|
The Economist Endorses Kerry
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: |
America's next president
The incompetent or the incoherent?
Oct 28th 2004
From The Economist print edition
With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for John Kerry on November 2nd
YOU might have thought that, three years after a devastating terrorist attack on American soil, a period which has featured two wars, radical political and economic legislation, and an adjustment to one of the biggest stockmarket crashes in history, the campaign for the presidency would be an especially elevated and notable affair. If so, you would be wrong. This year's battle has been between two deeply flawed men: George Bush, who has been a radical, transforming president but who has never seemed truly up to the job, let alone his own ambitions for it; and John Kerry, who often seems to have made up his mind conclusively about something only once, and that was 30 years ago. But on November 2nd, Americans must make their choice, as must The Economist. It is far from an easy call, especially against the backdrop of a turbulent, dangerous world. But, on balance, our instinct is towards change rather than continuity: Mr Kerry, not Mr Bush.
Whenever we express a view of that sort, some readers are bound to protest that we, as a publication based in London, should not be poking our noses in other people's politics. Translated, this invariably means that protesters disagree with our choice. It may also, however, reflect a lack of awareness about our readership. The Economist's weekly sales in the United States are about 450,000 copies, which is three times our British sale and roughly 45% of our worldwide total. All those American readers will now be pondering how to vote, or indeed whether to. Thus, as at every presidential election since 1980, we hope it may be useful for us to say how we would think about our vote—if we had one.
The case against George Bush
That decision cannot be separated from the terrible memory of September 11th, nor can it fail to begin as an evaluation of the way in which Mr Bush and his administration responded to that day. For Mr Bush's record during the past three years has been both inspiring and disturbing.
Mr Bush was inspiring in the way he reacted to the new world in which he, and America, found itself. He grasped the magnitude of the challenge well. His military response in Afghanistan was not the sort of poorly directed lashing out that Bill Clinton had used in 1998 after al-Qaeda destroyed two American embassies in east Africa: it was a resolute, measured effort, which was reassuringly sober about the likely length of the campaign against Osama bin Laden and the elusiveness of anything worth the name of victory. Mistakes were made, notably when at Tora Bora Mr bin Laden and other leaders probably escaped, and when following the war both America and its allies devoted insufficient military and financial resources to helping Afghanistan rebuild itself. But overall, the mission has achieved a lot: the Taliban were removed, al-Qaeda lost its training camps and its base, and Afghanistan has just held elections that bring cautious hope for the central government's future ability to bring stability and prosperity.
The biggest mistake, though, was one that will haunt America for years to come. It lay in dealing with prisoners-of-war by sending hundreds of them to the American base at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, putting them in a legal limbo, outside the Geneva conventions and outside America's own legal system. That act reflected a genuinely difficult problem: that of having captured people of unknown status but many of whom probably did want to kill Americans, at a time when to set them free would have been politically controversial, to say the least. That difficulty cannot neutralise the damage caused by this decision, however. Today, Guantánamo Bay offers constant evidence of America's hypocrisy, evidence that is disturbing for those who sympathise with it, cause-affirming for those who hate it. This administration, which claims to be fighting for justice, the rule of law and liberty, is incarcerating hundreds of people, whether innocent or guilty, without trial or access to legal representation. The White House's proposed remedy, namely military tribunals, merely compounds the problem.
When Mr Bush decided to frame his foreign policy in the sort of language and objectives previously associated with Woodrow Wilson, John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan, he was bound to be greeted with cynicism. Yet he was right to do so. To paraphrase a formula invented by his ally, Tony Blair, Mr Bush was promising to be “tough on terrorism, tough on the causes of terrorism”, and the latter he attributed to the lack of democracy, human rights and opportunity in much of the world, especially the Arab countries. To call for an effort to change that lamentable state of affairs was inspiring and surely correct. The credibility of the call was enhanced by this month's Afghan election, and may in future be enhanced by successful and free elections in Iraq. But that remains ahead, and meanwhile Mr Bush's credibility has been considerably undermined not just by Guantánamo but also by two big things: by the sheer incompetence and hubristic thinking evident in the way in which his team set about the rebuilding of Iraq, once Saddam Hussein's regime had been toppled; and by the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, which strengthened the suspicion that the mistreatment or even torture of prisoners was being condoned.
