by David R. Wells and Lawrence H. Wells
29 Oct 2004
Thus, we do not endorse either major party candidate for president.
President Bush's economic policies have not fixed fundamental economic problems. We criticize him more for what he hasn't done than for what he has. While Bush inherited many of the problems (the economic "bubble" of the 1990s had already burst by the time he got into office, so we can put some of the blame on Clinton.) he has had four years to fix things, and he hasn't. Since he has had a theoretically cooperative Republican congress for most of his term, he has even less of an excuse. His tax cuts (his solution to all economic problems) were poorly targeted, and probably helped his rich friends more than the economy as a whole.
While he has damaged the infrastructure of al Qaeda, he has not destroyed it. Further, he has waged an unneccesary war in Iraq, which has unquestionably diverted resources from our primary objective. Mr. Bush has spent more money on defense, even excluding the costs of the Iraq war, but we have little to show for it. The force structure of the American military is at the same pitiful level as it was during the Clinton administration. The Army has no additional divisions, and the USN is still well on its way to becoming a 200 ship navy.
Additionally, his heavy-handed diplomatic efforts have alienated our allies, and in some cases, emboldened our enemies. Our allies are not perfect, and we should not allow them to dictate our actions. Their national interests and ours do not always align. Still, there are better ways to deal with them. Mr. Bush has routinely ignored the State Department, and even his own Secretary of State. Key elements of his foreign policy have instead been driven by the Department of Defense. He has also repeatedly ignored the CIA. There are rumors that Gen. Powell would not return for a second Bush administration, and we can hardly blame him.
Thus, we cannot endorse President Bush.
Senator Kerry offers no real solutions. While (for the moment) he favors continuing our efforts in Iraq, his inconsistent record suggests that this may change at any time without notice. We believe that we now have no choice but to continue the war in Iraq, as failure there would be catastrophically bad. Cutting and running is simply not an option. Kerry claims that he will get our European allies to help, but this is simply not credible. France and Germany have explicitly stated that they will not send troops under any circumstance. Unless the senator has a secret deal with France and Germany (and we don't think he does) the United States will not get any help in Iraq even if Kerry is elected.
Additionally, we feel his economic policies are as unrealistic as President Bush's. He has in fact proposed trillions of dollars in new spending, to be paid for by repealing part of Bush's tax cuts. The numbers simply do not add up. He will have to either go back on his promises of new spending, raise taxes generally, or some combination of the two.
His plan to end tax breaks for companies which move operations offshore will not end the practice. Companies move operations offshore because of cheaper wages and other lower costs. The tax break (which has existed for decades - Bush didn't put it in place) is just an added bonus. While this tax break should be eliminated, we shouldn't expect it to fix the problem. We also note that Senator Kerry voted for permanent normal trade relations with the People's Republic of China back in 2000. The P.R.C. is now a major destination for US companies which move production overseas.
Further, we strongly suspect that he will be a "crypto-liberal" in the Bill Clinton mold. Kerry is running as a moderate, but given the chance we believe he will rule as a liberal. His voting record in the Senate, which he rarely mentions, certainly suggests that he is indeed a serious, committed liberal. He may be talking about middle-class tax cuts now, but we are reminded of Clinton's 1992 tax cut proposal that mysteriously disappeared once he got into office.
Even if Kerry could implement his economic policies, he will not bring back the "good old days" of the late 1990s economy. That was a bubble economy, much like the stock market bubble of the 1920s. It's not coming back. It was simply unsustainable. It was an illusion built on the smoke and mirrors of internet stocks, biased advice, faulty research, fraudulent accounting, and some good old-fashioned insider trading. Even if we could bring it back, would we really want to?
If his rarely mentioned Senate voting record is any indication, we can also expect serious defense budget cuts from Sen. Kerry - and probably in the wrong places. We expect that he will be much like President Clinton on defense. He won't run on defense cuts, and may even talk about increases; but we believe he will instead deliver radical cuts, in keeping with his past positions. This is the wrong thing to do during a time of war.
