Bush v. Kerry: a comparison

Bush v. Kerry: a comparison

From an objective point of view, this year's presidential election should not be a difficult choice. The contrast in records of the two candidates could hardly be more dramatic.

National Security:

Bush:
On September 11, 2001, America was attacked. President Bush promptly declared war on the terrorists (and the rogue regimes which harbor them), and took the fight to the enemy. In so doing, he assembled a coalition of thirty nations willing to contribute their efforts to the task. As a result, in an amazingly short time, he accomplished four major victories with regard to: (1) Afghanistan, (2) Iraq, (3) Libya, and (4) Al Qaeda. In Afghanistan and Iraq, two rogue (terrorist-harboring) regimes were overthrown and replaced with democracies friendly to America In Libya, a third such regime was influenced by the capture of Saddam to disclose and give up its weapons of mass destruction, and to cooperate with the United States. Meanwhile, 75% of Al Qaeda leadership was killed or captured. We are also now getting more cooperation against Al Qaeda from Moslem countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The development most feared by the terrorists is the arrival of free market democracy in the Middle East. In Afghanistan free elections (including women as voters) were held in October, 2004. In Iraq economic activity is rapidly increasing and preparations are well underway for such elections in January, 2005.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry:
During his undistinguished Senatorial career (with little attention to duties, and only 8 Kerry bills becoming law*), Kerry has faithfully served the interests of America's enemies (communist North Vietnam, Sandinista Nicaragua, communist China, and now terrorist Iran), but never those of the U.S. So far Kerry's only "success" (prior to becoming a senator) has been to help the communist enemy defeat his own country (the United States) and enslave Vietnam (1970). His subsequent attempt to similarly help the communists advance in Central America (i.e., the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua and the FMLN in El Salvador) suffered a major setback when the Nicaraguan people voted the Sandinistas out of office (1990). Kerry voted against the 1991 U.N. backed effort to oust Saddam from Kuwait. Kerry's position would have left Saddam today not only in Iraq, but also in Kuwait and probably Saudi Arabia. Although Kerry did vote in favor of sending troops into Iraq, he voted against arming and equipping them. This would have resulted not only in our defeat, but also in vastly increased casualties and fatalities among our troops. Now working on behalf of the terrorist regime in Iran which is seeking to develop a nuclear bomb, Kerry advocates giving that regime nuclear material to use against us. At the same time Kerry would unilaterally disarm America's research into its own defensive "bunker busting" bombs. While requiring that America pass a "global test" in order to take pre-emptive action to defend itself against a growing threat, Kerry is also attempting (via reverse diplomacy) to undermine America's anti-terrorist coalition. However, Kerry suffered a key defeat in Australia when (despite the best efforts of Kerry's sister) America's ally John Howard was re-elected (2004).

--------------------------

* Frank Salvato notes that "John Kerry has been practically non-existent in the US Senate throughout his career," and that "[t]o date, only eight pieces of legislation bear his name, many being ceremonial in nature. For the eight years Kerry was on the Senate Intelligence Committee he was absent 76% of the time." ("Time to Spotlight Kerry's Attendance Record" by Frank Salvato, Townhall.com, October 8, 2004.)

"Kerry: U.S. should've given nuclear fuel to Iran," WorldNetDaily.com, October 2, 2004.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Economy:

Bush:
In January, 2001, President Bush inherited a declining economy from the taxation-prone Clinton Administration. This was followed by the September 11, 2001 attack on America which also had a major adverse economic impact. Nevertheless, as a direct result of the Bush tax cuts, the U.S. economy is now growing at the fastest pace in the industrialized world. Our growth rate of 5.1% since the 2003 tax cuts were enacted is substantially higher than that of our competitors, and the standard projection of 4.5% growth for next year is almost twice the rate of growth that Europe is expected to achieve, constituting the highest rate of U.S. growth since the Reagan years. Overall economic growth is running at a faster rate than in 1996 when Clinton was re-elected. The household survey reveals that 1.69 million more people are employed today than when Bush first took office. This influx of new job entrants has decreased the unemployment rate to 5.4 percent, equaling the lowest rate (1996) in the preceding 30 years. This rate is among the lowest of all our industrial competitors and compares favorably with a jobless rate of 8% on average in Europe. Alan Greenspan has observed that these are well-paying jobs. In addition, household wealth is up 11.1 percent, hitting a record high of $45.9 trillion, and inflation-adjusted consumer spending is up 3.6 percent. According to 368 of the nation's leading economists (including six Nobel laureates, such as this year's winner Edward C. Prescott), "President Bush's focus on raising long-term growth using well-timed tax cuts, opening markets, and seeking to limit regulatory and litigation costs has furthered the global economic expansion."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry:
In the past 20 years Kerry has cast dozens of votes for higher taxes on the middle-class. He voted against the Bush tax cut which brought us the present recovery. Despite this, paradoxically posing as the hero of the middle-class, Kerry has assailed the Bush tax cuts as being for "the rich" at the expense of "the middle-class." Donning the mantle of Robin Hood, Kerry tells us he has a "plan" to tax "the rich" to subsidize (i.e., perpetuate) "the poor." The hypocrisy of this is manifest. With a combined income of $5.5 million (and a net worth in excess of $500 million), the Kerrys paid $704,227 of income tax, which is an effective tax rate of 12.8 percent. In contrast, George and Laura Bush had about a tenth of the Kerrys' income and paid a tax rate of 30.4 percent. Federal statistics list the average federal tax rate as 20 percent. The fact that Kerry so carefully lowers his own tax rate below that of the average person is evidence that his proposal does not contemplate any personal sacrifice.

Equally manifest is the economic stupidity of Kerry's welfare state proposals. According to 368 of the nation's leading economists (including six Nobel laureates, such as this year's honoree Edward C. Prescott) "Kerry's proposals would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth." In other words, Kerry's economic "plan" is in fact a prescription for renewed recession and resultant loss of jobs. And the cost of that plan is understated. Experience has shown that a higher tax rate can produce lower revenues (due to the resultant economic contraction). In any event Kerry's proposed $800 billion in tax increases could hardly pay for his proposed $2.2 trillion in new spending for a bureaucratic health plan. The obvious result would be an increased deficit, a deeper recession, inflated currency, and rationed health care (as in Canada).

-------------------

"368 Economists Against Kerrynomics," by J. Edward Carter & Cesar V. Conda, National Review on Line, October 13, 2004.

"America Enjoying Strong Economic Growth Despite Spin," Daily Policy Digest, October 15, 2004; source: Larry Kudlow, "Solid Jobs, Solid GDP," Townhall.com, October 11, 2004.

"Kerry's Wrong on the Economy, Too," by Stephen Moore, Human Events Online.com, Oct 15, 2004

-------------------------------------------------------

In sum, in Bush we have one of the greatest presidents of recent history. In Kerry we have one of the most fraudulent, corrupt, left-wing and disloyal politicians ever to presume to higher office.