• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Change That's Difficult to Find

Texan

Well-known member
When Democrats say they offer change, what they really mean is that things will be different if voters accept the policies they rejected last time.

A candidate who rehashes old entrenched positions and calls it "change'' is really just calling for more effective partisanship and the annihilation of his political enemies.




From Democrats, Change That's Difficult to Find

Commentary by Kevin Hassett


Sept. 2 (Bloomberg) -- There was much talk about change last week at the Democratic convention. But are the Democrats really offering any substantive change?

To find out, I pulled out John Kerry's 2004 Democratic national platform and compared its fiscal policy with that contained in today's Barack Obama-inspired missive.

The documents are so similar it's creepy. While there are a number of new minor policies, and fresh details on old targets such as health care, the big picture has stayed the same.

When Democrats say they offer change, what they really mean is that things will be different if voters accept the policies they rejected last time.

To be fair, there are some alterations this year.

Both platforms promise to extend the Bush income-tax cuts for the middle class, but repeal them for the rich. In 2004, Kerry defined rich as those making more than $200,000. Today, Obama promises not to increase taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.

So the definition of rich has increased from $200,000 to $250,000. That's change you can believe in that will be especially appreciated by everyone making between $200,000 and $249,999.

The 2004 platform proposed a big increase in the earned- income tax credit, or EITC, which provides refunds for the poorest working Americans. The centerpiece of the 2008 platform is a radical new idea to help the poorest Americans: an increase in the EITC.

Augmenting the EITC increase in 2004 was a proposal to "pay for child care and eldercare.'' This time around, there is a promise to "help pay for child care.'' There is no mention of helping to pay for the elderly, but that is probably just an oversight, unless jettisoning the elderly is change we can believe in.

Silly Language

The platforms for 2004 and 2008 both promise to change the tax code to make it less rewarding for U.S. corporations to locate operations abroad. Back then, Kerry promised also to reduce the corporate-tax rate a smidgen, an acknowledgment that the U.S.'s high taxes were undermining our competitiveness.

This convention's plan has ditched that carrot, and replaced it with the silliest passage in platform history: "We will bring together government, private industry, workers, and academia to turn around the manufacturing sector.'' Obama's plan to help the manufacturing sector appears to be, "Unleash the bureaucrats and professors.''

Like this year's version, the 2004 energy platform emphasized expanding government investment in alternative energies and tougher fuel-economy standards. The biggest change seems to be an edit to the 2004 platform.

Oil, Social Security

Back then, when oil cost $40 a barrel, Democrats were willing to concede that it might be a good idea to allow some exploration, saying, "We support balanced development of domestic oil supplies in areas already open for exploration, like the western and central Gulf of Mexico.'' This time around, with oil trading at about $115 a barrel, the word "exploration'' appears only in reference to outer space.

For Social Security, both platforms promise to protect it, and not to privatize it. The platform this time around also advocates automatic enrollment for 401(k)s, a sound policy idea that has strong academic support.

Back in 2004, the platform promised to use "pay-as-you- go,'' or paygo, budget rules to enforce fiscal discipline. Such rules were, of course, adopted in 2007 by the new Democratic Congress. The result was hardly spectacular, as the deficit increased from $248 billion in 2006 to a projected $357 billion for 2008, in part because Congress voted to ignore its own rules when it became inconvenient.

Old Promises

This failure had no impact on the 2008 platform, which again promises tough paygo rules. It isn't clear why we should believe that the rules will be more effective the next time around. After all, it wasn't George W. Bush who voted to ignore the paygo rules; it was the Democratic Congress.

So when you line it up, the call for change is really just a call to enact those things Democrats have been promising for oh-so-many years.

The failure to offer substantive change is important because it suggests a disconnect between the message and the reality. A candidate who provides a new perspective on the causes of our government's myriad failures, with compelling solutions, might have a chance to bring positive change to Washington.

A candidate who rehashes old entrenched positions and calls it "change'' is really just calling for more effective partisanship and the annihilation of his political enemies. That idea might thrill Democrats, but it is hardly the kind of post- partisanship voters are seeking.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in his bid for the 2008 presidential nomination. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at [email protected]
Last Updated: September 2, 2008 00:01 EDT



http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&sid=am_7aS_EjtYI
 

Texan

Well-known member
No comment from any of you libs?

Isn't your guy's campaign all about ''change?''

Is this guy lying?
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
When you don't hear from libs, they are running scared. They have no clue how to respond !! :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
 

Mike

Well-known member
I actually heard Joe Biden say this morning. (paraphrasing)

'The American people don't care what has happened in the past, they want to know what is going to happen in the future.'

The Dems are putting all their eggs in the "Change" basket and it is backfiring.

God I love this country!

What an election this will be! :lol:
 

TSR

Well-known member
How about from an Independent? I really love the sentence .............and Congress decided to ignore its own rules when it became inconvenient. That's been the mo of Congress for the last several yrs. Personally, I don't think much will change regardless of who is elected. I think most people feel this way, that's why we have such a low percentage of the population that votes-they have become apathetic,feeling helpless. If a candidate can awaken this group they would surely win imo. As someone said the bums need to be thrown out. We have become a country ruled by the Corporate powers through their big money.

Immigration comes to mind when thinking about Congress not enforcing its own laws ( Of course enforcement of federal laws is a job of the executive branch) Not enforcing laws that are passed just slaps our Constitution in the face. I still, at this point, will vote 3rd party for the candidate that will uphold the constitution and enforce existing laws.

BTW was this author a Dem. or Rep. lol
 
Top