Invading Iraq was not a mistake. Although the intelligence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction has been shown to have been flimsy and, with hindsight, wrong, Saddam's record of deception in the 12 years since the first Gulf war meant that it was right not to give him the benefit of the doubt. The containment scheme deployed around him was unsustainable and politically damaging: military bases in holy Saudi Arabia, sanctions that impoverished and even killed Iraqis and would have collapsed. But changing the regime so incompetently was a huge mistake. By having far too few soldiers to provide security and by failing to pay Saddam's remnant army, a task that was always going to be long and hard has been made much, much harder. Such incompetence is no mere detail: thousands of Iraqis have died as a result and hundreds of American soldiers. The eventual success of the mission, while still possible, has been put in unnecessary jeopardy. So has America's reputation in the Islamic world, both for effectiveness and for moral probity.
If Mr Bush had meanwhile been making progress elsewhere in the Middle East, such mistakes might have been neutralised. But he hasn't. Israel and Palestine remain in their bitter conflict, with America readily accusable of bias. In Iran the conservatives have become stronger and the country has moved closer to making nuclear weapons. Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia have not turned hostile, but neither have they been terribly supportive nor reform-minded. Libya's renunciation of WMD is the sole clear piece of progress.
This only makes the longer-term project more important, not less. To succeed, however, America needs a president capable of admitting to mistakes and of learning from them. Mr Bush has steadfastly refused to admit to anything: even after Abu Ghraib, when he had a perfect opportunity to dismiss Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, and declare a new start, he chose not to. Instead, he treated the abuses as if they were a low-level, disciplinary issue. Can he learn from mistakes? The current approach in Iraq, of training Iraqi security forces and preparing for elections to establish an Iraqi government with popular support, certainly represents an improvement, although America still has too few troops. And no one knows, for example, whether Mr Rumsfeld will stay in his job, or go. In the end, one can do no more than guess about whether in a second term Mr Bush would prove more competent.
Making sense of John Kerry
That does at least place him on equal terms with his rival, Mr Kerry. With any challenger, voters have to make a leap of faith about what the new man might be like in office. What he says during the campaign is a poor guide: Mr Bush said in 2000 that America should be “a humble nation, but strong” and should eschew nation-building; Mr Clinton claimed in 1992 to want to confront “the butchers of Beijing” and to reflate the economy through public spending.
Like those two previous challengers, Mr Kerry has shaped many of his positions to contrast himself with the incumbent. That is par for the course. What is more disconcerting, however, is the way those positions have oscillated, even as the facts behind them have stayed the same. In the American system, given Congress's substantial role, presidents should primarily be chosen for their character, their qualities of leadership, for how they might be expected to deal with the crises that may confront them, abroad or at home. Oscillation, even during an election campaign, is a worrying sign.
If the test is a domestic one, especially an economic crisis, Mr Kerry looks acceptable, however. His record and instincts are as a fiscal conservative, suggesting that he would rightly see future federal budget deficits as a threat. His circle of advisers includes the admirable Robert Rubin, formerly Mr Clinton's treasury secretary. His only big spending plan, on health care, would probably be killed by a Republican Congress. On trade, his position is more debatable: while an avowed free trader with a voting record in the Senate to confirm it, he has flirted with attacks on outsourcing this year and chosen a rank protectionist as his running-mate. He has not yet shown Mr Clinton's talent for advocacy on this issue, or any willingness to confront his rather protectionist party. Still, on social policy, Mr Kerry has a clear advantage: unlike Mr Bush he is not in hock to the Christian right. That will make him a more tolerant, less divisive figure on issues such as abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research.
