This is my polisci paper I just turned in. Give it a look if you will. Warning - LONG!
For my analysis, I have chosen the issues of Economy, Education, National Security and Healthcare, the four issues that I believe will be the main focus of the 2004 election. For my two Democratic candidates I chose John Kerry and John Edwards, the two most likely opponents of President Bush. Each section of my report will begin with quotations from their websites' policy statements (www.johnedwards2004.com, www.johnkerry.com and www.georgewbush.com) followed by my observations comparing and contrasting them and my opinions on each.
Economy
John Edwards
"John Edwards has a plan to create jobs with a 10 percent tax credit for companies that keep jobs in America. Edwards will set the top rate on capital gains at 25 percent for people earning over about $350,000, less than the top 1 percent of Americans."
"Edwards will make the tax rate for the unearned income of the wealthiest 1 percent equal to the top income tax rate on the tax on very large estates. Edwards will also repeal the Bush tax cuts that benefit only the top 2 percent of Americans, including the new top two tax rates on income, and the new rates on income from dividends and capital gains for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans."
Offering companies a tax break to keep their jobs in America may help prevent future job loss but will do nothing for the millions of jobs already lost to other countries. Increasing the capital gains tax and unearned income tax rates on the wealthiest Americans will help him keep the middle-class tax cuts and may be popular among the lower class, but could create a class-warfare campaign as well. Given his theme of `two Americas', this may already be his plan, though.
John Kerry
"John Kerry believes that we should keep the middle class tax cuts that Democrats fought for in 2001 and 2003. Specifically, he wants to protect the increases in the child tax credit, the reduced marriage penalty and the new tax bracket that helps people save $350 on their first level of income. John Kerry wants to give more tax breaks to the middle class with new tax credits on health care and college tuition. These tax cuts are part of his plan to restore the economy and cut the budget deficit in half in four years."
Campaigning on a platform of keeping the middle-class tax cuts will certainly help Kerry in the general election, and he focuses more on this aspect than the part where he, like Edwards, wants to repeal the rest. He makes this the core issue of his economic platform, but offers little in way of specifics. In fact, I found this to be a common theme with Kerry's position statements on his web page - lots of platitudes, little detail. He doesn't go into any depth on business relief, or how he plans to stop the bleeding of U.S. jobs. His focus on slogans and not on details, however, may actually play well with an electorate that gets confused by big words and lots of numbers.
George W. Bush
"Speeding up the 2001 tax cuts to increase the pace of economic recovery and job creation."
"Encouraging job-creating investment in America's businesses by providing dividend and capital gains tax relief and giving small businesses incentives to grow."
"Providing $20 billion in aid to States for necessary services."
"The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 will deliver substantial tax relief to 91 million American taxpayers. Middle-income families will receive additional relief from accelerated reduction of the marriage penalty, a faster increase in the child tax credit, and immediate implementation of the new, lower 10 percent tax bracket."
"Every small business owner who purchases equipment to grow and expand will get assistance through an increase in the expensing limits from $25,000 to $100,000."
Bush's site is a mix of what he's done and what he plans to do. Speeding up the tax cuts and making them permanent is not, contrary to his Administration's insistence, doing much to improve the economy. As we continue to have a jobless recovery, it is generally those who already have the money who are seeing more. The average worker continues to struggle in a bad job market with a weakening dollar. It is good that he plans to provide states with additional aid for `necessary services', since his tax cuts are much of the reason they need that aid in the first place. Where will the money come from if he continues to lower taxes? That's the question.
Overall, I think Kerry's message may play best - it's a great sound bite, easy to follow and many Americans will be comfortable with it. It's also pretty empty of substance. Edwards has the best plan as far as specifics go and makes a great case for it, but will his `Two Americas' routine work or further divide a divided electorate? He runs that risk. This will be the easiest issue to hammer Bush on, however, for either candidate, and should prove to be where much of the battle gets fought.
Education
John Edwards
"Edwards will invest in paying teachers better and increasing pay for teachers who take on the toughest jobs. "
"He will target resources to the school districts with the greatest shortages and will support teacher quality reforms like those in North Carolina. Edwards' plan will double the $3 billion that the federal government invests in teacher training today."
