I write to you today to urge you to vote tomorrow, and to tell you why I'm voting for John Kerry.

WHY I'M CHANGING MY VOTE THIS TIME

Four years ago, I cast my ballot for Ralph Nader. Living in New York, I knew that Gore had my state's vote sewn up. I'd met Mr. Nader and believed him to be a man of integrity; believed, like he did, that the Democratic party was ignoring the Left; and hoped that my vote would signal to the Democrats that they could not abandon their principles without losing votes.

This time around, the situation is similar -- Kerry is ahead by 20 points in New York. Why then am I not voting for Nader this time around? I think that Nader has turned his candidacy from a national party-building and issue-raising effort into a one man crusade. He is running against the Green Party. A recent Village Voice article details how he wanted to "hurt, wound, and punish the Democrats" -- because Gore wouldn't return his phone calls. I still agree with Nader on many issues, and I still believe we need viable third parties, especially at the local level. I just don't think that Ralph is the man to vote for any longer. Plus, he has started debating puppets, and I am beginning to doubt his sanity. [1]

That said, I would vote for him -- in one circumstance. If you live in a swing state, and you want to vote for Nader, I will trade my vote with yours. I will pledge that I will vote for Nader if you will vote for Kerry. Nader will get his national numbers, you'll have your say, and Kerry will be one vote closer to a swing state victory. Heck, I'll even vote for Badnarik if you want me to. Call me to discuss.

WHY I THINK BUSH IS THE WRONG MAN FOR THE JOB

I'm not one of those "Anyone But Bush" people who will harangue you that George W. Bush is evil or stupid. I honestly don't believe that. I think he's a good man, a man of faith and conviction. But there are two main policy reasons why I think he is leading this country in the wrong direction.

1. TAXES.

So here's the theory -- lower taxes put more money in people's pockets; that stimulates the economy and creates more jobs. It's not bad, as theories go, but in this case it's been misapplied. Here's why.

That extra dollar in your pocket? You can spend it. You can invest it. You can save it (in which case, the bank is investing it for you.) Or you can pay back debt. So unless you save it under the mattress, your choices are investing, spending, or debt relief.

While it's true that the Bush tax cuts are spread around to most everyone, the lion's share went to those who are less likely to *spend* their money and more likely to *invest* their money. Hence the repeal of the dividend tax. The Bush tax cuts also pushed our nation into debt -- deep into debt.

This would be OK if it actually worked -- that is, if it acted as a stimulus and created jobs. I've been in the anti-poverty business for 12 years. I believe, as the Republicans do, that the greatest social program is a job. Jobs at a living wage create social stability, family security, and economic independence.

So, has the investment-skewed tax-cut plan worked to create jobs?

No.

"The Bush Administration called the tax cut package, which took effect in July 2003, its 'Jobs and Growth Plan.' The president's economics staff, the Council of Economic Advisers, projected that the plan would result in the creation of 5.5 million jobs by the end of 2004 -— 306,000 new jobs each month starting in July 2003. The CEA projected that the economy would generate 228,000 jobs a month without a tax cut and 306,000 jobs a month with the tax cut. Thus, it projected that 4,590,000 jobs would be created over the last 15 months [up to September 2004]. In reality, since the tax cuts took effect there are 2,882,000 fewer jobs than the administration projected would be created by enactment of its tax cuts."[2]

Don't forget, the Bush Administration's projections were made after 9/11, after the burst of the dot-com bubble. Even taking those into account, they told us that their tax cuts would create 1.17 million jobs in the last 15 months, in addition to the "natural" creation of 3.42 million jobs as the economy recovers. The reality is that only 1.71 million jobs have been created, in total, during that period.

By their own measures, the tax cut has failed to stimulate the economy. As a non-economist, I believe that tax cuts that balance the stimulation of both consumption and investment can boost the economy. But investment-skewed tax cuts clearly haven't worked. Were they worth driving the nation into debt? (The Brookings Institution says that "the net budget loss would be almost $4.5 trillion (2.3 percent of GDP)" by 2014. [3]) I think not.

2. THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISTS

I will never forget coming out of the smoke-filled Wall Street subway station on the morning of September 11th, 2001 and seeing the ashes fall like snow. The first words to my lips were "I pray to God I never see anything like this again." That hope, that prayer, leads me to believe that I cannot vote for George W. Bush. Let me tell you why.

What has become clear in the last three years is that we are locked in an ideological struggle as fundamental as our fight against Communism in the Cold War. How we meet this struggle will be the defining act of our age.

It is also clear that we are involved in a very different kind of war than any we have fought previously. Three years ago I made the analogy to the War on Drugs, and I think it is still apt.[4] We are fighting against "non-state" fighters, criminals who cannot be deterred by our nuclear arsenal. There are no political leaders to negotiate with or game. The nations where these fighters live are in some cases our own allies. And we have to deal with their presence here at home, making every street a potential battlefield, every phone call a potential communique. Finding the enemy is half if not most of the battle.