Thus, we cannot endorse Senator Kerry.
Nader provides some comic relief, and he makes an occasional good point about the problems of the present "duopoly" of the two parties. His policies are however even less realistic than those of the major party candidates, as hard as that may be to believe.
First of all, make sure that you do vote. Not voting is effectively a vote for the status quo. The eventual winner will regard it as an endorsement. Not voting is the worst possible thing you can do.
Second, vote your conscience. That's what democracy is all about. Even if you disagree with us, you must vote your conscience.
So if you do agree with us, and the major parties are unacceptable, what should you do? The answer is simple: Vote for someone else. You can write in anybody you happen to believe would make a good president. Write in John McCain. Write in your best friend. Write in your neighbor. Write in yourself. Write in Loony party candidates David C. "Hollywood Dave" Wright and Sir Andrew "Edd Banger" Shaw. You could hardly do any worse than the two major parties.
You are not "throwing your vote away". You are only throwing your vote away if you vote for someone you don't believe in. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
If enough people start voting against the two major parties, it's going to start to show up in the media. It will take time and consistent effort, but the major parties will not change until we stop voting for them. They'll do their best to ignore us. Remember 1992, and Clinton's 43% "mandate"? He spent the next two years running things as if he had a majority, ignoring the nearly 20% who voted independent. (Perot wasn't much, but like Nader, he realized the duopoly was a problem.) The media will also try to ignore us, partisan hacks that they are, but if enough of us do it for long enough, we will force change.
With the U.S. political silly season approaching its climax there are even more lies than usual floating around. In no particular order:
George Bush restricted Federal funding for stem cell research
In fact George Bush is the first president to allow any Federal funding for stem cell research. During the Clinton Administration such funding was completely prohibited. Bush did place some restrictions on Federal funding, and it's certainly fair to question whether these restrictions are appropriate; but it's also fair to say that stem cell research poses some unique ethical considerations, so restrictions on government funding are not entirely unreasonable.
Private funding for stem cell research remains completely unrestricted.
Thus, we feel it is unreasonable to talk of a "ban" on stem cell research.
John Kerry doesn't deserve some of his Purple Hearts
This piece of fiction was circulated by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth a while back. They claim that in at least one case Mr. Kerry's wounds were accidentally self-inflicted, and thus do not qualify for a Purple Heart.
As best we can determine from news reports, in that particular case Mr. Kerry's wounds were received when he fired a grenade into the enemy at point-blank range during a battle, and he was caught in the blast. Strictly speaking this does mean his wounds were "accidentally self-inflicted", but this happened during a combat situation where Mr. Kerry was fighting bravely. We have no doubt that he earned his Purple Heart on that day.
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have long had an axe to grind with Mr. Kerry concerning his 1971 testimony before Congress. Mr. Kerry testified that widespread atrocities were committed by US troops during the Vietnam War. The Swift Boat Veterans were not amused, since the obvious implication was that they had committed war crimes. Fair enough, but they should challenge Mr. Kerry's postwar testimony directly instead of unfairly denegrating his military record.
George Bush evaded service in Vietnam by joining the Texas Air National Guard
A few minutes' research on the Internet (beginning with The Air National Guard's web site) is all that is needed to debunk this. Let's go to the history book:
George Bush joined the Air National Guard in 1968. During 1968 over 10,000 Air National Guard members were called up for Federal service. Four complete squadrons of Air National Guard F-100 tactical fighters were sent to Vietnam, and at least one ostensibly regular Air Force F-100 squadron was composed primarily of Air National Guard pilots.
George Bush trained to fly the F-102 interceptor. F-102s were used in Vietnam from 1964 through late 1969. From 1968 on all replacement F-102 pilots were drawn from Air National Guard squadrons
In short if one was trying to avoid service in Vietnam, a fighter pilot's seat in the Air National Guard was not the place to be.
In our opinion this isn't even a legitimate issue. We've never heard George Bush say he favored the Vietnam War; if he didn't favor the war, why would it be wrong for him to join a service that was less likely to send him to Vietnam?
