When The Past Matters

As a general rule, the 30-year-old indiscretions of political candidates have little or no bearing on their likely performance in their sought-after office, and should be off limits for campaigns. Name the race, and the vast majority of voters will care a great deal more about what the candidate is likely to do over the next 2/4/6 years than about what he or she did 30 years ago.

Bill Clinton spent the early 70s dodging the draft; Bush pulled strings to get into the National Guard; Kerry fought in Viet Nam. But what these individuals did 30 years ago tells you nothing about what they've done recently or are likely to do in the near future.

There were plenty of reasons to dislike Clinton (his boorish behavior, tax hike, attempted takeover of healthcare, and general neglect of our intelligence services and military) but he got a few things right as well (free trade, welfare reform, a balanced federal budget). Bush has made his own mistakes (steel tariffs, giveaways to rich agribusiness) and controversial decisions (the prescription drug bill, Iraq) and Kerry's general direction would almost certainly be, no shock here, toward bigger government, higher taxes, lower defense spending and more reliance on the U.N.

The late 60s and early 70s were a confused and difficult time for the young; what happened then should neither disqualify anyone from office nor propel them into it. In short, the past should be left alone; except that it can't be when one candidate keeps bringing it up. And that's why John Kerry can't escape his.

The DNC attacked Dubya mercilessly on the National Guard "AWOL" non-issue; Bush put the matter to rest by releasing all of his records. But Bush wasn't the one who raised the issue in the first place. On the other hand, Kerry rarely finishes a paragraph without reminding his audience that he fought in Viet Nam. Combining these two factors, Kerry shouldn't be surprised that his history is being investigated, and his reaction to any questioning of his past as being a "partisan attack" is ridiculous.

There are basically three kinds of adults: those who have never done stupid things; those who spent their whole lives doing stupid things; and those who did stupid things when they were young, then matured and moved on. There are precious few of the first kind of people. Bill Clinton is a prime example of the second category, and George W. Bush a good example of the third type. John Kerry, amazingly, has been all three, depending upon the day and the interviewer.

What do we know about Kerry's past? That he fought in Viet Nam where he earned (or perhaps didn't really "earn") three Purple Hearts. Then he returned to the U.S. where he testified before Congress regarding atrocities in Viet Nam that he either participated in, witnessed, or merely heard about, depending on the day and the interview. Then he threw his ribbons and medals over the wall in protest; or just his ribbons; or his ribbons and someone elses' medals; or someones elses' ribbons, or whatever, which was either a principled protest against an unjust war or a regrettable mistake. He's either ashamed of his service in that war and has "disavowed" the ribbons and medals he received or he's proud of it and we should honor his service. His "band of brothers" were either brutal killers and torturers or badly mistreated heroes. He hung out with Jane Fonda and agreed with her or he didn't. He either told the truth in his 1971 Congressional testimony (in which case Kerry, and a whole lot of other Viet Nam vets, should be tried as war criminals) or he grossly exaggerated the charges to make a larger political point (i.e. he lied).

Kerry could have put all of this behind him from the start simply by saying that he fought for our country; returned to a confusing and difficult time; made some well-intentioned mistakes; and now wants to focus on the future, not the past. Instead, his minions tried to make an issue of the Viet Nam hero vs. National Guard slacker scenario, and ended up raising lots of uncomfortable questions to which Kerry can't seem to give straight answers.

No, the past shouldn't matter. But you when you relentlessly raise it, than can't answer for it and attack anyone who questions it, it does.
- posted by Tom Pick @ 1:34 PM

 
Kerry's "Job Creation Plan" (and Scott's True Leanings) Exposed

First off, to dismiss Scott's "independent" credentials once and for all: "I think that will come when we put Greens and Reforms in the Senate, not the White House. Those are the races and roles that can make coalition rule possible...Maybe his (Dick Cheney's) being a hard right voting loyalist and a loyal lieutennant of the GOP executives since Ford (Ford was a right-winger? That's news to conservatives!) is why Cheney pushed my button originally but that was me just disliking one of the guys across the aisle from my guys on my issues."

Anyone who actually believes it would be a good thing for Greens to win ANY seat of power ANYWHERE, calls Cheney a "hard right loyalist" and talks about him being across the aisle from "my guys" is no independent -- Scott, admit it, you are to the left of Steve. Move to Cuba and tell us how you like it.

As for Steve's comment that we'll have to change the name of the blog since he's not supporting Nader this time `round, no worries -- I'll send Nader a check on your behalf. The more votes he peels off from the wacko Bush-hating left, the better.

