I’ve been surprisingly ambivalent about the upcoming presidential election. It’s been hard to get excited about either candidate, but the third and final debate really highlighted the stark differences between George Bush and John Kerry.
What follows are nothing more than a few basic questions I have regarding the major issues as I see them and how each candidate approaches them. How others answer the questions will depend on how they view the issues.
First off, let’s get Iraq out of the way. We can argue whether we should be there or not. But the fact is, we’re there and we had better win or we’ll be in a world of hurt.
So who has the better plan? Both say they’ll stay the course. John Kerry says he’ll bring more nations on board. The question is, can he? France, Germany and Russia are adamant about staying out, as is Canada. Japan hasn’t had a military adventure since WWII. That pretty much eliminates the major western powers.
Like it or not, it looks like we’ll have to win this on our own. That means sticking it out when things get tough. One candidate believes in what we’re doing, one doesn’t. Who do I believe is most likely to see it through? Advantage Bush.
Regarding the budget deficit, neither candidate is talking about the impact their proposals will have on it. But the nonpartisan Concord Coalition is. This budget watchdog group has found that both will widen the deficit by about $1.3 trillion over the next ten years.
The difference lies in how they arrive at those numbers. Nearly all of President Bush’s deficit is due to tax cuts already enacted. A mere $82 billion arises from new spending. On the other hand, more than sixty percent, around $771 billion, of Senator Kerry’s deficit is due to increased government spending. That means a government that is 33% bigger than it is today. Or closer to home, one that will cost the average family of four about an extra $10,000 to support.
So basically it comes down to whether I prefer smaller or larger government. If there is going to be a deficit, would I prefer it’s because the government is taking less in taxes or because it is spending more on programs? Advantage Bush.
On the economy, GDP is up 4.8 percent in the last year. Unemployment is down, inflation is tame despite rising oil prices, while investment in technology and capital goods, imports and exports are all showing double digit gains.
George Bush inherited an economy that looked eerily similar to the one Herbert Hoover inherited in 1929 – an overheated economy that doubled in the prior decade and an irrational stock market that had quadrupled during that time. But whereas Hoover’s response to a crashing stock market and slowing economy threw us into the Great Depression, with 25 percent unemployment, under Bush we experienced the mildest recession on record (some economists even question whether we’ve had a recession).
What did Hoover do differently that led to the Great Depression? Unlike Bush, who cut taxes, Hoover raised taxes to offset declining government revenues and maintain surpluses, while enacting protectionist measures to save American jobs from overseas competition. What has John Kerry proposed? Higher taxes to offset declining government revenues and protectionist measures to save American jobs from overseas competition. They say those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Fortunately, the man currently in the White House learned from history. Apparently his opponent hasn’t. Advantage Bush.
On healthcare, both candidates admit that costs are soaring. Neither importing drugs from Canada nor limiting lawsuits address the fundamental problem, namely that we are getting older and refuse to accept anything less than Cadillac care. John Kerry’s approach includes a number of new spending initiatives to cover more people. George Bush wants to involve the patient in purchasing decisions through health savings accounts in the hope that increased awareness of the true cost will force prices down. Furthermore, he wants to make it easier for small businesses and individuals to form groups so they can enjoy the risk-sharing that large corporations do.
Bottom line is that we already spend forty-two percent more per person on healthcare than any other nation. Spending even more is not the answer. If anything, it merely adds fuel to the fire since the simple law of supply and demand states that as more dollars are made available, prices goes up.
Therefore, the question becomes what is the better course of action – spending more or lowering costs? No doubt, it’s lowering costs. Whose policies are more likely to achieve that end? Advantage Bush.
On social security, Kerry has suggested a wait-and-see approach, while the president prefers acting now by giving workers control over a portion of their contributions. Here, it’s a matter of whether I trust government or myself with my future and whether I think we can afford to wait. With the first of the baby-boomers turning sixty next year, waiting is not an option. Advantage Bush.
On education, Kerry says we’re not spending enough, Bush says we’re not expecting enough. So, do I believe higher spending or higher expectations will get more immediate results? I’ve seen time and again the power of expectations. People consistently rise to meet them. Advantage Bush.
In the end, the differences are pretty clear. In Iraq, it’s a question of who’s most likely to see it through. At home, it’s a choice between big or small government, more spending or lower taxes. John Kerry has made some very tantalizing promises. It’s easy to look at them on the surface and say, boy that sure sounds good. But as with everything, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. It’s like the difference between parents and grandparents – grandparents promise you what you want, parents give you what you need.
So which is more important – being promised what we want, or getting what we need? Advantage Bush.
No comments:
Post a Comment