The biggest questions, though, must be about foreign policy, especially in the Middle East. That is where his oscillations are most unsettling. A war that he voted to authorise, and earlier this year claimed to support, he now describes as “a mistake”. On some occasions he claims to have been profoundly changed by September 11th and to be determined to seek out and destroy terrorists wherever they are hiding, and on others he has seemed to hark back to the old Clintonian view of terrorism as chiefly a question of law and order. He has failed to offer any set of overall objectives for American foreign policy, though perhaps he could hardly oppose Mr Bush's targets of democracy, human rights and liberty. But instead he has merely offered a different process: deeper thought, more consultation with allies.
So what is Mr Kerry's character? His voting record implies he is a vacillator, but that may be unfair, given the technical nature of many Senate votes. His oscillations this year imply that he is more of a ruthless opportunist. His military record suggests he can certainly be decisive when he has to be and his post-Vietnam campaign showed determination. His reputation for political comebacks and as a strong finisher in elections also indicates a degree of willpower that his flip-flopping otherwise belies.
The task ahead, and the man to fit it
In the end, the choice relies on a judgment about who will be better suited to meet the challenges America is likely to face during the next four years. Those challenges must include the probability of another big terrorist attack, in America or western Europe. They must include the need for a period of discipline in economic policy and for compromise on social policy, lest the nation become weak or divided in the face of danger. Above all, though, they include the need to make a success of the rebuilding of Iraq, as the key part of a broader effort to stabilise, modernise and, yes, democratise the Middle East.
Many readers, feeling that Mr Bush has the right vision in foreign policy even if he has made many mistakes, will conclude that the safest option is to leave him in office to finish the job he has started. If Mr Bush is re-elected, and uses a new team and a new approach to achieve that goal, and shakes off his fealty to an extreme minority, the religious right, then The Economist will wish him well. But our confidence in him has been shattered. We agree that his broad vision is the right one but we doubt whether Mr Bush is able to change or has sufficient credibility to succeed, especially in the Islamic world. Iraq's fledgling democracy, if it gets the chance to be born at all, will need support from its neighbours—or at least non-interference—if it is to survive. So will other efforts in the Middle East, particularly concerning Israel and Iran.
John Kerry says the war was a mistake, which is unfortunate if he is to be commander-in-chief of the soldiers charged with fighting it. But his plan for the next phase in Iraq is identical to Mr Bush's, which speaks well of his judgment. He has been forthright about the need to win in Iraq, rather than simply to get out, and will stand a chance of making a fresh start in the Israel-Palestine conflict and (though with even greater difficulty) with Iran. After three necessarily tumultuous and transformative years, this is a time for consolidation, for discipline and for repairing America's moral and practical authority. Furthermore, as Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view, impose it on him, given a viable alternative. John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America's great tasks.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/di...tory_id=3329802
|
I'm curious to see who BusinessWeek will endorse if anybody. Hell the economist is already 3/4 of the nails in the coffin for me anyway. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| Thanks for the post. One can only wish that the Economist's circulation was as least as large as that of People. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
Some interesting read and some very good points :)
Danke ;) |
|
|
| Shakka |
Steve Forbes doesn't
| quote: | One More for the Gipper
By STEVE FORBES
October 28, 2004; Page A14
This presidential election gives voters their starkest choice since Ronald Reagan challenged Jimmy Carter in 1980. President Carter had left a record of high taxes, economic stagnation and out-of-control inflation on the domestic front, and an America reeling from setbacks overseas, thanks to a gutted military and a weak, dithering foreign policy. Reagan, in contrast, promised to slash income-tax rates, rein in runaway government spending and push deregulation. He also vowed to launch a massive military buildup and a confident, assertive foreign policy against the Soviet Union.
We've been living off of Ronald Reagan's legacy ever since. We won the Cold War against all expectations. Our economy blossomed, bursting forth with fantastic innovations. The U.S. has gone from creating about one-fourth the global GDP to about one-third today. Our stock markets now account for roughly one-half of global market capitalization, having appreciated nearly tenfold. American household net wealth has never been higher. Japan's and Europe's net new job creation has been microscopic compared with ours. Our hollowed-out military has become the best in human history.
But we cannot coast any longer on Reagan's legacy; we must renew and expand it, both at home and overseas. Giants India and China are waking up economically. A growing number of countries are adopting the flat tax and becoming more competitive. And as for national security, Islamic extremists seek to sap Western civilization's morale, thereby enabling these fascists to reign supreme in Muslim countries while non-Islamic states quiver in fear.
We need a renewed Reaganesque revolution. So which candidate is the most likely Reaganite reformer? John Kerry? To ask the question is to answer it -- with gales of laughter. President Bush, on the other hand, has a program as radical as Reagan's was.
On national security, Sen. Kerry would be Carter reincarnated. He would cut and run in Iraq. He would engage in ineffectual diplomacy with regard to the imminent nuclearization of Iran. He would treat terrorism as a law-enforcement problem, as if Osama bin Laden and his ilk were simply Islamic Tony Sopranos. Sen. Kerry is unlikely to "pull the trigger" for America to fight a new, hot war, if such a war became necessary. A commander in chief must have an overarching goal and sense of direction. Abraham Lincoln had it during the Civil War. Despite severe, demoralizing setbacks and mistakes, Lincoln never lost sight of what the conflict was all about and never wavered in his determined prosecution of it. In contrast, Bill Clinton skedaddled out of Somalia after one hard firefight. Kerry would be a Clinton. He really believes that people like Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder possess superior, more sophisticated wisdom. One can only wonder what folderol that French-Swiss boarding school pounded into young John Kerry's head decades ago.
President Bush, unlike Sen. Kerry, has embraced the Wilsonian dream of making the world "safe for democracy." More, he is actually pushing the process in the Middle East. George Bush is no "realistic" balance-of-power statesman -- he wants to remake societies just as we remade Japan and Germany after World War II. Mistakes have been made in Iraq, including busting up Iraq's army last year. But President Bush's goal is no less the revolutionary: enabling Iraq to become a liberal, more Western-like state. And Iraq and Afghanistan are the beginning, as he envisions "free governments in the broader Middle East that will fight terrorists, instead of harboring them."
Sen. Kerry is a trade protectionist who would disrupt one of the greatest wealth-creating, wealth-spreading mechanisms since World War II. President Bush has learned the painful lesson of trade protectionism -- it doesn't work economically or politically. That's why his administration worked overtime to get the global Doha Round of trade talks back on track a few months ago.
On the domestic front, Sen. Kerry is very much the defender of a stagnant, liberal status quo. He would hike taxes on small-businesspeople and upper income earners who don't have the assets of Teresa Heinz Kerry to be able to load up on tax-free municipal bonds. Sen. Kerry and his cohorts can't seem to fathom that taxes are a burden and a price. Increase the price of risk-taking and success, and you'll get less of them. The legendary quarterback John Elway could not have done what he did with a 50-pound football nor could Barry Bonds with a 100-pound bat. The same holds for taxes and entrepreneurs.
Sen. Kerry wants more government intervention in health care and would move us toward the kind of systems that are so glaringly failing in Canada and Europe. Social Security? Do nothing, except perhaps some day raise taxes. Education? Do nothing except throw money at it and resist vouchers, curb charter schools and oppose anything else the education-undermining National Education Association dislikes.
Sen. Kerry would also pander to fashionable and apocalyptic fantasies, such as global warming or the ever-recurring notion that we are running out of oil. And to fulfill a fraction of his lavish campaign promises, John Kerry would make generous-spending George Bush look like a piker.
On domestic issues President Bush is, again, the revolutionary, his vision encapsulated by the words "ownership society." On Social Security, President Bush wants to allow workers, if they choose, to have a portion of their payroll taxes go into their own personal retirement accounts. This would make the economy stronger by creating more capital. Who is going to employ the money better -- investors or politicians? In this instance, by turning a pay-as-you-go liability into an asset, the president would be taking a page from Alexander Hamilton. Pull out a dollar bill and you are holding non-interest-bearing debt of the U.S. government -- clearly a liability -- but it's also currency, something you can use to make investments or buy goods and services. Social Security reform would undergo a Hamiltonian transformation -- from pure fiscal drain to wealth creator. Every worker, even those earning minimum wage, could build up real capital.
