OR: Halfway to the Election and the Issues Don't Seem to be....Issues
Probably the most heavily scrutinized individuals in the history of politics are George Bush and John Kerry. Not a day goes by that someone doesn't e-mail me a political cartoon on one or both. They are, if you looked at them the way their critics do, personifications of evil and good, Christian and unholy, ready to lead us into battle or ready to run for the hills, ready to take on the challenges that face us in terms of social security, education, terrorism, the black plague and children falling down wells in Montana on a daily basis.
However, what is not clearly spelled out is what each would do if they were elected. Mr. Bush "seems" to be interested in making the world "safe for folks like us" (the small U.S.) while allowing social programs to fall behind in order to finance wars with terrorism, peace-keeping in Iraq and potential wars with North Korea and Iran.
Mr. Kerry "seems" interested in maintaining our control of Iraq and continued support of Afghanistan but at lower levels of troop placement and with international support. Mr. Bush seeks international support also, but on his terms and with the U.S. leading at all times.
Mr. Kerry seems to think we can fix the healthcare system by throwing money at it (a popular idea until after the election) and is more inclined to raise taxes on the wealthy to do so. Mr. Bush seems to think the problem is lawyers and is seeking court reform in an attempt to lower awards and thus limit malpractice insurance costs for the doctors. This would, it seems, be passed along to you the patient in lower medical premiums. I'm sure there is a "Texan Doctors for Bush" organization that will advertise that in the next few weeks.
Mr. Bush wants us to believe the economy is turning around, that lost jobs in the U.S. will come back and that we can have greater economic growth in the next 4 years than during his term. But this would require substantial investment by business at a time when security is considered to be at an all time low and interest rates are rising. This is not a prescription for success, but rather, failure. The U.S. is too dependent on foreign oil and labor for manufacturing to regain strength as it once was. Honestly, the business cycle cannot turn up because of government promotion. It didn't in the Reagan years either.
Mr. Kerry would give business incentives to companies that didn't outsource workers and try to help workers with retraining programs and re-education. As someone who was once "downsized" I consider re-training a good thing and life-long education even more important. The question is how to pay for those ideas.
Mr. Kerry believes we need to focus more attention on social security. He would keep benefits at current levels and ensure retirees the benefits they were told they would get when they were told they would get them. This is perhaps the most costly thing the candidate wants to do because the base of social security payers is erodeding and the supply of new retirees will grow over the next 10 years.
Mr. Bush wants us to believe that this is a "shared pain" situation where rising benefits for social security should be handed out at a later age for most people and at higher costs to participants for benefits. Thus the overall situation becomes a continually downgraded system until those now in their 20's will have little chance of any benefits at retirement age. This is a method of phasing out social security over time.
Mr. Bush wants us to believe that we are at great risk of a terrorist attack and for that give up rights and privileges that we have traditionally enjoyed in the United States. Many have commented if "you aren't a terrorist, this is just a nuisance." But the sense I get is that a terrorist attack will occur or not occur not based on anything we do to heighten security but the desperation of the terrorists. There are too many loopholes in the security system to keep the country safe by reading your and my blogs (or tapping our phones).
Mr. Kerry is for security also and wants us to believe in the idea that we need to deal with terrorism in a quiet way. That is, get rid of the security code, keep intelligence strong and find ways to lessen world tension. This is a "measured approach" and appeals to me because the hoopla over a warning code that never seems to be right (when have we been attacked on a code orange?) and security measures that don't seem to do more than keep us constantly frightened and the airlines in bankruptcy?
Finally, consider the deficit of the U.S. Is there any doubt in your mind that Mr. Kerry would spend less in the next 4 years than Mr. Bush or that social programs would benefit from his leadership? Indeed, a projection of Mr. Bush's deficit spending would raise the national debt to as much as $12 trillion in the next 4 years.
If I have misinterpreted either candidate's position on something feel free to comment. I looked at both candidate's "plan for America" and commentary on them by journalists. As I said, I could still vote either way depending on 2 things that will swing my vote. The first is which candidate sticks more to the issues noted in this article. I want to know "how" these programs will be done without making our country either broke or not worth living in.
The second consideration is which candidate does less name calling. I and many others are sick of the discussion of 30, 20, or 10 years ago. George goofed off, Kerry protested the war. We got it. Some don't like them for that. We got it. George didn't give us an accurate picture of why went to war with Iraq. Kerry supported or didn't weapons programs and Iraq depending on the hour of the vote and which color the ketchup factory was producing. We got it.
Some whom I have read seem to think it's about the man themself. They don't like one or the other. The "anyone but Bush" group whom would vote for Kerry just because Bush led us into a war they didn't agree with. Others will vote, as someone said to me last week for Bush because "he's a Christian." When I said Kerry was a catholic his response was "that's what I mean." This shocked me but it sent me looking for information from the Christian right which is saying Kerry is "unfit for leadership" as a Catholic.
Some seem to forget that you don't get to run for or be President without being intelligent and rich. Both of these men will try to do their best (within their own vision) to do what is right. Neither will accept terrorism as "ok" or turn U.S. foreign policy over to the U.N. They will try to help those that got them elected in the best way they know how and with the most "compassion" they can find for those who don't agree.
As for me, I'm still undecided...