George Bush/John Kerry will ruin the US health care system.
Both major parties claim that the other party's candidate will make the nation's health insurance problems worse. In fact neither party has a workable plan.
The Republican approach focuses on tort reform to almost to the exclusion of all else. Incessant litigation is part of the problem, and it unquestionably increases overall cost by driving up malpractice insurance premiums; but it's not the only problem, or even the most important one.
The Democratic approach is to transfer the cost of medical insurance to the Federal government. This would be done primarily by making the government the reinsurance provider to the existing insurance industry. The main problem with this approach is that the cost to the is potentially huge. John Kerry proposes to cover the cost by repealing income tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 per year, but the revenue this would generate will be far less than is needed to cover the increased costs. The Democratic plan also sets up a perverse incentive for employers to stop paying for their employees' health insurance, since the government would then pick up the tab.
The Wells Brothers' Plan:
We must first correctly identify the problem. We do not have a health care problem; we have a health insurance problem. For the most part, the doctors and nurses who actually deliver the health care are not the problem. They seem to do their job quite well. Our health insurance system is extremely expensive - some say the most expensive in the world - and it does not cover everyone. Next we must recognize that the government is not particularly good at delivering products or services, but it is very good at establishing society's ground rules. This leads us to the following plan:
Repeal the 1947 McCarron-Ferguson Act, which exempted the insurance industry from most anti-trust laws.
Require insurance companies to include all customers in all states where they do business in the same insurance pool. The whole point of insurance is to spread risks across a large population. The current insurance industry practice of breaking customers into artificially small pools (typically by employer) undermines this fundamental purpose of insurance.
Prohibit insurers from denying coverage for "preexisting conditions". Once again, we point out that the whole purpose of insurance is to spread risks over a large population. If we single out people with "pre-existing conditions" for extra payment or non-coverage, and effectively insure only the young and healthy, then it's not really insurance anymore. We are instead concentrating the risk and its associated costs onto the sick and aged. We don't know what to call this, but it's not good. Further, In this age of genetic testing everyone will have a preexisting condition.
Force the insurance companies to adopt standardized forms. The standard conservative opinion is that government systems are bureaucratic, and private enterprise is efficient. Our current "private" insurance is the most expensive, bureaucratic and paperwork-intensive healthcare finance system on the planet.
From what we've heard from people who work in doctors' offices, a huge amount of excess paperwork is caused by the insurance companies each demanding their own forms for everything. The government should demand that the insurance companies develop "industry standard" forms. Since the companies are already exempt from anti-trust laws, there is no legal barrier to this. If the anti-trust exemption is repealed, the government should make an exception for this.
Control drug costs by restricting advertising. The mass marketing of prescription drugs in the USA is a fairly new phenomenon, dating only to the mid 1990s. Before this, advertising for prescription drugs was strictly limited. This advertising, which is phenomenally expensive, contributes to the high drug costs in the USA. It is probably the most easily controlled part of the problem. We just have to re-impose the restrictions on advertising. Prescription drugs, if marketed at all, should be marketed to doctors, not patients.
This will have the added benefit of fewer patients asking their doctors about specific drugs. Doctors often prescribe what their patients ask for rather than alternatives that may be equally effective and less costly. The whole purpose of having a doctor is to have someone with better education and training in the complex world of medicine to tell you what you really need to do to maintain or improve your health. We don't want the pharmaceutical or advertising industries to take over this role. Their primary interest is after all not to find the best treatment for each patient; it is to sell their products.
The media is unlikely to advocate this position, since they are the beneficiaries of the drug companies' advertising money.
Regulating advertising will not solve the problem of high drug costs, but it will help.
We would also consider tort reform, though not necessarily exactly the plan proposed by the Republicans.
These steps will not solve the entire problem, but they will make a substantial improvement.
One difficulty with our plan is that the insurance industry is currently regulated at the state level, not at the national level. We believe that the Federal government does have the authority to regulate at least those insurance companies that do business in more than one state under the Constitution's "interstate commerce" clause.