The president has already signed into law Health Savings Accounts, an IRA-like device that will increasingly put patients in charge of health-care spending instead of third parties. Again, who is going to get more value from these health-care dollars -- patients or third parties?
On taxes, the president has made clear his intention to simplify this corruptingly complex code. A flat tax, anyone?
President Bush also believes in tort reform. Trial Lawyers are laying waste to increasing swathes of American society. These predators are now threatening our pharmaceutical industry. Sen. John Edwards wants us to believe that he and his ilk are there to "help the people." What trial lawyers have done to workers compensation programs in many states puts paid to that notion. Workers comp was once a no-fault system to ensure that injured workers got medical coverage and received pay. Today, it is too often a feeding trough for the plaintiff bar.
* * *
Two areas the president hasn't addressed are reforming the growth-destroying International Monetary Fund, and bringing in, as Reagan wanted to but couldn't, a commodity or gold-based monetary system that would stabilize the value of the dollar and give us even lower interest rates than we have today. But the Bush agenda, nonetheless, is breathtaking in its sweep.
Alas, for a revolutionary, President Bush has been un-Reaganesque in communicating his bold ideas. His recent fervor on the campaign trail concerning his foreign-policy vision came awfully late. The public should have been hearing more of this months ago. Ditto the theme of the ownership society; here, too, the groundwork was not well laid. But these are quibbles over tactics. President Bush's strategic vision is, as our British allies would put it, "spot on."
Wherever you look, it is George Bush who is the Reagan revolutionary; John Kerry, the reactionary, with a stand-pat-ness worthy of a 19th-century aristocrat.
Mr. Forbes is editor in chief of Forbes Magazine and president/CEO of Forbes Inc. |
|
|
|
| Shakka |
Either does Jack Welch if you read between the lines...
| quote: | Five Questions to Ask . . .
By JACK WELCH
October 28, 2004; Page A14
In five days, America votes not for its president, but for its leader. I make that distinction because rarely in American history has the occupant of the White House had such a burden of leadership to bear. We are in a war to protect our very way of life, and it is a brand new kind of war, with no foreseeable end and enemies as evil as they are invisible. And our economy -- the engine of freedom and opportunity around the world -- faces daunting challenges from within our borders and without.
Because of these twin threats to our security and our prosperity, the leader we are about to elect holds the future in his hands -- our future, our children's, and their children's. That is why, as you approach the voting booth on Tuesday, you need to think less about politics and policies and more about the characteristics that define a great leader in tough and perilous times.
I'm not saying America has not faced huge challenges before. We have survived several wars and countless economic downturns. But we have done so with varying degrees of speed and fortitude. In the late 1970s, the Carter administration's policies had so damaged the economy that the president himself declared the country in a "state of malaise." It was really tough -- I remember it well because I had just been named the CEO of GE in 1980. The Cold War raged. Unemployment was over 7%, inflation was at 13%, and the prime rate reached 20%. Japan had been declared the next industrial global power. Obituaries were being written for companies like ours.
Ronald Reagan was elected into this environment. He did not declare the country in malaise, but painted a picture of a bright and thriving tomorrow, and then led the country there, through a series of largely unpopular moves. He refused to capitulate to striking air-traffic controllers, pushed through sweeping tax cuts, and faced down Communism by heavily building up the military. The peace and prosperity he created lasted for 20 years.
The next leader of the United States needs Ronald Reagan's optimism, courage, and conviction, but with a fiercer enemy, he will need to be a leader for the ages -- a leader in the extreme.
So, who is that man -- John Kerry or George Bush? That is a decision all voters must answer for themselves on Tuesday.
