Hugo Restall, of the Wall Street Journal Ed Page, shares my concern with Senator Kerry's newfound moderation on fiscal policy. And he even steals my line. Since I populate this entire blog basically on the back of Dow Jones's content I don't think I'll sue.
But there is cause to question Senator Kerry's moderation:
WSJ.com - Giving Kerry the Business (Paid site only, sorry)If manufacturers create jobs above their 12-month average, he would refund the payroll taxes of the new employees for two years. Small businesses would be eligible to defer up to $250,000 of federal taxes if they are reinvested in the business. And he has plans to offer incentives, subsidies and venture capital to help develop new products.
The CEOs getting the goodies will cheer. But this is not what it means to be pro-business. The state's role is to create the environment so that entrepreneurs can take advantage of new opportunities, not to subsidize existing businesses.
If that's not convincing, consider that such favors come with a price tag. Politicians who think they can legislate new jobs also presume that government can raise living standards. And that's exactly what Sen. Kerry wants to attempt, for instance by raising the minimum wage.
His solutions to the "middle-class squeeze" all enlarge the government. Poor quality primary education and costly tuition for college? A Kerry administration would budget an extra $200 billion in government money. High gas prices? Stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Rising health care costs? Here's an additional $653 billion and bureaucrats will provide catastrophic-care insurance.
In one area, Mr. Kerry wants to cut back: government borrowing. Egged on by former Clinton advisers like Robert Rubin and Gene Sperling, he claims that taxes must be raised by $609 billion over 10 years in order to cut the deficit. But the booming economy means that government revenues are already recovering. The tax increase will go for Sen. Kerry's proposed new spending of $277 billion per year.
Rolling back the Bush tax cuts wouldn't just affect those making more than $200,000 a year, as we are led to believe. Restoring the top two brackets to their Clinton-era levels would start hitting single filers making $143,500 and married filers making $174,700 with higher marginal rates. Lower incentives for professionals, middle managers and small business owners will hurt economic growth.
Has John Kerry found a moderate message? Some observers think so. But giving something to everyone is not the same as being middle-of-the-road. Americans might want to consider what a President Kerry would do to their 401(k)s before they entrust him with the economy. "Fear not"? More like be very, very afraid.