It has been said politicians are people who realize you can’t fool all of the people all of the time, but who are nevertheless willing to give it a try. And try they do. Their weapon of choice is the promise they know they cannot keep.
If John Kerry should lose next week’s presidential election, it won’t be for a lack of trying — or promising. Senators Kerry and Edwards have promised the American people virtually everything except nicer weather, whiter teeth, and fewer box-office bombs starring Ben Affleck.
Earlier this month John Edwards went so far as to promise that “when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.” Who but a former trial lawyer could make such a statement with a straight face? Only slightly less disturbing is John Kerry’s tendency to make promises that invariably involve taking money from taxpayers so that the federal government can grow larger and more intrusive.
According to the National Taxpayers Union, John Kerry’s campaign promises would add an estimated $226 billion annually to federal spending. To put this in perspective, raising $226 billion in fiscal year 2004 would have required a 27.8 percent across-the-board tax increase on everyone (not just the rich) who pays the individual income tax.
Yet, during the second presidential debate, Kerry was asked, “Senator Kerry, would you be willing to look directly into the camera and, using simple and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge not to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning less than $200,000 a year during your first term?” Kerry quickly promised, “Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera. Yes. I am not going to raise taxes.”
Troubled by the stark disconnect between Kerry’s spending and tax proposals, 368 economists recently warned, “Kerry’s stated desire to balance the budget and to boost federal spending substantially would almost certainly require far higher and broader tax increases than he has proposed.” Moreover, they added, the tax increases Kerry proposes “threaten to sap the economy’s vitality and reduce long-term growth.”
Despite the criticism, Kerry promises the American people that he has a plan. In fact, during his second debate with President Bush, Kerry declared, “I have a plan,” not once, but thirteen times. But wielding a focus-group-approved phrase is not the same thing as having a sound plan. General George A. Custer had a plan. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had a plan. Even Herbert Hoover had a plan.
Consider Hoover’s plan: Ten months into a recession, he signed the protectionist Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. In doing so, he squashed international trade and further damaged the U.S. economy. Then, arguing “nothing is more necessary at this time than balancing the budget,” Hoover persuaded Congress to raise taxes. (Among other things, Congress raised the top marginal income-tax rate from 24 percent to 63 percent!) Predictably, neither of these tactics worked to stem the economic decline. As Hoover later lamented, “I’m the only person of distinction who’s ever had a depression named for him.”
Senator Kerry’s plans, while not as severe as Hoover’s, are certainly Hooveresque. His plans include higher marginal tax rates and the abandonment of the Bush administration’s efforts to secure additional “free trade” agreements. According to the 368 economists quoted earlier, “John Kerry has expressed a general reluctance to reduce trade barriers. He has promised, if elected, to ‘review existing trade agreements.’ He vows not to ‘sign any new trade agreements until the review is complete and its recommendations [are] put in place.’ That’s a prescription for political gridlock. Given the widespread benefits of unfettered trade, Kerry’s trade policies would harm U.S. producers and consumers alike.”
Some plans are best left on the drawing board; some promises are best left unfulfilled. But more important, some promises are best not made in the first place. As President Bill Clinton once remarked, “Promising too much can be as cruel as caring too little.”
– J. Edward Carter is an economist in Washington, D.C. PLEASE SEE EDITOR’S NOTE