KD in CA Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html My Economic Policy A new CEO in Washington would be good for American business. BY JOHN KERRY Wednesday, September 15, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT As I travel across this country, I meet store owners, stock traders, factory foremen and optimistic entrepreneurs. Their experiences may be different, but they all agree that America can do better under an administration that is better for business. Business leaders like Warren Buffett, Lee Iacocca and Robert Rubin are joining my campaign because they believe that American businesses will do better if we change our CEO. Since January 2001, the economy has lost 1.6 million private-sector jobs. The typical family has seen its income fall more than $1,500, while health costs are up more than $3,500. Today, American companies are investing less and exporting less than they were in 2000--the first time investment and exports have been down during any presidential term in over 70 years. At the same time, our trade deficit has grown to more than 5% of the economy for the first time ever, a troublesome and unsustainable development. The economy still has not turned the corner. Over the last year, real wages are still down and even the jobs created in the past 12 months represent the worst job performance for this period of a recovery in over 50 years. Indeed, the total of 1.7 million jobs created over the last year is weaker than even the worst year of job creation under President Clinton, and below what is needed just to find jobs for new applicants entering the work force. Forty-three months into his presidency, George Bush's main explanation for this dismal economic record is an assortment of blame and excuses. Yet what President Bush cannot explain is how the last 11 presidents before him--Democrats and Republicans--faced wars, recessions and international crises, and yet only he has presided over lost jobs, declining real exports, and the swing from a $5.6 trillion surplus to trillions of dollars of deficits. While the private sector will always be America's engine for innovation and job creation, President Bush has failed to take any responsibility for missing opportunities to strengthen the conditions for investment, economic confidence and job creation. When the economy needed short-run stimulus without increasing the long-run deficit, President Bush got it backwards, passing an initial round of tax cuts that Economy.com found had no effect in lifting us out of recession. He then passed more deficit-increasing tax cuts that Goldman Sachs described as "especially ineffective as a stimulative measure." When small businesses and families needed relief from skyrocketing health-care and energy costs, he chose sweetheart deals for special interests over serious plans to reduce costs and help spur new job creation. With the right choices on the economy, America can do better. American businesses and workers are the most resilient, productive and innovative in the world. And they deserve policies that are better for our economy. My economic plan will do the following: (1) Create good jobs, (2) cut middle-class taxes and health-care costs, (3) restore America's competitive edge, and (4) cut the deficit and restore economic confidence. • Create good jobs. I strongly believe that America must engage in the global economy, and I voted for trade opening from Nafta to the WTO. But at the same time, I have always believed that we need to fight for a level playing field for America's workers. I am not trying to stop all outsourcing, but as president, I will end every single incentive that encourages companies to outsource. Today, taxpayers spend $12 billion a year to subsidize the export of jobs. If a company is trying to choose between building a factory in Michigan or Malaysia, our tax code actually encourages it to locate in Asia. My plan would take the entire $12 billion we save from closing these loopholes each year and use it to cut corporate tax rates by 5%. This will provide a tax cut for 99% of taxpaying corporations. This would be the most sweeping reform and simplification of international taxation in over 40 years. In addition, I have proposed a two-year new jobs tax credit to encourage manufacturers, other businesses affected by outsourcing, and small businesses that created jobs. American businesses are the most competitive in the world, yet when it comes to enforcing trade agreements the Bush administration refuses to show our competitors that we mean business. They have brought only one WTO case for every three brought by the Clinton administration, while cutting trade enforcement budgets and failing to stand up to China's illegal currency manipulation. That not only costs jobs, it threatens to erode support for open markets and a growing global economy. • Cut middle-class taxes and health costs. Families are being increasingly squeezed by falling incomes and rising costs for everything from health care to college. But spiraling health-care and energy costs squeeze businesses too, encouraging them to lay off workers and shift to part-time and temporary workers. Under my plan, the tax cuts would be extended and made permanent for 98% of Americans. In addition, I support new tax cuts for college, child care and health care--in total, more than twice as large as the new tax cuts President Bush is proposing. I have proposed a health plan that would increase coverage while cutting costs. It builds on and strengthens the current system, giving patients their choice of doctors, and providing new incentives instead of imposing new mandates. My health plan will offer businesses immediate relief on their premiums. By providing employers some relief on catastrophic costs that are driving up premiums for everyone, we will save employers and workers about 10% of total health premiums. Our hospitals and doctors have the best technology