G.K. Chesterton once said “the pursuit of public office is like the pursuit of women–the position ridiculous, the expense damnable, and the pleasure fleeting.”
We’ve certainly seen proof of that in this year’s presidential election campaign.
What’s at Stake
The media have focused on the War in Iraq as the key issue in the presidential campaign, and the candidates themselves have encouraged voters to view the election as a referendum on that war. I’m sure many people will disagree, but I don’t think the U.S. posture in Iraq is at stake on November 2.
As Robert Novak said at Heartland’s twentieth anniversary benefit on September 23, both major party candidates for president are almost certain to take the U.S. out of Iraq by mid-2005. Bush won’t say this now because doing so would appear to be an admission that it was wrong to go into Iraq in the first place. Kerry won’t say it because doing so would make him appear to be weak. But, Novak said, both want us out of Iraq.
So what is really at stake on November 2? Five key areas of domestic policy: taxes, budget deficits, health care, education, and environment.
Tax Cuts
When Bush took office in January 2001, he inherited from Bill Clinton an economy on the verge of recession. The 9/11 terrorist attacks could have sent the economy into a tailspin, and rising petroleum prices could have kept it there. But that is not what happened.
Since the end of 2001, between one million and 4.5 million new jobs have been created. According to economist Robert Genetski, “by most measures U.S. economic performance during the Bush presidency has exceeded that of any large developed economy.” The reason for the against-the-odds recovery: tax cuts.
“Economics is not rocket science,” says Genetski. “When you tax something you get less of it. Increasing tax rates on the creation of additional income and wealth means less will be created. Reducing those tax rates means the creation of more income and wealth.” Kerry, says Genetski, “never learned this simple lesson. He has a history of supporting higher tax rates and fighting tax cuts.”
Bush wants to make the tax cuts permanent and pass further tax cuts every year. Kerry wants to repeal some of the tax cuts and would not support making all of the cuts permanent. He derides the Bush tax cuts as favoring the rich and causing record deficits.
On taxes, Kerry is a big loser.
Budget Deficits
Bush entered office at a time of budget surpluses, yet he now presides over the largest budget deficit in the nation’s history. He has yet to veto a single spending appropriation. He has allowed discretionary domestic spending to rise at a faster rate than it has under any president since Lyndon Johnson.
This has occurred at a time when Republicans control both houses of Congress, though admittedly the margin in the Senate has given the Democratic minority, led by Ted Kennedy, significant leverage over budget proceedings.
Would Kerry be even worse? He has promised trillions of dollars in new spending. The revenue from repealing some of the Bush tax cuts and allowing other cuts to expire would not come close to covering Kerry’s spending plans. The budget deficit would explode, right?
More likely, Republicans in Congress would prevent many of the Kerry spending hikes from becoming reality, just as they kept Bill Clinton from raising spending. Experience suggests a Democratic president held in check by a Republican Congress is more likely to lead to balanced budgets than Republicans in control of all three branches of government.
On deficits, then, Bush is the loser.
Health Care
Bush pushed through the transformation of Medical Savings Accounts–a Clinton-era pilot program loaded with restrictions that made it unattractive to insurers and employers–into Health Savings Accounts–a vastly improved program embraced by businesses and consumers across the country. This is a tremendously positive reform because it gets at the root of health care inflation in the U.S.: over-reliance on third-party insurance.
The HSA program was part of the Medicare Modernization Act, which will give seniors a prescription drug benefit starting in 2006. Conservatives and libertarians decry that benefit as the largest expansion of a domestic entitlement in history; liberals say it isn’t generous enough and gives private benefit managers too large a role. There is no denying the plan will relieve employers of much of their retiree prescription drug burden.
Kerry supports a health care plan disturbingly similar to that put forward by Hillary Rodham Clinton and rightly rejected by Congress … and anyone who has tried to read the plan. Kerry supports employer mandates, expanding Medicare, and significantly increasing federal funding. None of this has worked in the past or is likely to work in the future. Kerry is almost certain to support legislation proposed by Ted Kennedy to cripple HSAs and make the prescription drug benefit even more expensive and bureaucratic.
On health care, Kerry is a loser.
Education Reform
Bush championed the No Child Left Behind Act, which requires public schools that accept federal anti-poverty funds to more regularly test their students, report results to parents, and give parents options–to send their children to a different public school or to hire a tutor–if the school fails to make acceptable progress toward state-determined norms.
Conservatives and libertarians tend to dismiss NCLB as doing too little to advance the cause of parental choice and costing too much. Liberals criticize it for doing too much to advance school choice and not increasing federal spending enough. NCLB is adamantly opposed by teacher unions–usually a sure sign of a good program.
I think NCLB did as much as was politically possible at the time to advance the cause of school choice. We do not, after all, want a federal voucher program or national curriculum, and Congress would not go along with abolishing the Department of Education. NCLB alerted millions of parents to the fact that their local public schools are failing and that choice–even if only the choice of a different public school or tutor–is part of the solution.
Kerry–who was overwhelmingly endorsed by the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers–would gut NCLB of its only valuable parts while lobbying for increased federal spending.
On education, Kerry loses again.
Protecting the Environment
Bush has been relatively steadfast against new regulations that fail to pass cost-benefit tests or that rely on junk science. He inherited several terrible policies cynically pushed through without Congressional approval in the final days of the Clinton administration. With some success, Bush has been working to repeal those measures or at least limit the damage they can do. Bush is okay on mercury, climate change, oil exploration, and storage of nuclear waste.
Kerry is bad on every environmental topic: anti-business first, and worried about cost-effectiveness and real science second or not at all. Under a Kerry administration, businesses can expect to pay more for energy, suffer tighter regulations on chemical and waste management, and face lawsuits from government agencies for failure to comply with vague and changing standards.
Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is a certified environmental extremist. Her philanthropy supports, directly or indirectly, some of the most anti-science and anti-free-market environmental groups in the country, including groups with ties to eco-terrorist animal rights groups. She’s a scary person to have trading pillow talk with the president of the country.
On environmental issues, Kerry once again loses.
Conclusion: Bush?
Contrary to all the ads and talk about foreign policy, what is really at stake on November 2 is the direction of domestic policy. On four of five issues, Kerry loses my vote. On one–budget deficits–Bush loses my vote.
So will I vote for Bush? Probably not. I’ll do what I always do–cast a protest vote for the Libertarian Party candidate. This year it’s Michael Badnarik, a solid guy.
Don’t blame me if Bush loses. I live and vote in Illinois, a state the Bush campaign has already conceded to Kerry, so a vote for Bush would be wasted anyway. A vote for Badnarik, though, might get the attention of both major political parties.
