A brilliant commentary by Thomas Oliphant!
Economic focus helps Kerry
The Boston Globe - By Thomas Oliphant, August 31, 2003
The Presidential campaign that John Kerry is "formally" launching this week in South Carolina is built on biography and resume -- political sand castles that usually disappear with the next tide. It is a campaign, off its performance for most of this weird year, that is capable of heading straight into a ditch. But the campaign that Kerry displayed last week is built on an economic message that is just as capable of heading in the opposite direction, toward the Democratic nomination. Biography and resume, by definition, are about him. An economic message is about us.
In a chat with journalists before Kerry's presentation in Durham, N.H., last week, a senior Kerry adviser well versed in the ways of Washington and Wall Street expressed amazement at how easily Democrats have forgotten the core lessons of Bill Clinton's presidency, when getting economic fundamentals right supported and stimulated prosperity. The core of government policy, he said, must focus on the most powerful engine of growth -- America's middle-class -- for reasons that include simple fairness and politics as well as sound economics.
In addition, discipline must be maintained over the huge federal budget, and trade policy must be "progressive" to foster American exports, meaning no rollbacks of existing international agreements and a willingness to pursue new ones. That is the essence of Kerry's approach, which stands not only as a solid means of reversing an astonishingly poor record by the Bush administration but as a forceful rebuke of two competitors -- Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt -- who have let their fixation on a single issue (universal health insurance) cloud their judgment about the income tax burden on ordinary Americans.
It sounds tough, and it appeals to the anti-Bush in most Democrats these days, to call for the repeal of all of the tax cuts. However, that means far more than the unconscionable slashes in the top rate paid by the most wealthy, the cut in taxes on stock dividends, and the lowered capital gains rate.
It also means the recent increases in the child tax credit, the new bottom rate of 10 percent, the much broader 15 percent bracket, and the easing of the so-called marriage penalty. This is where working America lives in tax terms and the impact of complete repeal would be enormous, both on families with a tough enough struggle to make ends meet and on a fragile economy that needs more, not less, consumer spending.
This portion of Kerry's speech deserves repeating: "We shouldn't make it harder for middle-class families to make ends meet and we shouldn't turn our backs on making the 21st century work for all of us. But some in my party are so angry at George Bush and his unfair tax cuts that they think the solution is to do the exact opposite."
Anger, the source of Dean's surge, is a poor substitute for sound policy. His proposal would raise the income tax burden on middle-income households by as much as $2,000 a year, putting a ridiculously brutal squeeze on families, the elderly included, that are being pinched by hard times and the rising cost of essentials as never before.
Kerry's proposal shows how concentrating on the top-rate tax cuts and other high-income areas yields more than enough money to stimulate the economy in the short-term, but also to slash the deficit over time so massive federal borrowing doesn't choke off recovery.
The key, as Clinton showed, is carefully targeted stimuli and new discipline on overall government spending. Kerry emphasizes a tax credit for new hires by manufacturing firms, serious aid to state and local governments whose budget crises are a serious drag on the economy, and assistance to families in financing higher education. At the same time, he recommends the return of strict, pay-as-you go, budget rules for new initiatives.
There are signs that Dean's campaign recognizes its exposed position on taxes. Already, he has begun to speak vaguely of supporting tax reform that would ease the burden on workers with modest incomes.
The situation is reminiscent of Bill Bradley's initial success against Al Gore four years ago. In retooling his campaign, Gore fastened on a hole in Bradley's version of universal health insurance that provided no money for Medicare and ended Medicaid without a replacement of equal value. Gore isolated Bradley as an upscale elitist and hammered him relentlessly.
One speech will not be enough for Kerry -- or for John Edwards and Joe Lieberman, who have similar views. The key question is which candidate will fasten upon a middle-class economic message, almost to the exclusion of everything else, and make the contrast with Dean a question of values.
I suspect most people believe Kerry is as qualified to be president as anyone has ever been. They want to know whether he can make a difference in their difficult lives.
My answer to your question, Thomas. I believe John Kerry can make a difference in my difficult life!
