Chief Justice Rhenquist's unfortunate bout with cancer should sharpen the thinking of voters on both sides. This is a clear point of difference between the two men. W will appoint justices that strictly interpret the Constitution, jfk will make sure they pass a litmus test of being pro-abortion and have a strong streak of creativity to make up new laws that overrule the will of the poeple. If this doesn't motivate conservatives to get out and vote, nothing will. I am sure it will energize the left too. Sensing that their last remaining bastion of power, the court system, is jeapordized, they will turn out in droves... I expect this will help jfk. Wait, I'm wrong. Their LAST bastion of power is the American Academy.
Let's think the unthinkable for a minute...what would a Kedwards presidency look like?
Iraq and Terrorism:
A Kerry presidency would not be a setback for our present winning strategy; it would be an unmitigated disaster. Why such a pessimistic appraisal? First, Kerry's own rhetoric has been abjectly defeatist, if not Orwellian. He promises to bring allies into a war he smears as having
been waged in the wrong place, at the wrong time. He broadcasts in advance a
timetable for withdrawal. His present positions are at odds with his own past
votes to support the Iraq operation, which he has alternately praised and
demeaned depending on the ephemeral news from the battlefield and its immediate
impact on polling. -Victor Davis Hanson
Social Security:
WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 /U.S. Newswire/ -- While continuing his attack on President Bush's personal investment-based approach to save Social Security, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry has finally begun to suggest how he would deal with the program's $11 trillion funding gap. Yet according to Matt Moore, senior policy analyst with the National Center for
Policy Analysis (NCPA), Kerry's approach would be a "recipe for economic disaster."
Senator Kerry suggests a two part plan: increase economic growth, and institute strict pay-go budget rules that would cut all government spending to close the inevitable funding gap. "Economic growth is a good and wonderful thing. We hope we see more of it," said Moore. "But stronger economic growth alone won't solve Social Security's woes." The problem, according to the NCPA, is that Social Security benefits are tied to tax payments. Kerry's theory about increasing economic growth is that it would increase jobs, wages and thus, tax payments. But the more a worker pays in taxes, the more the government promises them at retirement. If wages rise, then so, too, will Social
Security benefits. Thus, we may narrow the gap in the short term with stronger growth, but we make the long-term problem worse absent any other reforms. For Social Security to stay technically solvent until 2075, wages would have to grow 2.9 percent annually above inflation.
-- One would need perpetual, sustained economic growth almost 4 times faster than over the past 30 years, and 41 percent faster than during the booming 1960s. As for the second part of
Sen. Kerry's emerging plan, employing pay-go spending caps to close the $11 trillion unfunded liability, the NCPA concludes that this would result in a 20 percent cut on all other government spending. "It is foolhardy to hope for unrealistic economic growth to sustain the retirement program for future generations of retirees," said Moore. "It is reckless to make draconian cuts in education, healthcare and homeland security to pay for a failure to reform the system."-National Center for Policy Analysis
Health Care:
Of the 25 million Americans insured under the Kerry health plan, almost 22 million will be in the Medicaid program, which is a government-controlled healthcare program. Just ask any physician or any hospital what happens when a patient is treated in Medicaid. Prices are strictly controlled, and ultimately there is rationing, all of which together destroys innovation and research and development. And what happens to people who have private insurance when the government steps in and vastly expands Medicaid? Under Senator Kerry's plan, about 8 million Americans will lose their private insurance coverage and end up on Medicaid. But for John Kerry, that's not enough government expansion. His plan would create a federally run reinsurance program which makes the government responsible for 75 percent of health care expenses greater than $30,000. If government has the responsibility of everything over $30,000, they certainly will regulate everything up to that
threshold as well. Payments, reimbursements and prices would ultimately be set by government and that turns into government rationing. This plan does nothing to address the underlying root causes of the soaring cost of healthcare today. It simply shifts that cost to the backs of taxpayers - to the tune of an almost $1000 tax increase. From my perspective as a physician and one who has seen firsthand the way a healthcare system should work, we need a system centered on the doctor-patient relationship. The Kerry plan simply fails and moves in the other direction, focusing rather on big government and bureaucrats as decision-makers and that is the wrong prescription for the American people. -Senator Bill Frist, MDRedstater would add that his Vice President is a trial lawyer...a breed of people who are at the root of the problem with higher costs in healthcare today!
Government Spending:
According to the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union, John Kerry has proposed spending cuts that would save $300 billion over ten years. While that may look impressive at first glance, it represents a mere 1 percent reduction in projected federal outlays over that period. And let’s not forget that Kerry has also proposed spending increases totaling $2.56 trillion — that is roughly $8.50 in spending increases for every dollar of spending cuts. On net, Kerry’s spending proposals would boost federal spending $2.26 trillion over the decade. The era of “big government” may be over, but Kerry stands ready to usher in an era of “huge government.” -CBS NEWS!!
Taxes:
Read 'em and weep...this guy is the ultimate tax and spend liberal. If he's been consistent on one thing in his tenure in Congress, it has been in earning an "F" every year from the National Taxpayer's Union.
The Bottom Line:
Kerry learned a very important lesson in Vietnam. It was the strategy of the North Vietnamese: they called it "hugging the belly." If they could close with U.S. forces rapidly and stay very near, then the superiority of U.S. firepower was dramatically reduced. jfk's strategy to win this election has been just that...close with W, get as near as he can so the heavy artillery of his own record can't be used against him. The result is a confused electorate...well, not those that ply these pages regularly, but a large number of folks that are "undecided" upon whom this election will turn. Two pieces of good news for W in this department: 1) People vote for the person they can like more. Let's face it, the "Hate Bush" crowd has already voted and if they haven't, they will either not vote or will not be swayed. Remember the beer and baby-sitting test I posed way back when? (See "And So it Begins..." in the September archives) W is simply more human and likeable. 2) jfk has not "closed the sale" on why W should be replaced. If he had, he would be way ahead in the polls. He's pointed out a lot of flaws in the current administration, some justified, many not, but he hasn't spelled out what he would do differently. Why? Because he can't!! Remember, hug the belly!
Be of good cheer dear readers, all shall be well!