"While Edwards opposes vouchers, he supports proven methods of public school choice that require all schools to meet the same standards and employ highly qualified teachers."
"Edwards will provide one year of free tuition to public universities and community colleges."
"In return, students will be required to come to college academically prepared and to work or serve their communities for an average of 10 hours each week."
"Each year, taxpayers spend billions subsidizing banks to make student loans guaranteed against default. If we made the loans directly through competitive contracts, we would save billions of dollars each year."
This is where Edwards really excels. His education plan is comprehensive, reasonable and focuses on the areas most voters seem to be most focused - teacher quality and college tuition. His free tuition idea is something that will be attractive to the electorate, especially baby boomers with several kids in school. His opposition of Legacy Points - not quoted above, but on his site - is also something a lot of people will like, though it will open up the affirmative action issue as Bush will question why he only wants to cut one form of preference in college admissions. It could be sticky. His argument to make student loans direct is very interesting and not something I've heard before. It'll also be completely ignored in the grand scheme of things.
John Kerry
"First, he is outlining his plans for a New National Education Trust Fund that will guarantee that the Federal government meets its obligation to fully fund education priorities."
"Second, Kerry is outlining reforms he would make to the No Child Left Behind law to assure that our schools focus on teaching high standards to all children, and do not become drill and kill test prep institutions. Third, Kerry is stating his main priorities in education - from higher teacher pay for higher standards to universal after-school to assuring discipline."
"John Kerry's "College Opportunity Tax Credit" will make four years of college affordable for all Americans. He will provide a credit for each and every year of college on the first $4,000 paid in tuition - the typical tuition and fees at a public college or university. Kerry's tax credit will be refundable for our most economically vulnerable students and for those who receive other credits."
Kerry's New National Education Trust Fund is another thing that sounds great, but what does it mean? He provides very little on it. I agree with his desire to overhaul No Child Left Behind, but some details on what, beyond actually funding it, this time, would be nice. His tax credit against tuition will play well, but isn't quite as grand in scope or theme as Edwards' offer of a `free year'. He touches on the key Democratic elements of higher pay for teachers, better after school programs and the like, and will not face much contention there.
George W. Bush
"Supporting Early Learning: No Child Left Behind targets resources for early childhood education so that all youngsters get the right start on reading and math."
"Measuring Student Performance: A student's progress in reading and math must be measured in each of grades 3 through 8 and at least once during high school."
"Providing Information for Parents: States and school districts must give parents detailed report cards on schools and districts, explaining which are succeeding and why."
"Giving Options Over Failing Schools: Children will no longer be trapped in failing schools. If a school continues to fail some children will be able to transfer to higher-performing local schools, receive free tutoring or attend after-school programs."
"Ensuring More Resources for Schools: Today, public schools spend an average $7,000 a year per student. Under President Bush's leadership federal funding for education has increased 59.8% from 2000 to 2003."
I'll save the rant on No Child Left Behind and focus on the points listed above. I agree with targeting early learning, there are numerous studies on how important this is. Likewise, I agree we need some form of standardizing, some way of making sure that basic skills are actually being learned. However, he completely loses me on vouchers. Vouchers solve nothing. They simply delay the inevitable and make it harder to fix. Free tutoring and after school programs can be great, but are much more expensive to fund than he has so far seemed willing to cover.
I really like Edwards' positions on education the most, and find his specifics and details to be helpful. Education is often the issue where everyone gets together and says we need to pay teachers more and have better schools, but nothing actually gets done with it. Edwards gives answers to the questions of `how'. Kerry's positions read like a `how to say all the right things while saying nothing' primer. He gets points for the tax credit idea, but beyond that, it's the same thing we hear everyone say, but nothing gets done. Bush has some good ideas - yes, I actually said that - but he has given hardly any funding to the programs he's already put in place. I'm tempted to think he did it intentionally in an effort to make the schools fail so he can bring in vouchers as the remedy. Time will tell.
