WHY WHY WHY is Kerry Passing Up On This Issue?

[ulTRAX]

Bush ran on a platform of preserving the surplus as necessary
to strengthen SS... (see this May 2000 Bush Press Release at
http://romcache.tripod.com/Bush2000PressRelease.pdf ). Yet in
his 3.5 years after being installed as President, Bush has
done everything to put SS at risk. 

WTF is wrong with the Kerry campaign? Bush has now pushed We
The People into a 727 BILLION deficit in FY04 (source below). 
The rabid Right has systematically been trying to sabotage the
finances of the Federal government. Since such deficits affect
all aspects of the Progressive agenda... from the New Deal and
Great Society safety nets, to universal health care you might
think that the Dems would fight this issue tooth and nail. Yet
there's hardly a peep from the mainstream Democrats. In fact
the Kerry campaign doesn't even have a forum to discuss budget
issues at his site!

Unless the Dems go out of their way to rebut the GOP's Big Lie
that tax cuts are like free money and no one ever has to pay
the bill... then the GOP will have won a major victory in that
they have managed to frame the entire political debate and the
best the Dems can do is react, fighting a rear guard battle.
The Right has already done a masterful propaganda job these
past 25 years in persuading all too many Americans that tax
cuts, no matter how irresponsible, are inherently desirable.
They just sweep the consequences under the rug and rewrite
history to make Reagan's disastrous fiscal policies into a
Supply Side utopia. They are busy trying to do the same with
Bush's disastrous fiscal policies. 

So what are the Dems to do? Kerry has a great opportunity
during the convention to reframe the political agenda. He can
have to do it by proving Dems can be fiscally responsible.
That record especially during the Clinton years is pretty
clear but they still may have to overcompensate in the future
to deflect the GOP's other Big Lie that Dems are tax &
spenders. The Dems also MUST find some way to make these
abstract deficit numbers real to the American People. I
suggest taking a chapter from Ross Perot's playbook: create
some visual aids. Here's a GREAT example of such an aid:
http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/ It FINALLY brings down to
earth just how much a billion is. Just think how shocking
Bush's 725 Billion deficit would look to Joe and Jane Sixpack.
 

How can the Dems pass this opportunity up? It's a win/win... a
win in reframing the debate... a win in protecting a
Progressive agenda, and a win in demonstrating just how
irresponsible and dishonest Bush is and how Kerry can be
different.

The Right certainly has such a long-term political strategy to
sabotage the federal government. Question is... will Kerry run
a campaign based solely on 2004 politics, or will he have the
political foresight to see this year's election in a broader
strategic context as laying the foundation for political
fights 10-20 years down the road.   
 
SOURCES
Go to http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/tables.html
and 
scroll down to a table that reads Table S-17
Table S17. Federal Government Financing and Debt
(Dollar amounts in billions)Down in this area there's a chart
called

Change in Debt Subject to Statutory Limitation which reads 

             (all numbers in BILLIONS)          FY03 FY04 
Change in debt held by the public                373 507 
Change in debt held by Government accounts       188 219 
Total, change in debt subject to stat limitation 576 727 

Since SS funds are merely borrowed and have to be repaid...
the true budget deficit projected is FY04 deficit $727
BILLION. Why aren't the Democrats even using this number? Is
it because they are historically complicate in using
misleading "unified budget" numbers in masking the
true budget deficit? 

[Caution]

1. Because the actual campaign hasn't even started yet

The convention marks the true beginning of the campaign and you don't want to bring out the big guns until closer to the election. Kerry only needs to keep his numbers where they are until mid-september and then really hit hard on the reasons why the Bush administration is a total, complete and colossal failure.

[fearnobush]

2. It is best not to shoot all guns off at once.

[ulTRAX]

3. Have you heard ANY Democrat use the correct deficit numbers?

I don't recall ANY Democrat using the correct deficit numbers. Even Air America uses the 1/5 trillion number... which reflects only about 2/3 of the true deficit.

There's too much in the deficit issue that's overly abstract to the US Public. The Dems are making a dreadful mistake if they see the budget as a tactical issue for this campaign. Like the Right, the Dems must see it as a long-term strategic issue in which case they must integrate it into their broader themes.