And this is why I think Bush is fighting the wrong war. We are fighting a traditional enemy with traidtional methods. I think there are actually valid reasons for deposing Saddam Hussein and invading Iraq. But they are reasons that have little to do with the phantom menace of Weapons of Mass Destruction, or oil, or the War on Terror. The neoconservatives want to remake the strategic balance of the Middle East, to have a secular regime that is friendly to our interests. It's been part of their strategic vision before the 2000 election, before 9/11. It's why Rumsfeld wanted to find an Iraq-9/11 link, even if there wasn't one:

"[On 9/11/01], with the intelligence all pointing toward bin Laden, Rumsfeld ordered the military to begin working on strike plans. And at 2:40 p.m., the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying he wanted 'best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H.' - meaning Saddam Hussein - 'at same time. Not only UBL' - the initials used to identify Osama bin Laden.... 'Go massive,' the notes quote him as saying. 'Sweep it all up. Things related and not.'" [5]

The neocons also believed that a small force could depose Saddam Hussein. They believed it because Ahmed Chalabi told us that he himself had widespread support among the Iraqi people, that once Saddam was eliminated we would be greeted as liberators and Chalabi could install his own government.[6] He was wrong, and the CIA took him down and put installed their own man, Allawi, instead.

Now that we're there, we have to finish the job, and finish it right. The point of this all is not to "armchair general" the war in Iraq. I personally believe that we botched the planning and the execution of this war -- if the families of fallen soldiers are taking up collections to buy body armor for the troops, what does that mean? [7] But history will judge Bush and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz; it's not my job.

What I do want to say is that this war has cost us, in ways that we have not begun to count. Our standing in the world community is at an historical low. But more importantly, we have diverted our attention. Osama bin Laden, the man who brought terror to our nation, who rained death on our city, who scattered ashes on me and my family, is still at large. He is still plotting our deaths, while we have been spending our attention and our resources on Iraq.

WHY I AM VOTING FOR JOHN KERRY

One of the common criticisms of John Kerry is, "there's nothing to vote for -- people are just voting against Bush."

* I think health care is a critical issue. I know too many people who have been screwed by lack of health care. I've been in too many executive meetings where we've discussed what to do in the face of rising health care costs. Kerry's plans make sense; why can't we negotiate drug prices if Medicare is buying in bulk? He's willing to take on the HMOs and the pharma companies, and that's the only way we'll bring down health care costs.

* Kerry is a fighter. And I'm not talking about Vietnam, I'm talking about his record in the Senate. Remember Reagan's support of the Nicaraguan contras, who were smuggling cocaine into the U.S.? It was Senator Kerry who investigated the contras-cocaine scandal.[8] And it was Senator Kerry who "fought to expose an international criminal bank, BCCI — the Bank of Credit and Commerce International" which was used by such savory characters as Osama bin Laden, drug cartels, illegal arms traders, and Saddam Hussein.[9]

* He is presidential. I watched all three debates, and was astounded at how halting and defensive our president was when unscripted. Kerry, on the other hand, was reasoned, calm, and resolute.

There are of course many other reasons why I'm voting for Kerry, but most of those are because I agree with him on policy issues. If you want to compare the policies of the two candidates, I suggest you go to their websites and read up before tomorrow. If you want another opinion, may I suggest reading the Economist? [10] It is their endorsement of Kerry, but from a magazine that none would call liberal.

VOTE!

If you've read this far, thank you for hearing me out. Again, I urge you to vote tomorrow, no matter what your political opinions are. Democracy is a precious thing, and we can best protect it by exercising it.

In college, I ended up in a political science seminar on democratization taught by Juan Linz. He was this Spaniard who would chain-smoke unfiltered cigarettes the moment that class was over. But he wrote the book on the transition of nations to democracy, and everyone in the seminar would hang on his every word. I'll never forget one class. "Some ask, why is this important, democracy, the right to vote? Men and women have fought and died for this right. Do not forget that." I never will.

So, go to the polls tomorrow. Think hard about your choice. And make sure your vote will count.[11]

Thank you, and may God bless America.

-- Mike

[1] http://www.votenader.org/contribute/store2.php?cid=39
[2] http://www.jobwatch.org/
[3] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/template.cfm?Listpubs=true&TypeID=302
[4] http://triptronix.net/ishbadiddle/archives/2001/09/28/12.18.59/
[5] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
[6] See Michael Gordon's series on the planning for Iraq. http://www.nytimes.com/pages/world/worldspecial3/
[7] http://triptronix.net/ishbadiddle/archives/2004/04/30/01.47.45/
[8] http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/25/contra/, but read the whole thing here if you don't have Salon access: http://www.triptronix.net/ishbadiddle/contras_kerry.html
[9] http://www.alternet.org/election04/20268/ -- props to http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2004/10/john-kerry-superhero-in-vicious-end-of_27.html for both of these stories.
[10] http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3329802
[11] http://www.alternet.org/election04/20365/

M E-L posted this on November 01, 2004
It is filed under Featured Posts, National News

It is also indexed with the following tags: 2004 Election | John Kerry | George W. Bush | Ralph Nader | Iraq | War on Terror | Tax Policy |