Showdown: Change You Can Believe In vs. Change That’s Invisible
Kevin Hassett’s article for Bloomberg is today’s fun read. Here’s the opening to Mr. Hassett’s article:
There was much talk about change last week at the Democratic convention. But are the Democrats really offering any substantive change?
To find out, I pulled out John Kerry’s 2004 Democratic national platform and compared its fiscal policy with that contained in today’s Barack Obama-inspired missive.
The documents are so similar it’s creepy. While there are a number of new minor policies, and fresh details on old targets such as health care, the big picture has stayed the same.
If they take the time, that’s the type of change that voters will reject. To be fair, Mr. Hassett did notice some change between 2004 and 2008:
Both platforms promise to extend the Bush income-tax cuts for the middle class, but repeal them for the rich. In 2004, Kerry defined rich as those making more than $200,000. Today, Obama promises not to increase taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. So the definition of rich has increased from $200,000 to $250,000. That’s change you can believe in that will be especially appreciated by everyone making between $200,000 and $249,999.
Then there’s this section of the Democratic Platform:
This convention’s plan has ditched that carrot, and replaced it with the silliest passage in platform history: “We will bring together government, private industry, workers, and academia to turn around the manufacturing sector.” Obama’s plan to help the manufacturing sector appears to be, “Unleash the bureaucrats and professors.”
If ever there was something that’ll scare businesses into leaving America for foreign soil, that’s the ticket.
Other than increasing taxes and implementing the Fairness Doctrine, can any liberal tell me what substantive changes Sen. Obama would make? If those are the only changes, then I’m fairly certain that that’s change the American people will reject. People, generally speaking, like more money in their wallets. They also like the First Amendment. In fact, they insist on being able to speak their minds.
Compare that status quo change with Sarah Palin’s list of change accomplishments. As I said here, the difference is stark:
Now that people are finding out how Sarah Palin took on the powers-that-be within the Republican Party of Alaska and how she ran out the Republican Attorney General before thrashing the sitting Republican governor in a GOP primary, people are taking a second look at Sen. Obama’s reformer’s credentials.
The American people have a simple choice. They can vote for a pro-drilling ticket with a lengthy history of eliminating corruption or they can vote for a ticket that’s long on windbagism and short on implementing change.
I’m confident I know which option informed voters will pick.
Technorati Tags: Change, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Tax Increases, Fairness Doctrine, First Amendment, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Reform, Corruption, Drilling, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog