One Reason to vote for Bush

Virginia Postrel identifies three questions which form the "Referendum on Bush" she suggests the election has become. Question three raises the worry that one effect of Kerry's election will be to validate a "soak the rich" tax policy:

3) Is Bush too friendly to corporations and rich people? Contrary to what you might think from reading some libertarian-leaning bloggers, John Kerry is not running against George Bush's extravagant new Medicare entitlement or his expansive domestic spending. He is running against "tax cuts for the rich" and prescription drugs without price controls. Voting for "Not Bush" means voting for "not enough domestic spending" and "not enough taxes on the rich

Small government advocates are right to favour the gridlock which would accompany a Kerry presidency but shouldn't ignore the economic populism of the Kerry Edwards campaign. A simpler lower tax code is vital for a liberal dynamic economy and a small government. Higher progressive taxes aimed at the "rich" - which will end up meaning people significantly less wealthy than both candidates - cut right against this. I would also note that a victory for Kerry, given the free run he has granted his protectionist running mate on trade, will be seen as a vote "against" free trade. It remains to be seen whether Republican control of the other branches of government will act as a sufficient restraint on such economically incompetent populism.

Comments

[Abiola Lapite]

It's too bad Bush is the last person on Earth who should be talking about tax-code simplification.

As for Kerry being some sort of big spender, the fact is that Bush's spending spree has pretty much tied the next administration's hands to a large extent, especially when Kerry's tax promise during the debates is taken into account. There's no money left in the till for vast new programs, not with the boomers on the verge of retirement.

[Frank McGahon]

What Postrel is suggesting is that a Kerry victory would be seen as a mandate for bigger government. As I suggest in the post above, it may well be the case that Bush would be more dangerous because his (bogus) perception as a big government opponent acts as cover for expanding government.

[Abiola Lapite]

"it may well be the case that Bush would be more dangerous because his (bogus) perception as a big government opponent acts as cover for expanding government."

The "Nixon in China" effect; it's certainly been validated over the last 4 years. A striking statistic is that Bush is the first president in ~150 years not to veto a single spending bill; another is that Bush has seen larger annual domestic spending increases in percentage terms than any president since LBJ! How someone like that can preach fiscal conservatism with a straight face is beyond me, and it's hard to see how Kerry could possibly do any worse.

I don't know what Postrel is smoking, but whatever it is has to be some good sh**.

[A. O'Meara]

I find it strange and discomforting that this pro-Bush commentary appears in a www.google.com search on THE LEOPARD by Lampedusa to which it has no relationship. Is this just gratuitous politicizing or is it evidence of a darker purpose?

[Frank McGahon]

Although this blog contains references to Bush, Kerry (positive and negative) and Lampedusa's The Leopard, its purpose is nothing more than to discuss what comes into my mind. The simple fact of it appearing in a Google search for X confers no obligation to limit discussion to subject X.