Now, for my real topic: Kerry's Plan to Create 10 Million Jobs. Actually, it's not as bad as I thought, although it is suitably wonkish and ineffectual. A few of the features actually make some sense, like the one-time tax holiday for reinvestment of foreign profits. He even manages to get a few facts right, such as the fact that "Foreign taxes are one-third lower than U.S. taxes." However, he fails to take the obvious lesson from that.

His miniscule cut in the corporate tax rate and small tax decrease for small businesses (coupled with greater -- not less -- complexity in the tax code) will mainly produce more jobs only for tax accountants. And his criticisms of Bush's tax policy range from misleading to just plain wrong.

But hey, I'm hear to help John Kerry (or, hopefully, President Bush after his re-election) by providing a plan that really will create new jobs -- if anyone is bold enough to push them.

U.S. manufacturers are hamstrung by six factors at least largely beyond their control. Fix these and job growth across the economy will boom. They are: taxation, litigation, regulation, education, and the high costs of energy and healthcare.

Taxation: be really bold. Kerry's wimpish 5% cut in the corporate tax rate will accomplish virtually nothing. Our corporate tax rate stands at 35%; Ireland's is 12.5%, and many developed nations are even lower. You want the U.S. to compete? Slash the corporate tax rate to 15% (or better yet, to 10%, but even 15% would be a great improvement). This can be largely paid for by eliminating ALL corporate welfare, such as export subsidies for large corporations, and farm price supports for wealthy agribusiness entities.

Litigation: This one's a twofer -- litigation reform would not only reduce product costs, it would also reduce the ever-higher healthcare costs borne by business (through reform of our current, disastrous medical malpractice system). Under our current system, trial lawyers get rich while real victims often get very little, and corporations and their insurers are forced to spend huge sums in legal fees even when they prevail against junk lawsuits. Let's have caps on punitive judgements and contingency fees along with "loser pays" rules. Of course, Kerry and his buddies have blocked these types of sensible reforms over and over, so beholden are they to the trial lawyer interests.

Regulation: Obviously, not all regulation is bad -- but much of it is. Let the next president direct a top-to-bottom review of all regulation affecting American businesses, with an eye toward elimination of the silliest and most ineffective regulation and an overall simplification of the regulatory environment.

Education: Although you wouldn't know it from reading the papers, there are actually manufacturing job openings in the U.S. going unfilled because companies can't find job applicants with needed skills; these are high-paying, skilled jobs. A three-pronged approach to this problem would include generous funding for Pell grants (something even Steve has got to like!); a proper approach to retraining for the unemployed (NOT wasteful and ineffective government-run programs, but rather grants and loans to help job seekers get retraining from a local college or vocational institution); and true school choice -- none of this if-your-local-public-school-fails-for-three-years-running-you-can-opt-for-a-different-public-school crap, but tax credits (preferred) or vouchers (acceptable) that parents can use for ANY school -- public, private, charter, religious, non-religious, whatever. Parents should get to decide where their kids go to school, not the government, and this freedom of choice shouldn't be reserved for those in the middle- and upper-class.

Healthcare costs: level the playing field with regard to tax deductability of insurance and medical costs, so that the responsibility of paying for medical care can be shifted from employers to individuals, and expand the use of HSAs. Costs for employers would become more stable and predictable, while costs would be driven down by consumerism. Of course, costs will stabilize in this field only with the enactment of medical malpractice reform (see above) which will keep doctors in the field, and the repeal of any group's ability to artificially restrict the number of new doctors getting educated and entering practice (i.e. anyone with the interest and ability should be able to become a doctor, not denied entrance to medical school on the basis on some artificial "quota" designed to prop up the incomes of the medical profession).

Energy: In the long run, yes we will need to develop alternative fuels, but in the short run, the biggest thing we can do is to continue the efforts of the current administration to stabilize the Middle East and spread democracy there. Oh, and drill in ANWR -- there is NO good reason for the Senate Democrats to continue stonewalling on letting our producers drill for the oil on that God-forsaken stretch of tundra. We can also unshackle the nuclear industry in this country, adding abundant cheap (and clean) energy to the mix, instead of building more plants to produce electricity using high-cost natural gas.

Taken together, these steps would go a long way toward improving U.S. competitiveness and expanding job growth in our economy. Of course, outsourcing would still occur to some extent, and that's NOT a bad thing (but it is a subject for another time). If only we had a candidate with the guts to push for this. I don't think of any of the current field will, but Bush would still be a far better bet than Kerry to at least accomplish part of this agenda.
- posted by Tom Pick @ 10:05 AM