for saving lives, but often still rely on pencil and paper when it comes to tracking medical tests and billing. As a result, we spend over $350 billion a year on red tape, not to mention the cost of performing duplicative or redundant tests. My plan will modernize our information technology, create private electronic medical records, and create incentives for the adoption of the latest disease management. And I won't be afraid to take on prescription drug or medical malpractice costs. We will make it easier for generic drugs to come to market and allow the safe importation of pharmaceuticals from countries like Canada. Finally, we will require medical malpractice plaintiffs to try nonbinding mediation, oppose unjustified punitive damage awards and penalize lawyers who file frivolous suits with a tough "three strikes and you're out" rule. This plan will make our businesses more competitive by making our health care more affordable. • Restore America's competitive edge. America has fallen to 10th in the world in broadband technology. Some of our best scientists are being encouraged to work overseas because of the restrictions on federal funding for stem-cell research. President Bush has proposed cutting 21 of the 24 research areas that are so critical to long-term growth. We need to invest in research because when we shortchange research we shortchange our future. My plan would invest in basic research and end the ban on stem-cell research. It would invest more in energy research, including clean coal, hydrogen and other alternative fuels. It would boost funding at the National Science Foundation and continue increases at the National Institutes of Health and other government research labs. It will provide tax credits to help jumpstart broadband in rural areas and the new higher-speed broadband that has the potential to transform everything from e-government to tele-medicine. I would promote private-sector innovation policies, including the elimination of capital gains for long-term investments in small business start-ups. To ensure we have the workers to compete in an innovation economy, we need more young people to not only enter but complete college, we need more young women and minorities to enter the fields of math and science, and we need to make it easier for working parents to get the lifelong learning opportunities they need to excel at both their current and their future jobs. • Cut the deficit and restore economic confidence. When President Bush was in New York for the Republican convention, he did not even pay lip service to reducing the deficit. His record makes even Republicans wary. From missions to Mars to a pricey Medicare bill, President Bush has proposed or passed more than $6 trillion in initiatives without paying for any of them. The record is clear: A deficit reduction promise from George W. Bush is not exactly a gilt-edged bond. Americans can trust my promise to cut the deficit because my record backs up my word. When I first joined the Senate, I broke with my own party to support the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings deficit reduction plan, which President Reagan signed into law. In 1993, I cast a deciding vote to bring the deficit under control. And in 1997, I supported the bipartisan balanced budget agreement. I will restore fiscal discipline and cut the deficit in half in four years. First, by imposing caps, so that discretionary spending--outside of security and education--does not grow faster than inflation. If Congress cannot control spending, it will automatically be cut across the board. Second, I will reinstitute the "pay as you go" rule, which requires that no one propose or pass a new program without a way to pay for it. Third, I will ask for Congress to grant me a constitutionally acceptable version of line-item veto power and to establish a commission to eliminate corporate welfare like the one John McCain and I have fought for. I am not waiting for next year to change the tone on fiscal discipline. Every day on the campaign trail, I explain how I pay for all my proposals. By rolling back the recent Bush tax cuts for families making over $200,000 per year, we can pay for health care and education. By cutting subsidies to banks that make student loans and restoring the principle that "polluters pay," we can afford to invest in national service and new energy technologies. My new rules won't just apply to programs I don't like; they will apply to my own priorities as well. Cleaning up President Bush's fiscal mess will not be easy, but to ensure a strong and sustainable economic future we have to make the tough choices to move America's growing deficits back in the right direction. On Nov. 2 we will have a national shareholders meeting. On the ballot will be the choice to continue with President Bush's policies or return to the fiscal sanity and pro-growth polices that proved so successful in the 1990s. You will choose. Mr. Kerry is the Democratic Party's candidate for president.
DC Tom Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Hee hee hee hee hee... No, seriously... ....whew... The more I read about Kerry's "economic policy", the more I see a bunch of "pretty" ideas strung together without any coherent framework or context. It's as if Kerry's knowledge of finance and economics doesn't extend beyond "Marry an heiress." I particularly liked his plan to get the government involved in ridding the medical industry of red tape - Lord knows the federal government has a stellar record of reducing administrative road blocks. And his plan to make America more competitive by teaching math to blacks and Hispanics is a masterpiece of economic theory... And will someone tell me what "create incentives for the adoption of the latest disease management" is supposed to mean in the context of an economic statement? Christ, the only thing Kerry DIDN'T mention in this BS "plan" is the shrapnel in his hip...
