COMMENTARY
Leftist editorials far from 'objective'

By Darryl Johnston
Hawai'i resident

The Advertiser's editorial page on Jan. 12 was nothing less than a one-sided, left-wing, socialist attack on traditional American values.

One column was titled "Bush economic plan heavy on politics, light on relief." Another favored continued freedom for parole violators (like William Jackson Barnes, the felon convicted 16 times for assault, criminal property damage, theft, auto theft and accidents involving death and serious bodily injury who was somehow paroled and is now a parole violator). A third column opposed virtually all of President Bush's policies.

Each one of these opinion pieces was presented with no counterpoint and thus no balance.

The ultra-liberal diatribe reached its pinnacle in Richard S. Miller's commentary, "Opposition to Bush's policies must be voiced." Miller opens with the exhortation that "serious-minded folks need to make a clear-eyed, objective appraisal of President Bush's actions and policies before it is too late." Then he makes an immediate about-face and proceeds to do everything except make a clear-eyed, objective appraisal.

Miller excoriated Bush for his naming North Korea as a part of the "axis of evil" (which it certainly is) and claimed that by so doing Bush caused Kim Jong Il to throw out the United Nations nuclear inspectors. What Miller does not mention is that it was the Bush administration's discovery and exposure of the fact that North Korea had been violating its 1994 treaty agreement not to develop nuclear weapons that caused the United States to discontinue financial support, which then caused North Korea to go ballistic and expel the international inspectors.

Far from being an error, Bush's decision to expose North Korea's violations of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty before North Korea actually develops nuclear weapons alerted the world to the imminent danger of a nuclear North Korea, and may result in preventing North Korean production of nuclear weapons.

Bush's decision not to sign the Kyoto accord on global warming is based on estimates that implementing it would cost the U.S. economy $400 billion and cause the loss of 4.9 million American jobs. The U.S. Senate rejected the Kyoto treaty by a vote of 95-0. That's right — not one senator, Democrat or Republican, voted with Miller. Where were those facts in Miller's "clear-eyed, objective" diatribe?

Miller assailed Bush's position that the United States will not wait to be attacked but will attack those posing an imminent danger to its citizens. Frankly, Mr. Miller, anything less would be an abrogation of the president's duty to protect America and its citizens.

Miller lambasted President Bush's decision not to join the International Criminal Court. He failed to mention that under the court proposal, U.S. soldiers carrying out lawful orders could be arrested and tried as criminals. Understandably, Bush, as commander in chief, declined to agree to a court that could be used, like the General Assembly of the United Nations, to embarrass and punish the United States while allowing countries such as Libya to sit on human-rights panels.

Miller would have us believe that the elimination of the estate tax and the tax on dividends would have horrified our founding fathers. The law professor emeritus failed to mention that when the income tax was first enacted, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional, and only a change in the Constitution enables the income tax to exist today. Further, Miller didn't mention that all of the profits distributed as dividends already have been taxed once; the dividend tax is a second tax on what's left after a corporation's profits have been taxed.

Miller may feel that taxing an investor's profits twice is good policy, but there are more than a few Americans who recognize that it is not only unfair but bad economic policy that discourages investment and ultimately reduces U.S. productivity.

Afraid that he may not have scared enough of our older people, Miller casts both honesty and reason to the winds and declares: "I personally entertain serious doubts whether Social Security and Medicare ... will survive the Bush presidency."

Of course, there has been no indication whatsoever that Bush or the Republicans intend to discontinue either program.

America needs serious-minded folks to make clear-eyed, objective analyses of governmental policy. Miller and The Advertiser are not meeting that need.