[blm]

4. He has. Those of us paying attention to Kerry for a long time can attest

to that fact.

Kerry tells audiences there is nothing "conservative" about Bush's budgets and he describes exactly the type of budget-busting Bush has perpetrated on this country.

[ulTRAX]

5. maybe so.....

Please show me where Kerry uses the true deficit numbers, tries to educate the voters on the difference between the "on budget" deficit and the "unified" deficit... and just how these massive deficits put programs like SS at risk.

[blm]

6. During his campaign stops?

Oh please. He can cite detailed statistics when MOST of the country is finally paying attention.

Your original post claimed he hadn't made Bush's budget-busting an issue at all. I pointed out that many of us heard him do so ourselves.

[ulTRAX]

7. do you intend to present any evidence? If not just say so.

blm wrote: He has. Those of us paying attention to Kerry for a long time can attest to that fact. Kerry tells audiences there is nothing "conservative" about Bush's budgets and he describes exactly the type of budget-busting Bush has perpetrated on this country."

ulTRAX "maybe so..... Please show me where Kerry uses the true deficit numbers, tries to educate the voters on the difference between the "on budget" deficit and the "unified" deficit... and just how these massive deficits put programs like SS at risk."


blm wrote: "During his campaign stops? Oh please. He can cite detailed statistics when MOST of the country is finally paying attention. Your original post claimed he hadn't made Bush's budget-busting an issue at all. I pointed out that many of us heard him do so ourselves."

I gave you a chance to prove your claims and you presented no evidence to back your claim. You only grossly distorted what I'd written. I NEVER said Kerry NEVER mentions the deficit. I've said given its importance.... he does not exploit it either tactically or strategically.

Since I'd prefer to think that Kerry is more competent than I now believe... I ask again for some evidence to put my concerns to rest: "Please show me where Kerry uses the true deficit numbers, tries to educate the voters on the difference between the "on budget" deficit and the "unified" deficit... and just how these massive deficits put programs like SS at risk." Perhaps you'd like to show me the budget forum at the Kerry site.

[blm]

9. He's not talking to the voters in the way YOU want right now.

You want details. He wants them to get to know him and why he is running and part of that is talking about how badly Bush has busted the budget and how it will efect the voter.

Read his economic speeches. www.johnkerry.com

No, he hasn't done detailed analysis of the budget for his audiences, but why would you expect it at this juncture?

It's not a matter of providing evidence. What you want hasn't been addressed at this point in the campaign. However, he does stress Bush's budget-busting ways in a manner befitting this stage of the campaign.

[ulTRAX]

8. Here's the ISSUES List from the Kerry Site

Here's the Issues List from the Kerry Site at http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/ This list reflects what the Kerry Campaign has chosen to emphasize. They felt no need to wait for the convention to bring out what they believe are their big guns. See anything there about the Federal Budget and/or Deficits? If it's there, it's buried in other topics.

PLANS
National Security
Economy & Jobs
Health Care
Energy
Homeland Security
Education
Environment
Under "MORE ISSUES..."
· Children & Families
· Civil Rights
· Economy
· Education
· Energy
· Environment
· Health Care
· Homeland Security
· National Security
· National Service
· Rural America
· Science and Technology
· Stronger Communities
· Veterans
· Women

[ignatiusr]

10. It's there

It's "buried" on his Economy page, which is actually appropriate, seeing as the budget is a facet of the economy. It's not an incredibly extensive page, but there are plenty of facts and information there.

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/fiscal_responsibility.html

[sangh0]

12. Well, #2 just isn't good enough

If Kerry doesn't make the plight of lesbian dirigiroo players THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE complete with reciting detailed statistics, I'm voting for Bush*

[ulTRAX]

15. thanks for another example.......

sangh0 wrote: "Well, #2 just isn't good enough. If Kerry doesn't make the plight of lesbian dirigiroo players THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE complete with reciting detailed statistics, I'm voting for Bush*

Thanks for another example....... of why no one should take you or your alterego sanghA seriously.

