, so “liberal” has no meaning in this arena.
On the issue of the government's interference in our lives the Republicans have invaded our Constitutional right to privacy with a passion with their Patriot Act. An unprecedented nearly 400 cities and local entities have passed resolutions protesting this erosion of our Constitutional rights. Benjamin Franklin sounded the battle cry on this when he said" he who gives up liberty for security , deserves neither.” Meanwhile the "liberals" seek to limit the government tampering in our lives. On the issue of liberties ” liberals” want to restrict government, and the conservatives want more government poking into our private lives, yet the perception seems to be to the contrary.
If the Republican’s would just let the word liberal alone, and not abuse the defenseless three syllables, there would be no problem. But they choose to yank the word with all its negative historical baggage into the limelight. Palin's liberal bashing acceptance speech was reminiscent of the McCarthy red baiting era. McCarthy used red bating as a tool to manipulate people into a fearful frenzy finding a communist around every corner. McCain's people use the word liberal to invoke the same fear creating the misimpression that if a Democrat is elected, somehow the terrorists will run rampant and we will spend ourselves into oblivion. McCarthy’s tactics worked, as do McCain’s. Their campaign is a fear based campaign. The fear formula works. Invoke fear in the electorate and they will give up rights and vote for a regime that limits liberties. My humble request to McCain and Palin is to move away from their liberal baiting McCarthyistic tactics and move towards a meaningful, enlightening discussion based on THE FACTS. The facts and not fear is what should determine the election's outcome. And to the Pocono Record, can we hold an appropriate funeral for the word liberal which now has no meaning?

Mark Lichty