But how? Below are five questions that you might consider before pulling the lever. Each one gets at the unique qualities that, from my experience, define a great leader in tough times. Those qualities may not be what we will be looking for in a president in five years or ten, but what we need today from the man who will be remembered for saving America, or breaking it.
Is He Real?
What a crazy question, right? But authenticity really matters when it comes to crisis leadership. A person cannot make hard decisions, hold unpopular positions, or stand tall for what he believes unless he knows who he is and feels comfortable in his own skin. I am talking about self-confidence and conviction. These traits make a leader bold and decisive, which is absolutely critical in times where you must act quickly, often without complete information. Just as important, authenticity makes a leader likeable, for lack of a better word. His "realness" comes across in the way he communicates and reaches people on an emotional level. His words move them; his message touches something inside.
When I was at GE, we would occasionally encounter a very successful executive who just could not be promoted to the next level. In the early days, we would struggle with our reasoning. The person demonstrated the right values and made the numbers, but usually his people did not connect with him. What was wrong? Finally, we figured out that these people always had a certain phoniness about them. They pretended to be something they were not -- more in control, more upbeat, more savvy than they really were. They didn't sweat. They didn't cry. They squirmed in their own skin, playing a role of their own inventing.
A leader in times of crisis can't have an iota of fakeness in him. He has to know himself -- and like himself -- so that he can be straight with the world, energize his followers, and lead with the authority born of authenticity.
Does He See Around Corners?
Every leader has to have a vision and predict the future, of course, but great leaders in tough times must have a special ability to anticipate the radically unexpected. In business, the best leaders in brutally competitive environments have a "sixth sense" for market changes, as well as moves by existing competitors and new entrants. For the next president in our new world, a "sixth sense" is not enough. He needs a seventh sense -- paranoia about what lurks in dark corners we cannot even see.
If this sounds overdramatic, consider the cost of not having this trait. Consider September 11. There had been the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the African embassy bombings in 1998, and the attack on the USS Cole two years later. But two terms of the Clinton administration and nine months of the incumbent's did not have the imagination to see what was ahead. Who could have? Now we know the leader of our country must have that ability, as dark and horrifying as the "vision" might be.
Who's Around Him?
In tough times in particular, a leader needs to surround himself with people who are smarter than he is, and they must have the grit to disagree with him and each other.
Every time we had a crisis at GE, I would quickly assemble a group of the smartest, gutsiest people I could find at any level from within the company and sometimes without, and lean on them heavily for their knowledge and advice. I would make sure everyone in the room came at the problem from a different angle, and then I would have us all wallow in the information as we worked to solve the crisis. These sessions were almost always contentious, and the opinions that came at me strong and varied. And yet, my best decisions arose from what I learned in these debates. Disagreement surfaced meaningful questions and forced us to challenge assumptions. Everyone came out of the experience more informed and better prepared to take on the next crisis.
A great leader has the courage to put together a team of people who sometimes make him look like the dumbest person in the room! I know that sounds counterintuitive. You want your leader to be the smartest person in the room -- but if he acts like that, he won't get half the pushback he must get to make the best decisions.
Does He Get Back on the Horse?
Every leader makes mistakes, every leader stumbles and falls. The question is, does he learn from his mistakes, regroup, and then get going again with renewed speed, conviction, and confidence?
The name for this trait is resilience and it is so important that a leader must have it going in to a job because if he doesn't, a crisis time is too late to learn it. That is why, when I placed people in new leadership situations, I always looked for candidates who had one or two very tough experiences. I particularly liked the people who had had the wind knocked clear out of them, but proved they could run even harder in the next race.
The world around us is going to knock any leader off his horse more than once. He must know how to get back up in the saddle again.
Is He Pro-Business?
Last but not least, the leader of the United States must love business, because a thriving economy is the free world's last, best hope. It has become very fashionable in the past few years to say that business is bad and crooked. The anti-business fervor even got to the point that CEOs who outsourced production, in order to stay competitive, were labeled "Benedict Arnolds." What nonsense.
