THE FOUNDATION
"There
is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily."
--George Washington
As Wednesday night's final presidential debate so aptly
displayed, John F. Kerry's populist rhetoric has reached nearly hysterical proportions.
"In the past four years, in nearly every decision that he's made, President George
W. Bush has chosen the powerful and the well-connected over middle-class Americans,"
Kerry said recently. "The only people George Bush's policies are working for are
the people that he's chosen to help. They're working for drug companies. They're
working for HMOs. And they're certainly working for the big oil companies."
"The
powerful and well-connected"? This from the man who has twice married multimillionaire
heiresses; a man who has multiple mansions on multiple continents; a man who windsurfs
(poorly) off tony Nantucket; a man who rides a bicycle that costs more than some
new cars; a man who doesn't blink at spending, oh, maybe $15,000 to jet his hairdresser
cross-country for a trim.
But we digress. Where it comes to John Kerry's
economic vision for America, The Patriot believes it's time we called a spade
a spade. When Kerry spouts this "wealthy-versus-the-middle-class" rhetoric, he's
flying a Marxist flag, and many Americans seem to be none the wiser. Are we serious,
you ask? Marxism?
[For more on Kerry's collusion with Europe's most dated
thinker, read "John Kerry, Useful Idiot..." -- http://federalistpatriot.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=275]
Stop
for a moment to consider the language he uses (for all his faults, Kerry is no
intellectual slouch). In Kerry's view, politics should be interpreted as a conflict
between the antithetical interests of the wealthy and the ordinary American. To
Kerry, a tax-break for a successful businessman amounts to an attack on a working
American. Policies good for big business (as Bush's are) must, by definition,
be bad for labor. Kerry is singing the Democrats' same old class-warfare song,
designed to divide the country (and the electorate) in their favor. But does he
really believe that business owners are diametrically opposed to the workers who
make their businesses possible, and that workers are equally opposed to those
who provide jobs to support their families?
He must, for this is the divisive
picture he paints over and over: 'Bush favors the wealthy, while I'll fight for
average Americans.' But if Kerry's premise is correct, then the only solution
is to dismantle our economic system in favor of something as time-tested and successful
as, say, Soviet socialism. A capitalist system depends fundamentally on the premise
that free economic exchange benefits everyone, whether rich or poor. The problem,
of course, is that this would mean that Bush's tax cuts really do make sense.
This perspective culminates in the Kerry-Edwards argument that Bush's "tax
cuts for the wealthy" have produced a medical coverage nightmare for the middle
class. Despite the sheer hilarity of this diagnosis, our concern is their proposed
solution. They propose raising taxes on the rich and giving the proceeds to the
middle class in the form of "better" health coverage. Incredibly, they don't even
try to hide the connection. Kerry shamelessly asks for people's votes in return
for his promise to take money from one group and give it to another. To quote
one adroit observer, "That isn't waffling -- that's pandering!"
Consider
countries that have implemented such policies in the past. Economic stalwarts
like North Korea and the Soviet Union certainly ring a bell. Is the erstwhile
Evil Empire now our role model? This is where domestic policy meets foreign policy.
To be sure, Kerry's fraternizing with the North Vietnamese in 1970-71 is not unrelated
to his present collectivist economic views. John Kerry betrayed his country then
because he believed socialism offered a better way of life. Given his current
rhetoric, it seems not much has changed in 33 years.
President George W.
Bush, on the other hand, has consistently pursued a sounder economic policy, even
if his articulation is often lacking. Here, he has steadily made his case on two
fronts: first, by emphasizing the need for greater productivity as the heart of
economic development; and second, by arguing that tax cuts are the best way to
encourage productivity. History shows that the best thing the government can do
with respect to economic policy is let the people keep their money, and then get
out of the way. As the President said Wednesday night, "I believe the role of
government is to stand side by side with our citizens to help them realize their
dreams, not tell citizens how to live their lives."
Unfortunately, the President's
rhetoric sometimes has the unfortunate effect of masking much good in his economic
policy; indeed, it often disguises -- and even undermines -- the very strength
of this policy. To be fair, the limitations of the various media and debate formats
-- 60-second debate responses and 15-second sound bites -- don't allow thorough
explanations. In addition, at this late date in the campaign, both candidates
are appealing to swing voters and moderating their explication in general.
Still,
The Patriot believes the President must more thoroughly elucidate the effectiveness
of his economic policy.
The bottom line is that when Kerry attacks Bush
with his class-warfare rhetoric, Bush must attack the folly of Kerry's position
at its foundation. 'Of course the rich benefit from my tax breaks, as do all taxpayers!
Beyond that, it only makes sense that a fair tax cut returns the most to the people
who pay the most. If we want more jobs in America, we should let the people who
create jobs keep their own money!' In the final days of this campaign, The Patriot
encourages the Bush campaign to speak the truth boldly to the American people,
for we believe that the majority of Americans -- even those curiously undecided
voters, bless their hearts -- still prefer economic freedom. Big corporations
are not evil. Wealthy people are not evil, nor are pharmaceutical companies, insurance
providers, or -- the greatest "menace" of all -- multinational "outsourcers."
Big corporations and big investors are in fact America's job and wealth creators.
They're the ones among us who encourage productivity. It's Kerry's vision of BIG
GOVERNMENT that presents the greatest threat to our national prosperity and liberty.
To
wit, when Kerry lectured, "Every plan that I have laid out -- my healthcare plan,
my plan for education, my plan for kids to be able to get better college loans
-- I've shown exactly how I'm going to pay for those," the President replied in
fine style: "I want to remind people listening tonight that a plan is not a litany
of complaints, and a plan is not to lay out programs that you can't pay for. ...
It's an empty promise. It's called bait-and-switch."
President Bush continued,
"It's your money. The way my opponent talks, he said, 'We're going to spend the
government's money.' No, we're spending your money. And when you have more money
in your pocket, you're able to better afford things you want. ... My opponent
talks about fiscal sanity. His record in the United States Senate does not match
his rhetoric. He voted to increase taxes 98 times and to bust the budget 277 times."
Well said, Mr. President, well said.
The fine moments notwithstanding, in
the final days of such a campaign, rhetoric tends to hide many policy differences
espoused by the candidates and their parties. We the people must not be lulled
into thinking the differences between the parties no longer exist, that they're
all in fact Republicrats. In truth, the policy differences are real and important,
and underlying the candidates' economic policies -- as with their foreign policies
-- is a deep ideological gulf that no bipartisan bridge can span.
In the
end, actions can say so much more than words. According to Club for Growth President
Stephen Moore, Kerry failed to make public all his tax records from last year,
but according to those released, his household income was "$5.5 million last year
and [he] paid $704,000 in income taxes. That means their effective tax rate was
a whopping 12.8%," Moore wrote. That's right -- Mr. Roll-back-the-Bush-tax-cuts-for-the-rich
(himself) is paying less in taxes than most middle class families. George and
Laura Bush, on the other hand, paid roughly 30% on one-tenth the income that the
Kerry's brought in. Presumably, this was all legal on Kerrys' part, but this is
the guy complaining about "Bush's debt" and "tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans,"
too.
If this is any indication of Kerry's real perspective on the surly
IRS and inequitable tax code, perhaps he should be voting four more years for
W., too...rhetoric aside.
Quote of the week... "[H]is rhetoric doesn't match
his record." --President George W. Bush
Mark Alexander is
Executive Editor and Publisher of The
Federalist Patriot
Get
a Free Subscription
* * *