John F. Kerry Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Hee hee hee hee hee... No, seriously... ....whew... The more I read about Kerry's "economic policy", the more I see a bunch of "pretty" ideas strung together without any coherent framework or context. It's as if Kerry's knowledge of finance and economics doesn't extend beyond "Marry an heiress." I particularly liked his plan to get the government involved in ridding the medical industry of red tape - Lord knows the federal government has a stellar record of reducing administrative road blocks. And his plan to make America more competitive by teaching math to blacks and Hispanics is a masterpiece of economic theory... And will someone tell me what "create incentives for the adoption of the latest disease management" is supposed to mean in the context of an economic statement? Christ, the only thing Kerry DIDN'T mention in this BS "plan" is the shrapnel in his hip... 32249[/snapback] Did you know I was in Vietnam?
KD in CA Posted September 15, 2004 Author Posted September 15, 2004 Finally, we will require medical malpractice plaintiffs to try nonbinding mediation, oppose unjustified punitive damage awards and penalize lawyers who file frivolous suits with a tough "three strikes and you're out" rule. Maybe he'll put John Edwards in charge of this part.....
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Hee hee hee hee hee... No, seriously... ....whew... The more I read about Kerry's "economic policy", the more I see a bunch of "pretty" ideas strung together without any coherent framework or context. It's as if Kerry's knowledge of finance and economics doesn't extend beyond "Marry an heiress." I particularly liked his plan to get the government involved in ridding the medical industry of red tape - Lord knows the federal government has a stellar record of reducing administrative road blocks. And his plan to make America more competitive by teaching math to blacks and Hispanics is a masterpiece of economic theory... And will someone tell me what "create incentives for the adoption of the latest disease management" is supposed to mean in the context of an economic statement? Christ, the only thing Kerry DIDN'T mention in this BS "plan" is the shrapnel in his hip... 32249[/snapback] What I want to know is, what's Bush's economic solution? I am curious to see a speech like that from him, where he tries to outline his ideas. Here is a sampling of what we get from him... all generalities... feel-good statements, cliches, and sound bites. Please someone, post a link where he outlines his plans WITHOUT such generalities. Bush on Medicare, 2003 Here is what FORBES has to say about his 'plan' in 2003: Forbes analysis He doesn't have the ability to present to the American people the things it would take to fix the system, that's why.
Alaska Darin Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 He doesn't have the ability to present to the American people the things it would take to fix the system, that's why. 32304[/snapback] Because it isn't fixable. Every facet of society that the government puts its fingers in becomes more bureaucratic and less affordable. There are a litany of examples that prove that point, and none that I can find to the contrary. The government doesn't fix problems. It creates different and usually larger ones. No vision.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Because it isn't fixable. Every facet of society that the government puts its fingers in becomes more bureaucratic and less affordable. There are a litany of examples that prove that point, and none that I can find to the contrary. The government doesn't fix problems. It creates different and usually larger ones. No vision. 32330[/snapback] At least ONE of the candidates, no matter how loopy he might be, can at least give us an idea of what he would do. Canada's system, no matter how maligned it might be, guarantees people don't get stuck with $100,000 hospital bills and $200 a month in drug costs. Sure it might mean certain people have to wait, but it is better than what we have now. Something has to be tried....
VABills Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 At least ONE of the candidates, no matter how loopy he might be, can at least give us an idea of what he would do. Canada's system, no matter how maligned it might be, guarantees people don't get stuck with $100,000 hospital bills and $200 a month in drug costs. Sure it might mean certain people have to wait, but it is better than what we have now. Something has to be tried.... 32343[/snapback] Of course in Canada don't have an emergency. It's first come, first serve. So if your child is not breathing, you might have to wait 5-6 hours before you see a doctor. Not that it's really that big of a deal, I am sure a child can go that long without oxygen. Oh yeah and the medical research there, when was the last time they developed anything? Thats what i thought. You only pay for triage and basic care there. The costs are higher here, as you are paying for the research. They just are leaches on work done elsewhere.
