Reasons I Remain On The Fence
My thoughts on John Kerry as a Presidential candidate have been previously documented. Still, Steve Antler over at Econopundit links to this WSJ piece about Kerry’s spending proposals and thoughts on the budget. Now, I am personally of the opinion that a Republican controlled congress would not let that sort of jive slide. I’m also of the opinion that the Dems aren’t going to be taking over congress in ‘04. Between this and the weakness on defense/terror, well, Kerry makes me pretty nervous. But, Bush’s horrible, horrible Attorney General is making me wish for, hell, two good candidates. Nixon’s preserved head, anyone?
April 12th, 2004 at 3:50 am
Don’t get me wrong, I’m as angry as the next libertarian over DoJ’s pursuit of obscenity charges against the porn industry. But who knows how far it will get? And doesn’t this kind of thing rise and fall like hemlines?
Meanwhile, John Kerry doesn’t seem to understand the world we face today, nor does he understand what’s fueling the economic recovery. Those things are less fixable, and less respondent to the whims of fashion (or the courts, though it’s sometimes hard to tell the difference).
I’ve got bigger complaints against the Bush administration than obscenity crusade, but it does not have me trying to justify a vote for Kerry.
P.S. What, no Vadge Badge?
April 12th, 2004 at 8:14 am
That WSJ piece argues Kerry’s position on fiscal conservatism “strains credulity.” What strains credulity, three years into a Bush Presidency of profligate spending and ballooning deficits, is that the WSJ is still trundling out its tired old “tax and spend” argument against the Democrats. Perhaps the writer has been in a coma since 1968.
April 12th, 2004 at 9:31 am
Jeff: I don’t think the “tax and spend” aspect of the Democrats has changed very much since then; it’s just that now the Repubs are on board the spend-wagon, as it is known.
WWB: I don’t have to justify my indifference between the two candidates to anyone, but it’s my opinion that the only thing really in Bush’s favor is defense. His economic policy other than the tax cuts really isn’t that impressive. I also thing that a Republican controlled congress wouldn’t pass half this entitlement crap if it was coming from a Democrat. Kerry seems to be stuck somewhere about Mercantilism, Bush has at least gotten all the way to Keynes; meaning he understands the recovery better, but isn’t taking into account the consequences of huge growth of the government sector. Hell, even neo-classical economics views crowding-out with suspicion as the government has many fewer incentives to perform well than does the private sector. I’m just saying that, depending on how things shape up in the debates, I could go either way.
April 12th, 2004 at 12:57 pm
You nailed my “bigger complaints” right there; I love the tax cuts, but the conciding increase in spending and expansion of entitlements makes for an incoherent policy. Bush didn’t create those deficits, but he is locking them in. And because I don’t see Kerry fixing that, and I don’t trust his instincts on foreign policy, it’s unlikely even lopsided debate results in Kerry’s favor would swing my vote. Bush has been pretty bad on a lot, but for right-leaning libertarians like us, I’m convinced he’s clearly the lesser of two evils.
April 12th, 2004 at 1:35 pm
RE: Vadge Badge
Perhaps it will be an item of discussion at the next Commentator meeting.
April 12th, 2004 at 3:34 pm
Perhaps.
April 13th, 2004 at 12:17 pm
Ooh, I’ve started a dialog! Awareness-raising can only be next!
April 13th, 2004 at 1:11 pm
I’m gonna make you aware of the shallow grave I’ve dug out back real soon.
April 14th, 2004 at 10:10 am
I see that Taxes and Deficit influence the economy in their own ways (and I’m not economics major, so I don’t know all the fancy terms).
Taxes: the lower the better.
Spending: the lower the better.
Deficit: the lower the better.
Of course, there are limits to how low taxes can go. Now, here’s where I see Kerry and Bush:
Bush: lower taxes, higher spending: try to grow our way out of deficit.
Kerry: higher taxes, higher spending: try to tax our way out of the deficit.
What I want to see:
Me: lower taxes, lower spending: grow and cut our way out of the deficit.
That makes me heartless, and I couldnt get the swing voters and moderate liberals on my side, so itll never win.
April 14th, 2004 at 12:17 pm
Well, that’s not exactly right, I mean the government can influence GDP upward as the income accounting identity is Y=C+I+(G-T)+NX. C is consumer spending, I is investment, G is government spending, T is taxes, and NX is exports minus imports. Deficit spending during a recession is generally considered, at least in Keynesian terms, to be the right move on the part of government. As C falls and I falls, the government can sort of “prop up” GDP via spending more. From a purely Keynesian perspective, this is exactly ideal. Problem is, and Keynes had no mechanism for this, that the increase in government expenditure will “crowd out” private investment by putting upward preassure on interest rates. A strict Monetarist might argue that the government should not persue any policy change when the economy fluctuates, as all the government can do is screw things up.
As for your grow and cut plan, it sounds like a winner to me. Problem is, we’ll have to start with entitlement spending and transfers. That’s not going to be terribly popular, I’m afraid. I spit on the grave of FDR for that one.
September 27th, 2004 at 4:54 pm
Along another Kerry line, has anyone seen the new Kerry/Edwards commercial? It quotes the RED-gister Guard as one of its sources. I’m not quite sure how to feel about this, amused or sad.