Homeland Security
John Edwards
"Edwards will establish a new Homeland Intelligence Agency focused entirely on intelligence gathering and analysis."
"Contain all foreign intelligence operatives working in the United States. Protect the rights of all Americans with new judicial review requirements, new public reporting requirements, and a new office of individual liberties."
"At 123 chemical plants, a terrorist attack could kill or injure more than 1 million people. Security at many of these plants remains weak. These efforts have been opposed by the chemical industry."
Intelligence could be a key issue if it can be framed that way. Unfortunately, with the stonewalling of the 9/11 commission and the Iraq Intelligence commission not due to report until after the election, Edwards may have a hard time getting the electorate to see this as an issue. There hasn't been an attack since 9/11 and most Americans feel safe. The chemical plant issue is another good point, but again - can he get the public to care? They don't want to think or talk about all the bad stuff that could - but hasn't - happened. He's got a tough sell on his hands, but the facts are on his side, at least.
John Kerry
"John Kerry would start by making homeland security a central mission of the National Guard as well as AmeriCorps. John Kerry's plan will also include a New Community Defense Service to provide volunteer manpower in the event of an attack. Kerry will call on the private sector to help bring technological innovations to the war on terrorism."
"Currently, 95% of all non-North American U.S. trade moves by sea, concentrated mostly in a handful of ports. John Kerry believes improvements in port security must be made, while recognizing that global prosperity and America's economic power depends on an efficient system. Kerry's plan would develop standards for security at ports and other loading facilities for containers and assure facilities can meet basic standards. To improve security in commerce, John Kerry believes we should accelerate the timetable for the action plans agreed to in the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico "smart border" accords as well as implement security measures for cross-border bridges. Finally John Kerry will pursue modest safety standards for privately held infrastructure and will help owners find economical ways to pay for increased security."
No mention of intelligence whatsoever. But if I had voted for cutting intelligence spending before 8/11, I wouldn't be bringing it up, either. Kerry has strong credentials as a war veteran, a military figure, a decorated hero, but this could also be his biggest weakness. He voted to cut intelligence in the years leading up to the biggest intelligence failure in American History. Where does he go from here? He's got solid positions on the border issues and using the Guard and AmeriCorps to help out at home, and the seaports aspect is important. But where is the mention of factories, power plants and chemical plants? That must fall under `privately held infrastructure'.
George W. Bush
"President Bush's budget proposed $379.9 billion for the Department of Defense, increasing defense spending by $15.3 billion."
"The budget fully reflects the Bush Administration's defense strategy, which calls for a focus on countering 21st century threats such as terrorism."
"The United States must strengthen its defenses to protect the nation's interests and to assure a leading role in global affairs."
No mention of anything that isn't related to the DoD or terrorism. Bush seems to think the homeland security issue is well in hand, what with Saddam no longer pointing his Weapons-Of-Mass-Destruction-Program-Related-Activities at us anymore. Glad we dodged that bullet. So we'll have a bigger army to spread even further under a second term of Bush. I'm sure those living near seaports, chemical factories and power plants will sleep better knowing that.
This issue will be the one Bush wants front and center, simply because he can say we haven't been attacked again, everything is better. And really, how do you counter that? By telling the voters about all the horrible things that could happen, maybe? That's not a good way to get votes. Ironically, Kerry is seen by Democrats as the best on this issue to face Bush, but I think he has some serious holes he'll need to plug before he can go toe to toe. Edwards lacks any executive, military or foreign relations experience, but has a better record in the Senate to point to. At least he didn't vote to cut intelligence spending.
Healthcare
John Edwards
"To Cover Every Child, Edwards Offers a Three-Part Deal. First, he'll make it highly affordable for parents to cover their children, guaranteeing access to high-quality, low-cost coverage and offering parents tax breaks for buying insurance. Most parents already covering their children will get a tax break. Second, he'll make it very easy for parents to cover their children, eliminating obstacles that exist today through automatic enrollment. Finally, he'll require parents to cover children under age 21."