Of course our plan is unlikely to be implemented, because the insurance industry makes campaign contributions to both major political parties.
George Bush/John Kerry will ruin the Social Security system
The truth is that Social Security is heading for a financial train wreck, and neither major party has a realistic plan to put it on sound footing.
Contrary to popular belief Social Security is not a retirement savings program. Benefits to current retirees do not come from the monies they paid into the system while they were working; those currently paying into the system pay for those benefits. A glance at the history book reveals that Social Security cannot work any other way. Its original purpose was to provide relief to retirees in the 1930s whose retirement savings were lost in the Great Depression. Since those people had paid little or nothing into the system, their benefits had to be funded by then current workers.
This system worked perfectly well as long as there were many more workers paying into the system than retirees collecting benefits. Unfortunately the number of workers supporting each retiree has been declining steadily for decades. The current ratio is about 4:1, and when the "baby boomers" retire the ratio will drop to around 2:1. This is Social Security's fundamental problem.
Many readers are probably asking "What about the Social Security fund's surplus that was supposed to make up the shortfall? Isn't that money supposed to be in a 'locked box'?" That's what was supposed to happen, but the reality is somewhat different: The government borrowed and spent the money long ago. The "locked box" actually contains US government bonds, which must be repaid from general tax revenues. You'll find the sordid details in this PBS NewsHour report.
The Republican plan is to partially privatize Social Security by allowing current workers to place some of their Social Security payroll taxes in interest bearing private accounts. Theoretically these accounts will have a better rate of return than the traditional government approach, which will reduce the amount of government money that will be required when these workers retire.
While this approach does attempt to address Social Security's underlying long term financial problem, it is not without problems of its own:
John Kerry has said that he will not privatize any part of Social Security, raise the retirement age, reduce benefits, or raise the payroll tax. This means he plans to do nothing, which guarantees either the system will eventually fail, or general taxes will increase dramatically to make up the shortfall.
TheWells Brothers' view:
Had this problem been addressed decades ago the solution could have been a relatively painless combination of gradual increases in the retirement age and modest increases to the Social Security payroll tax. Some form of privatization could also have been implemented, and the transition problems previously mentioned would have been managable had this been done earlier. Since the problem was swept under the rug the eventual corrections will have to be larger and therefore more painful. The longer we put it off, the greater the eventual pain. Since politicians of all stripes do not like to tell the voters unpleasant truths, we predict nothing will be done until Social Security's collapse is imminent.
And by that time the solution will really hurt.
Thus, by inaction, both parties are slowly destroying Social Security.
George Bush plans to reinstate the draft after the election.
In reality you'd be hard pressed to find anyone on any side of the political spectrum who favors reinstating the draft. The military has unequivocally stated that it does not favor a draft, because it could actually reduce the military's effectiveness.
Sen. Kerry deserves special criticism on this, for openly saying that President Bush is secretly planning a draft.
US Presidential campaign web sites
Get your B.S. Detectors ready!
The Loony Party (But are they any more loony than the major parties?)
US government links
The 9/11 Commission site.The full text of The 9/11 Commission Report is available here. Do not rely on the news media, read it for yourself.
PBS (Public Broadcasting Service) An American non-profit television network.
PBS Links:
The NewsHour Forget ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, and NBC; this is the best television news program in the USA. Their great strength is their in-depth interviews with important people. This is not soundbite journalism with the celebrity of the moment.
Frontline: PBS' documentary series
National Public Radio A non-profit US news source. They're a bunch of flaming liberals, but they provide in-depth coverage that commercial radio news can't match.
BBC World Service Despite the richly earned criticism of the Hutton Report, the BBC is still among the best news organizations in the world.
Canadian Broadcasting Corp, and Radio Canada International are also good non-US news sources.
United States Naval Institute General information about naval affairs. Some news about the war in Iraq, and also some technical information. Their monthly magazine Proceedings provides excellent coverage of the US Navy and Marine Corps, along with history and opinion.