Alaska Darin Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 At least ONE of the candidates, no matter how loopy he might be, can at least give us an idea of what he would do. Canada's system, no matter how maligned it might be, guarantees people don't get stuck with $100,000 hospital bills and $200 a month in drug costs. Sure it might mean certain people have to wait, but it is better than what we have now. Something has to be tried.... 32343[/snapback] That's the spirit. Let's take somebody else's utter failure and let our government improve on it. That's destined for success. I've posted numerous articles here over the years lamenting Canada's Health Care "System" and its failures. Virtually the same percentage of Canadiens are denied health care as their US counterparts. There is no health care Utopia on the horizon and government involvement over the years has made it WORSE, not BETTER. Today we spend more money on Medicare/Medicade than we do on D.O.D. That only serves a small percentage of the population and I doubt you'd get many people to say it's a good program. Do some research before you bring that lame stevestojan here.
John F. Kerry Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 That's the spirit. Let's take somebody else's utter failure and improve on it. I've posted numerous articles here over the years lamenting Canada's Health Care "System" and its failures. Virtually the same percentage of Canadiens are denied health care as their US counterparts. There is no health care Utopia on the horizon and government involvement over the years has made it WORSE, not BETTER. Today we spend more money on Medicare/Medicade than we do on D.O.D. That only serves a small percentage of the population and I doubt you'd get many people to say it's a good program. Do some research before you bring that lame stevestojan here. 32352[/snapback] But, if we raise taxes on the rich, we will have more money to put into the system. It will work, with enough money.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Of course in Canada don't have an emergency. It's first come, first serve. So if your child is not breathing, you might have to wait 5-6 hours before you see a doctor. Not that it's really that big of a deal, I am sure a child can go that long without oxygen. Oh yeah and the medical research there, when was the last time they developed anything? Thats what i thought. You only pay for triage and basic care there. The costs are higher here, as you are paying for the research. They just are leaches on work done elsewhere. 32347[/snapback] It has ALWAYS been that way... do you honestly think that we would be as technologically advanced as we are without some leeching done by us? Nope. Research has nothing to do with doctor bills, or hospital bills!!! It is quite odd that the costs involved when it comes to those kind of bills are greatly reduced in Canada... tax money that actually goes where it is supposed to go; toward improving the health and welfare of its citizens without outrageous price gouging or pork projects that go nowhere! How novel
KD in CA Posted September 15, 2004 Author Posted September 15, 2004 But, if we raise taxes on the rich, we will have more money to put into the system. It will work, with enough money. 32353[/snapback] The rich? That would be the 2% of Americans making over $200,000 a year who pay 40% of the federal taxes, right? Good. It's high time they started paying their "fair share"!
Alaska Darin Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 It has ALWAYS been that way... do you honestly think that we would be as technologically advanced as we are without some leeching done by us? Nope. Research has nothing to do with doctor bills, or hospital bills!!! It is quite odd that the costs involved when it comes to those kind of bills are greatly reduced in Canada... tax money that actually goes where it is supposed to go; toward improving the health and welfare of its citizens without outrageous price gouging or pork projects that go nowhere! How novel 32359[/snapback] Research has nothing to do with doctor and hospital bills? VERY "lahjikal." Care to explain that pearl in a little greater detail, oh wise one?
VABills Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 It has ALWAYS been that way... do you honestly think that we would be as technologically advanced as we are without some leeching done by us? Nope. Research has nothing to do with doctor bills, or hospital bills!!! It is quite odd that the costs involved when it comes to those kind of bills are greatly reduced in Canada... tax money that actually goes where it is supposed to go; toward improving the health and welfare of its citizens without outrageous price gouging or pork projects that go nowhere! How novel 32359[/snapback] What???? My wife is a dietician. Changes they make in the food service section, etc.. are budgeted out and are reflected in everyones hospital cost. Even if you don't eat and are stuck on IV's for your entire stay you are charged for food service costs. She works in an orthopediactic specialty hospital, they are constantly inventing and designing new things. That is part of their job. They absotlutely pass this cost on. When a department runs a seminar, the food service charges huge catering costs to setup and provide rooms and food for these. These departments pass the costs on. They don't do this out of the goodness of their hearts. You are ignorant of reality if you believe otherwise.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 That's the spirit. Let's take somebody else's utter failure and let our government improve on it. That's destined for success. I've posted numerous articles here over the years lamenting Canada's Health Care "System" and its failures. Virtually the same percentage of Canadiens are denied health care as their US counterparts. There is no health care Utopia on the horizon and government involvement over the years has made it WORSE, not BETTER. Today we spend more money on Medicare/Medicade than we do on D.O.D. That only serves a small percentage of the population and I doubt you'd get many people to say it's a good program. Do some research before you bring that lame stevestojan here. 32352[/snapback] All you are doing is substituting one kind of misery for another... in one system, some people don't get access to health care quickly but don't have the burden of outrageous health care costs, while the other gets access to health care more frequently, but burdens the patient and families with outrageous bills!! No system is perfect, but come on... it's better than ours! Look: Virtually the same percentage of Canadiens are denied health care as their US counterparts. There is no health care Utopia on the horizon and government involvement over the years has made it WORSE, not BETTER. Virtually the same percentage, and Americans get these crazy, high medical bills?? You just made my case for me in that statement. The percentage of people who don't get access to health care is virtually the same, and yet we pay while they don't? That sounds fair.
