In a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, Howard Dean provided voters with a thumbnail sketch of the new economic direction Congress will take if the Democrats gain control on November 7. In what follows, I provide you with Dean’s outline — call it “Deanonomics” — while responding in kind to the anointed spokesman for the out-of-power party.

Let’s go to the editorial:

Dean says: “The Republican record on managing the federal budget is dismal. Republicans have turned surplus into debt, hope into lost opportunity; they have become the party of borrow-and-spend.”

I say: The budget deficit increased for two reasons: to get us out of the Clinton recession of 2001 and to overcome the economic effects of the terrorist attacks on 9/11. As a result, the U.S. economy has recovered and has been growing at an above-average rate. Dean doesn’t say how Al Gore, had he been president at the time, would have responded. And I can only imagine that Gore would have proposed higher taxes to avert a growing budget deficit — a Hooveresque response. Meanwhile, Dean’s nickname for Republicans — “the party of borrow-and-spend” — is an interesting play on words. The Democrats, of course, have been the party of tax-and-spend for many years, while Republicans, to be accurate, have been the party of tax-cut-and-spend (at least more recently). But I’ll take the latter combination any day. President George W. Bush’s tax cuts and spending increases have led to economic growth, whereas tax increases seldom if ever have a stimulative outcome.

Dean says: “The Joint Committee on Taxation [JCT] estimates that the total cost this year of the president’s tax cuts is $258 billion.”

I say: The notion that giving people back their hard-earned money through tax cuts is somehow a “cost” tells us something about the Deanocrat mentality. In their world, the government owns everything. And to the extent that the people do not hand over everything in taxes, what is left over is the result of Democratic generosity. That said, the JCT estimates that Dean cites are based on static economic analysis. A quick anecdote reveals the fallacy of this method: Former congressman Dick Armey once asked the bean counters what would happen if the government imposed a 100 percent tax rate. Their response was that the government would reap an enormous tax windfall. In truth, the government would gather 100 percent of nothing, since there would be zero incentive to work, earn, and produce. By the way, where did the unexpected $100 billion in federal tax revenues come from this fiscal year? From the “rich” people and companies who are working harder, earning more, and paying more in taxes now that taxes are lower.

Dean says: “These [Bush] economic policies amount to a war on American families.”

I say: In a multi-trillion-dollar economy, anybody can find statistics that support one perspective over another. In November, voters will look at their financial well-beings, the low unemployment rate, their recently refinanced mortgage rates, the higher value of their property and investments, falling inflation, and lower interest rates — and they will ask themselves, “Would I have fared better under a John Kerry tax-and-spend presidency?”

Dean says: “We will restore honesty in government, starting with the pay-as-you-go discipline in Congress that served Mr. Clinton so well.”

I say: “PAYGO” is another way of saying, “No more tax cuts folks, unless of course you cut spending, even though the Bush tax cuts have produced more tax revenues than expected.” The Deanocrats don’t understand what Jack Kennedy understood so clearly: Tax-rate cuts stimulate economic activity; they do not retard economic growth. Despite this legacy, the Deanocrats partner a tax increase on hard-working Americans with near every economic proposal they make. And to imply that “honesty” and the Clinton years somehow go hand in hand . . . well, I’ll let you decide that one.

Dean says: “Americans are taking on more debt just to keep up in the Republican economy.”

I say: Americans took on more debt after voluntarily deciding to increase their mortgages and simultaneously raise their standards of living during a boom period for real estate — one that is unmatched in U.S. history when coupled with comparatively low interest rates.

Dean says: “We will ease the burdens on middle class Americans and reverse Republican cuts in college tuition aid and health care.”

I say: This is another way of saying “Spend more, tax more.”

Dean says: “We will ensure that a retirement with dignity is the right and expectation of every single American, including pension reform, and preventing the privatization of social security.”

I say, again: This is another way of saying, “Spend more, tax more.”

Dean says: “We will dramatically expand support of energy independence in order to generate large numbers of new American jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.”

I ask: Do the Deanocrats really have a plan? The programs they would embrace — constraining refining capacity, putting new drilling and exploration off limits, taxing large oil companies for excess profits — would only reduce our ability to act independently. As for “large numbers of new American jobs,” we are just about at full employment today. What does Dean see that the rest of us do not?

In the final analysis, Dean’s “New Direction” manifesto is pure Deanogoguery. Clearly, Deanonomics would dramatically alter how the U.S. economy is managed, initiating changes that would undermine our ability to grow and prosper in an increasingly competitive world.

– Thomas E. Nugent is executive vice president and chief investment officer of PlanMember Advisors, Inc., and principal of Victoria Capital Management, Inc.