Economic focus helps Kerry
The Boston Globe - By Thomas Oliphant, August 31, 2003
The Presidential campaign that John Kerry is "formally" launching this week in South Carolina is built on biography and resume -- political sand castles that usually disappear with the next tide. It is a campaign, off its performance for most of this weird year, that is capable of heading straight into a ditch. But the campaign that Kerry displayed last week is built on an economic message that is just as capable of heading in the opposite direction, toward the Democratic nomination. Biography and resume, by definition, are about him. An economic message is about us.
In a chat with journalists before Kerry's presentation in Durham, N.H., last week, a senior Kerry adviser well versed in the ways of Washington and Wall Street expressed amazement at how easily Democrats have forgotten the core lessons of Bill Clinton's presidency, when getting economic fundamentals right supported and stimulated prosperity. The core of government policy, he said, must focus on the most powerful engine of growth -- America's middle-class -- for reasons that include simple fairness and politics as well as sound economics.
In addition, discipline must be maintained over the huge federal budget, and trade policy must be "progressive" to foster American exports, meaning no rollbacks of existing international agreements and a willingness to pursue new ones. That is the essence of Kerry's approach, which stands not only as a solid means of reversing an astonishingly poor record by the Bush administration but as a forceful rebuke of two competitors -- Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt -- who have let their fixation on a single issue (universal health insurance) cloud their judgment about the income tax burden on ordinary Americans.
It sounds tough, and it appeals to the anti-Bush in most Democrats these days, to call for the repeal of all of the tax cuts. However, that means far more than the unconscionable slashes in the top rate paid by the most wealthy, the cut in taxes on stock dividends, and the lowered capital gains rate.
It also means the recent increases in the child tax credit, the new bottom rate of 10 percent, the much broader 15 percent bracket, and the easing of the so-called marriage penalty. This is where working America lives in tax terms and the impact of complete repeal would be enormous, both on families with a tough enough struggle to make ends meet and on a fragile economy that needs more, not less, consumer spending.
This portion of Kerry's speech deserves repeating: "We shouldn't make it harder for middle-class families to make ends meet and we shouldn't turn our backs on making the 21st century work for all of us. But some in my party are so angry at George Bush and his unfair tax cuts that they think the solution is to do the exact opposite."
Anger, the source of Dean's surge, is a poor substitute for sound policy. His proposal would raise the income tax burden on middle-income households by as much as $2,000 a year, putting a ridiculously brutal squeeze on families, the elderly included, that are being pinched by hard times and the rising cost of essentials as never before.
Kerry's proposal shows how concentrating on the top-rate tax cuts and other high-income areas yields more than enough money to stimulate the economy in the short-term, but also to slash the deficit over time so massive federal borrowing doesn't choke off recovery.
The key, as Clinton showed, is carefully targeted stimuli and new discipline on overall government spending. Kerry emphasizes a tax credit for new hires by manufacturing firms, serious aid to state and local governments whose budget crises are a serious drag on the economy, and assistance to families in financing higher education. At the same time, he recommends the return of strict, pay-as-you go, budget rules for new initiatives.
There are signs that Dean's campaign recognizes its exposed position on taxes. Already, he has begun to speak vaguely of supporting tax reform that would ease the burden on workers with modest incomes.
The situation is reminiscent of Bill Bradley's initial success against Al Gore four years ago. In retooling his campaign, Gore fastened on a hole in Bradley's version of universal health insurance that provided no money for Medicare and ended Medicaid without a replacement of equal value. Gore isolated Bradley as an upscale elitist and hammered him relentlessly.
One speech will not be enough for Kerry -- or for John Edwards and Joe Lieberman, who have similar views. The key question is which candidate will fasten upon a middle-class economic message, almost to the exclusion of everything else, and make the contrast with Dean a question of values.
I suspect most people believe Kerry is as qualified to be president as anyone has ever been. They want to know whether he can make a difference in their difficult lives.
My answer to your question, Thomas. I believe John Kerry can make a difference in my difficult life!
posted by Pamela J. Leavey at 12:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home