John F. Kerry Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 The rich? That would be the 2% of Americans making over $200,000 a year who pay 40% of the federal taxes, right? Good. It's high time they started paying their "fair share"! 32368[/snapback] Exactly. We need to tax them more, so that there is more money to spend on my new government programs.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 Research has nothing to do with doctor and hospital bills? VERY "lahjikal." Care to explain that pearl in a little greater detail, oh wise one? 32372[/snapback] The costs stem directly from suppliers who overcharge hospitals, doctors who overcharge their patients, insurance companies who gouge the doctors and hospitals, no reasonable caps on medical malpractice lawsuits, and a government who ALLOWS IT TO HAPPEN. That's not research... those all add up to one sorry system, government intervention not even included in that!! whew.
VABills Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 All you are doing is substituting one kind of misery for another... in one system, some people don't get access to health care quickly but don't have the burden of outrageous health care costs, while the other gets access to health care more frequently, but burdens the patient and families with outrageous bills!! No system is perfect, but come on... it's better than ours! Look: Virtually the same percentage, and Americans get these crazy, high medical bills?? You just made my case for me in that statement. The percentage of people who don't get access to health care is virtually the same, and yet we pay while they don't? That sounds fair. 32375[/snapback] Hello, we get better care. Therefore we have a better chance of living, therefore it is worth more money, therefore I chose that option. There are free clinics all around the US. There are several hospitals that one can goto that are required to give care to patients that are unable to pay. Everyone without healthcare can go to them and wait in line. The problem is people all want free healthcare with the same level of service. Ain't happening.
Alaska Darin Posted September 15, 2004 Posted September 15, 2004 All you are doing is substituting one kind of misery for another... in one system, some people don't get access to health care quickly but don't have the burden of outrageous health care costs, while the other gets access to health care more frequently, but burdens the patient and families with outrageous bills!! No system is perfect, but come on... it's better than ours! Look: Virtually the same percentage, and Americans get these crazy, high medical bills?? You just made my case for me in that statement. The percentage of people who don't get access to health care is virtually the same, and yet we pay while they don't? That sounds fair. 32375[/snapback] Yeah, because health care in Canada is free. Doctors, nurses, radiologists all work for nothing. They are fed at the local soup kitchen. Are you mental? It ain't FREE. They pay an unbelievable tax burden for substandard care that isn't available to everyone, despite what your liberal Utopian ideology on the subject thinks. Not long ago I posted a story about a guy who was 24 years old and needed surgery to fix a back problem. He can no longer work. He's on the waiting list and was told it will take 10 YEARS for him to get a surgery slot. Until then he has almost no quality of life and has to survive on about $700 a month. A couple of weeks ago in Vancouver, a father drove his young daughter to the hospital because she had stopped breathing. The emergency room wouldn't admit her because she wasn't transported by paramedics. The ER admin person dialed 911 and handed the phone to the father. By the time the paramedics got TO THE HOSPITAL, his daughter was dead. Because they have government health care, he has NO LEGAL RECOURSE (story reported by Paul Harvey). If their system is so great, MOVE THERE. Government health care = All the compassion of the IRS + All the efficiency of the DMV.
KD in CA Posted September 15, 2004 Author Posted September 15, 2004 In our UK subsidiary, we have to pay a 13% payroll tax to fund National Health Insurance (a much better benefit for the UK economy than us hiring 13% more employees). And it benefit sucks so badly, that even little companies like our subsidiary ($5MM in annual sales) almost universally provide private supplemental health care. You know, healthcare for when you actually get sick.
Recommended Posts