As Howard Zinn says "You can't be neutral on a moving train." And I'm anguished with the direction this Presidential train has been moving these three years.
Let's reflect on a speech from earlier in the Bush Administration. Or if you prefer, hop on over to his recent State of the Union Address. When you finish, comment on what you see wrong/right over there or down below, then read on.
From August 21, 2001, during question & answer session following a speech President Bush delivered at Target, Bush answers how his tax cut will jump start the economy. The the full interview is available here (as of January 25th, 2004).
Q Mr. President, do you think that the purchasing of school supplies and things people would buy ordinarily will, in fact, jump start the economy?
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think it's a cumulative. If you try to look at one isolated incident, it's easy to belittle $600 in a person's pocket. But $600 of additional disposable income all across America that amounts to billions of dollars will provide a part of the equation for economic recovery. Of course, if somebody buys a pencil, somebody's had to make it. But it is not just school supplies. That maybe kind of diminishes the effect of billions of dollars getting into the economy in a very quick period of time.
I knew I wasn't going to vote for Bush this election year, as many who read this site did as well, however I've been hard pressed to decide on a Democartic candidate. This year, unlike last year it seems to me, there are several solid candidates running, unfortunately they are all WASP's, but solid they are nonetheless. And like many "porgressives", I'm not just looking for a canddate that can win, I'm looking for a candidate that can represent the multi-faceted value structures and issues facing America and the World today. America should represent and lead in valuing the human spirit and every individual's right to live freely to pursue their own life free of opporession, as long as they don't infringe on others rights to do the same. I believe I've found a leader that can and will do that and I'll refine my reasons over the coming months as I delve deeper and grow more committed to the campaign.
One of the reasons Wesley Clark is appeals to me today, irregardless of his unavoweledly prior Republican alignment, supporting Reagan and Bush Seniors' Administrations, it seems to me he has the willingness, passion, and ability (through the benefit of hindsight) to bring realistic economic solutions to the forefront of leadership. Clark's economic plan disavows Reagan's trickle-down theory, which Bush has honed to a sharp edge and brought ever an embellished refinement.
In a speech I watched yesterday on Clark's website yesterday I couldn't help but confer what Clark says with what Bush said back in 2001.
An excerpt from Clark's speech at Dartmouth College:
"...what's going on in this country is that a lot of people are insecure about their future's. They're worried about jobs. They're worried about health care...the thing is..that the party that is in power, is doing the least to help them. It's program is taxcuts for the wealthy, with the assumption of trickle-down economics. And if you're at Dartmounth (this speech was given at Dartmouth), I'm sure you're aware that there is no academic merit in "trickle-down" economics. It should be taught in poilitical economy. Not in economics. (Applause)"
Wes Clark's tax plan make sense to me, and will probably be even more meaningful and beneficial to families like my brother's (4 boys all under 5). families who are a one-income family, that bring's home under $50,000. Read Clark's plan here.
Here's an excerpt of from his Families First Tax plan:
The majority of families will not need to file tax returns. Under Wes Clark's reform, more than half of American families will no longer need to file tax returns. The government will withhold the correct amount of taxes from the families paycheck or provide them with the correct tax credit. If they still want to file a tax form, they can. This system has been proven to work in thirty-six countries, including the United Kingdom.[1]
Don't get me wrong, I'm not naive enough to think this will pass through congress with flying colors. Even in the few minutes it took me to read, I saw a few glaring challenges. For example, his plan mentions several seeming inflexible target numbers, as oppossed to ranges based on cost of living analysis. As it stands it doesn't really take into consideration that different locales have different costs of living and hence different measurements of poverty. Nonetheless, it makes more sense than Bush's $600 for tissues or school supplies at Target, and waiting for the cumulative KA-POW of economic stimulus from that. We would have to wait until our states revenues recovered from his massive retraction of federal programs, that in the aforementioned speech above he claimed was laden with "pet projects". Mr. President, if Education, Health Care, and Labor rights are "pet projects" than perhaps you should consider running for the Chair of some board again, 'cause those "pet projects" ain't going away. I'm impressed that Clark's not just criticizing the Administration, he's getting his team to think about plausible alternatives, and making a stance on these in his bid for democratic nomination.
I've been spending a fair amount of time in analyzing the candidates on my own, and I still have a long ways to go before I am fully committed to one Candidate, but this much I can say, Clark, Kerry, Edwards, and even Dean, all look a lot better than the current Administration.
Clark seems the strongest and most capable of meeting Bush on his National Security platform, and as Clark proclaimed this past week in NH, "...I can go toe to toe with George Bush on National Security..." and I agree. And I've read a plethora of varied sources to boot. Watched video after video of debate, interview, etc. of all of the leading candidates and Clark seems far in front of the pack to me.
Of the top candidates, Clark speaks with the most decisiveness on all the issues he's weighed in on to date (which are many), yet allows openness for counsel from experts and debate at the same time. One of the things I've most disliked about Dean, is his waffling nature, to me, that spells defeat and clear centrist, middle-of-the-roadeness, that we don't need.
I remeber another waffler from my home state, George Bush was accussed of being a waffler back in Texas. He managed to win two gubernatorial races, before he marched on to D.C. The problem back then was that we didn't know what his stance was on most issues,a nd he waited till he got to the Whitehouse to let the full brunt of his decision fall on the American public,a nd took an opportunity to play his agenda once we faced the crisis of post 9-11.
Wesley clark sounds committed to Openness in the Federal Government and has made adamantly clear his stance on the most common and basic issues facing the American public, and in turn one of the first things he's done is provide a 100 Year Vision for America. And his vision is weighed by careful integration with his stance on issues. I can't remeber Bush ever clearly stating his stance on anything (besides issues that are clearly outside the realm of governmental intervention, i.e. religious beliefs, unbased in fact) , and I know that is not good for our country. Leadership must lay out their vision and be willing to hear and take criticism and amend their vision accordingly. It seems Wes Clark has stepped out leaps and bounds above the rest.
Read Clark's Pledge to Open Goverment...Or his Tax Policy...Or his 10 Pledges on National Security...or his stance on Education...Job Creation...
Leave a comment