KLAS-TV Las Vegas reporter Nathan Baca was on a mission last Thursday – find Harry Reid’s Republican challenger, Sharron Angle, and get her to admit Reid’s charges that Angle wanted to abolish Social Security and the EPA.

Baca found Angle at Stoney’s North 40, a country bar and music venue in Las Vegas. She was there at my invitation to be interviewed on my national radio show – her first sit-down interview since her big grass-roots-fueled primary win.

What happened next was dramatic evidence that the Senate majority leader, down 11 points to Angle in a post-primary poll by the Las Vegas Review Journal, will spare no effort or expense to smear Angle early and often. And Reid has powerful allies in the Las Vegas media.

For Reid to survive, he must make Angle the issue to take public attention away from Nevada’s highest-in-the-nation unemployment rate and Reid’s key role in creating the Obamacare fiasco, the debt-financed TARP and the “stimulus” that refinanced the fat cats and abandoned the rest of us, and failing to stand up for Nevada after the repeated Obama assaults on its critical tourism and gaming economy.

The day after the primary, Reid ran a gusher of TV and radio ads smearing Angle as “extreme” and “dangerous.” KLAS-TV Channel 8 in Las Vegas ran those ads and made a bundle of money from Reid in that tough Las Vegas economy.

So Nathan Baca shows up at Stoney’s North 40 with the Reid charges as questions to return the favor to Reid and cement the impression with the public in his “news” report that night that Angle is too “extreme” and “dangerous.”

That same day, the Social Security Administration admitted that this year (not in 2018 as forecast just last year), Social Security benefits paid would exceed payroll deductions taken in.
Social Security is insolvent. The federal government has spent the yearly trust-fund surplus (payroll deductions exceeding benefits paid) every year since 1968 and left a big IOU in the Social Security fund. Now the feds have no money to make good on that IOU.

Baca to Angle: “Why do you want to eliminate (Social Security) for younger folks because your plan calls for transitioning out?” Angle’s answer: “I’m here to save Social Security, Harry Reid is here to bankrupt Social Security.” Transitioning out, she said, means “transition to a personalized account which they (the feds) can’t raid.”

A debate on what to do about the looming insolvency in Social Security is desperately needed. An ambush interview question designed to reinforce the Reid attack campaign hardly helps Americans understand what is at stake and what remedies might make sense. What is clear to me is that Sharron Angle’s concern to protect workers’ contributions to the Social Security trust fund from being stolen by the feds is neither “extremist” or “dangerous.”

Will Baca ask Reid how he plans to continue paying out Social Security benefits when the income to the trust fund is going down, the demand for benefits earned by retiring workers is going up and the trust fund “surplus” is nothing but a big IOU in which Uncle Sam has no money to honor? Don’t hold your breath.

Baca then asked Angle, “Why do you want to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency when we’re in our worst environmental disaster in this country?” Angle replied that the reporter ought to ask Reid why the EPA failed in the Gulf. She added that the campaign wasn’t about the EPA. It was about Harry Reid’s failure to represent Nevadans who have lost their jobs and their homes in an economy where people are hurting and government has prospered.

Baca’s “news” report that night on Channel 8 began by complaining that Angle had been unavailable to the local media since the election (she had been in Washington, D.C.), failed to answer questions he posed to her (even though he showed tape of her answering those questions) and walked away from him before she admitted Reid’s charges.

The “anchors” at Channel 8 agreed that Sharron Angle had ducked the interview, and quoted a “campaign spokesman” as calling Baca an “idiot.” The Angle campaign called in later to complain that if Baca was called an “idiot,” it was not by the campaign.

All in all, the bought-and-paid-for Channel 8 Reid attack machine didn’t lay a glove on Angle and the “news” report should confirm for Nevada voters why this entrenched incumbent should be defeated in November.

Even if you buy the curious notion that the government borrow-and-spend “stimulus” is reigniting prosperity, Harry Reid is still a failure.

For example, if you divide 300 million Americans into the $787 billion “stimulus,” it represents more than $2,600 per man, woman and child in the country. Nevada has received for all its “stimulus” projects a little more than $733 per Nevada resident. With the Nevada unemployment rate now the highest of any state in the country, Nevadans can be forgiven for questioning whether the all-powerful Senate majority leader is representing Nevada.

Sharron Angle has a different idea about how to reignite prosperity – get the government out of the way and allow individuals to pursue their dreams and ambitions. A ruling elite that openly proclaims (as Bill Clinton did in the ’90s) that government knows better how to spend the money you earn than you do is an enemy of freedom and prosperity.

Obama and Reid, advocating runaway federal deficit spending, now seem to believe that they know better how to spend money not yet earned by Americans not yet born.

A proven tax-hike fighter during her four terms in the Nevada Legislature, a teacher and elected member of her local school board, a small-business manager and a mother and grandmother, Sharron Angle is a “mama grizzly” threat to the failed status quo in Nevada represented by Harry Reid.

Just as all the slander against Nikki Haley in South Carolina is convincing voters there that Haley might just be the tough outsider they want to fight the arrogance and ignorance of Washington’s elites, in Nevada, all the labor money and all the phony “news” reports slandering Angle will not put Humpty Dumpty Reid back together again. Go Sharron.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.