[ulTRAX]

14. thanks for that

Put I have to disagree that budget matters belong in the economy section. The rabid Right in the GOP has a long term plan to sabotage government by cutting off its revenues. Since Reagan they have preferred this approach to debating each program they want to cut on its merits. This amounts to a strategic assault on any Democratic/Progressive agenda. Clinton understood that which is why he was determined to get to a balanced budget. Bush2 also understand this which is why he needed to sabotage revenues just as a true budget surplus was reached. This page does nothing to educates voters on the Right's less than secret agenda.

As for your comment budget issues should be covered by a broader economic plan, I could not disagree more. While government revenues and spending are related to the economy, they are hardly a subordinate to it. The health of the federal budget deserves higher standing than programs dependent on it... such as veterans affairs. Yet the latter gets high billing. In fact of just about all of the issues that are featured on the Kerry site

National Security
Economy & Jobs
Health Care
Energy
Homeland Security
Education
Environment
Children & Families
Civil Rights
Economy
Education
Energy
Environment
Health Care
Homeland Security
National Security
National Service
Rural America
Science and Technology
Stronger Communities
Veterans
Women

are probably dependent on the state of the budget.... not the other way around.

Kerry's page also fails to state how Bush broke his promise to protect the surplus, the true extent of the disastrous Bush deficits... how these deficits are going interfere with paying the debt and repaying the SS Trust Fund, or how a massive debt will pit generation against generation.

The simple fact is that budget matters are not a major thrust of the Kerry campaign and the material you found proves it. Which leads us back to my original question... if it's potentially a win/win issue, why is Kerry not exploiting it?

[ulTRAX]

17. one more thing: interest on the debt

ulTRAX wrote: "Kerry's page also fails to state how Bush broke his promise to protect the surplus, the true extent of the disastrous Bush deficits... how these deficits are going interfere with paying the debt and repaying the SS Trust Fund, or how a massive debt will pit generation against generation."

Kerry also fails to make the US Public aware of just how much money is being pissed away on interest on the national debt. If someone fleshed out THOSE numbers by explaining just how much that money could buy... he'd go a long way to get the American People pissed about the biggest waste of money in the federal budget.. and how the Right is seemingly determined to raise the debt.

Last FY we pissed away 318 Billion on interest. SOURCE:http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm It exposes the Right's hypocrisy in that they moan about small programs that might cost 5-10 billion yet are silent on a trillion spent in 3 years that bought the American Taxpayer nothing.

[spooky3]

11. He needs to let Edwards work on how to articulate this...

because Edwards is a brilliant persuasive communicator.

A major communication problem with it is this: Most Americans view 9-11 as an entirely unforeseeable event that has changed everything. They are inclined to give Bush a pass on the budget surplus claims because they perceive our response to this event necessarily raised the cost of our defense, war on terror, etc. They also buy the RNC line that Clinton allowed an economic bubble to happen, which then burst on the unfortunate Repubs., and reduced our tax receipts.

What the Kerry-Edwards campaign will have to do is explain to people how Bush's poor decisions and responses to unusual and unexpected events have made this problem FAR worse than it should be, and a three (or five or 12) step program for what they would do to ease us back to fiscal soundness once elected. They will also have to be careful to show how their own votes are not part of the perceived problem.

This is a complex issue which I've oversimplfied, but most people will not pay enough attention if K-E try to address all facets of the issue. But that is why I think Kerry has not come out swinging on this issue yet.

[ulTRAX]

16. I tend to agree

I tend to agree the budget is a tough issue to educate the voters on. It is rather abstract and both parties have done their best to confuse the public.

But my view is that if the rabid Right's assault on the finances of government is clear, and the Democratic agenda is in peril, then educating the voters should be seen by the Democrats as a top priority long ago. They have to ideologically inoculate Democrats and swing voters so when they see the GOP pushing for more irresponsible tax cuts they understand how that fits into the Right's bigger agenda. In some ways it may more efficient to get voters to understand those big themes and let them independently apply them to the smaller issues, then to try to educate each voter on why some tiny program will benefit them.

[spooky3]

18. I agree--I just meant that this is something Edwards is good at doing

if Kerry tells him to do so. As you say, it needs to be a top priority.

I'd like to think that people can translate the big themes into their smaller issues, but I don't know whether that's true.

[Cocoa]

13. deficits and Bush's tax cuts are a HUGE issue

and so is Bush's Medicare scam.