Business is great. Successful companies are the engine of a healthy society and nothing short of the foundation of a free and democratic world. While government is a key part of society and vital to all of us, it makes no money of its own. All the necessary things it provides -- from the justice system to welfare and hospitals -- come from some form of tax revenue paid by companies and their employees. Government is the support for the engine. It is not the engine.
A great leader in this day and age must appreciate the value of business to the world. He cannot beat it down, denigrate its participants, or create an environment where business people must struggle to build opportunity. When business is weak, America is weak.
* * *
On Tuesday, Americans vote in an election with stakes as high as we have ever seen. There is no perfect candidate, in this election or any. But there is a right man for the challenges we face in these tough times -- a right leader for this historic moment.
Before you pull that lever, ask yourself five questions and see where you come out.
Mr. Welch is former chairman and CEO of General Electric. |
|
|
|
| Shakka |
and this is just funny...
| quote: | A Kerry Maximum Tax
October 28, 2004; Page A14
We've all heard about the Alternative Minimum Tax, or at least most of us will sooner or later. That convoluted scheme to ensure we can't use deductions to avoid paying our "fair" share is predicted to ensnare a record 12.3 million taxpayers next year, and between one-quarter and one-third of all filers by 2010.
But the disclosure that Teresa Heinz Kerry paid a federal tax rate of only 12.4% on her income in 2003 has given us a different idea. How about a Kerry Maximum Tax? That is, no taxpayer should have to pay a larger share of his income in taxes than John Kerry and his mega-millionaire spouse, who are after all bidding to become role models as America's First Couple.
Polls have long shown that when Americans are asked how much income people ought to pay in taxes, they typically say no more than 20%. This comports with Americans' general sense of fairness that success shouldn't be punished with confiscatory tax rates. Millions of Americans pay far more than that, of course, and the Alternative Minimum Tax rates are 26% and 28%, capturing those with enough deductions who imagine they can escape the 39.6% top marginal rate proposed by Senator Kerry.
We now know from their tax returns that the Kerrys think that a fair rate of tax should be much lower than 20%, which means that if Mr. Kerry wins on November 2 he'll be well positioned to lead a bipartisan Maximum Tax movement. And if Mr. Kerry loses, we'll be delighted to see him put his name on any Maximum Tax bill so he can claim at least one major accomplishment in Congress. |
|
|
|
| JM |
ah Kerry and taxes are best friends.
A political candidate who jumps to conclusions withough facts is not someone we want as a commander in chief.
:p
>JM< |
|
|
| LiquidX |
| quote: | Originally posted by JM
ah Kerry and taxes are best friends.
A political candidate who jumps to conclusions withough facts is not someone we want as a commander in chief.
:p
>JM< |
The washington post has backed Kerry in terms of he's economic policies for what I've heard. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Steve Forbes doesn't |
Meh Forbes is definetely the suckiest of the business magazines ;). As a matter of fact, I think I'm cancelling my subscription to it. The top three are definetely:
1. BusinessWeek
2. The Economist
3. Fortune |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Meh Forbes is definetely the suckiest of the business magazines ;). As a matter of fact, I think I'm cancelling my subscription to it. The top three are definetely:
1. BusinessWeek
2. The Economist
3. Fortune |
I actually prefer Forbes to Fortune, though neither is top rung. BusinessWeek is great. Sometimes the Economist just takes too long to read!:) |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I actually prefer Forbes to Fortune, though neither is top rung. BusinessWeek is great. Sometimes the Economist just takes too long to read!:) |
Yes but I find the economist has the best coverage of business around the world. Plus it strays more heavily into discussing political issues and news than the other magazines. Definetely one of the best realpolitik magazines I've read. |
|
|
| Dave Piazza |
I would expect the economist to explain which canidate is better for the economy and why. It seems alot of focus was on Iraq. :(
Please show me a peice written by The Economist or a well-respected economic authority on the difference between the Bush and Kerry economic plan. That would be a good read. |
|
|
|
|