"Under the Edwards Plan, grants will be made available to hospitals and nursing homes to improve the working conditions of all 2.2 million of America's nurses and to draw 50,000 Americans who have left nursing back into the profession. In addition, nursing schools will be expanded and scholarships provided so that another 50,000 nurses will be added."
"Before a lawyer can bring a medical malpractice case to court, Edwards will require that he or she swear that an expert doctor is ready to testify that real malpractice has occurred. Lawyers who file frivolous cases should face tough, mandatory sanctions. Lawyers who file three frivolous cases should be forbidden from bringing another suit for the next 10 years -- in other words, three strikes and you're out."
Edwards is really hit and miss on this one. Tax break for covering children? Good. Requiring parents to cover children until 21? Bad. No one likes the government telling them they have to do something, especially when it comes to raising their kids. And 21? That's extreme. The `punishment' for failing to comply will start with a letter of warning. Seriously. Who made this stuff up? It screams Hall Monitor. It's full of jokes waiting to be told on latenight television. His call to increase nurses is a good thing but is as politically dangerous as saying teachers need better pay. Well, yes. I like his stance on tort reform and malpractice, but it reeks of trial lawyer, and Bush will cast it in that light, even though Edwards is pretty spot on.
John Kerry
"Nine million Federal employees get health care through the Federal Employees Health Care Benefits program (FEHBP), which offers a wide range of plans with good benefits. The Kerry plan will allow every American access to this system. With tax-based incentives to employers and tax credits to individuals and the self-employed, the Kerry plan will ensure that this coverage is affordable. The most vulnerable groups, including the unemployed and retirees below age 65, will be covered. To hold down premiums, the federal government will reimburse companies for 75 percent of catastrophic claims totaling more than $50,000, provided they pass the savings on to their policyholders."
"Medical malpractice insurance has become so expensive in some states that physicians are moving or giving up their practices, cutting access to care for their patients. The Kerry plan will hold down malpractice premiums by requiring an impartial review of a claim before an individual could file suit and by eliminating punitive damages except in egregious cases. Kerry's plan will not put a cap on legitimate damage awards."
Here's where Kerry has an incredible sound bite. I can already see him standing at the debate saying, "Mister President, I think every single American deserves access to the great healthcare system you and I and every other elected official in Washington gets. If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them." Game, set, match. He actually gives some specifics here, and they're good. He's a little tighter on lawsuits, but reasonably so, and the balance will sit well with voters. He just needs to explain how he's going to do all this and still repeal the majority of tax cuts.
George Bush
"Help all Americans get affordable health care coverage and ensure access to doctors."
"Help patients get high-quality care every time."
"Modernize Medicare with prescription drug coverage that enables seniors to get the medicines they need, without the government dictating their drug choices."
"Allow patients the choice of doctors, hospitals, or treatment centers."
"Provide full coverage for disease prevention such as screenings for cancer, diabetes and osteoporosis."
"Develop new treatments to keep patients healthy and prevent complications from diseases and strengthen the health care safety net."
"President Bush has proposed, and the House has already approved, measures that would allow more class action and mass tort lawsuits to be moved into Federal court - so that trial lawyers have a tougher time shopping for a favorable court. The President's reforms would also ensure that, in a class action lawsuit, most of the benefits of a settlement will actually go to the people who were injured."
Unsurprisingly, Bush doesn't seem to think there's much of a problem with healthcare beyond medication costs and lawyers suing over every little thing. His plan on healthcare is pretty much your standard, "Develop new treatments," "Modernize Medicare," "Help patients get high-quality care," and other `medicine is good' type platitudes. No hard numbers, no ideas, no details. Except if you want to sue for malpractice. Then he has a lot of things to say to you.
Bush is pretty far off from most Americans on this issue. They want healthcare, and they're increasingly more open to having it be government subsidized. Edwards has some good ideas, but other parts of his plan are almost laughable. Kerry has some good ideas and the slogans and sound bites are ripe for the picking. Along with the economy, I think this could really be an issue for the Democrats to hammer away at in the general election. If we continue to be safe on the home front, turning the election into a referendum on the economy and healthcare could be a way to electoral victory.
