Duke & Thread, Summary on how the election might impact us:
Neither Democratic Party nor Republican Party fully understand how the USA corporations need to get more competitive. The world is no longer in the 60s. Neither Party supports upper education (grad students & universities). On immigration, all Parties say, "give us only your poor but not your smart people." Neither Party understands the market is global.
Bush doesn't understand the need for sponsoring new innovation that creates higher wages (and the wage figures may suggest this). Bush advocates old industries (no wonder wages are going down). Will Kerry understand this? There's a chance Kerry might understand he needs to support new innovation so we create higher wages and more jobs. Neither Party advocates improving underlying causes to USA competitiveness: support more innovation.
Dean vs Kerry pros/cons
Due to both candidates lack of insight into the international competitiveness realities, there's a huge risk the USA could go from being competitive to falling behind - creating an issue for the next American generation and future retires. Neither candidates appear to have Clinton's sophisticated level of awareness for international issues so our country could be at a huge risk here. Both Kerry & Dean seem to favor protectionism at the cost of improving our competitiveness here.
Fortunately, Kerry somewhat understands and advocates the country's benefits of creative emerging technologies to solve problems and how hightech infrastructure can get the country to the next level. Kerry might be a huge improvement over Bush for hightech. Kerry has creative ideas for using volunteer programs rather than tax payer money.
Overall Comment: Neither Republican Party nor Democratic Party have a detailed understanding of where the USA needs to go competitively. This may negatively impact the next generation and future retires.
In summary:
Kerry:
- Incorrectly assumes USA corporations are competitive enough (we are no longer in the 60s)
+ Has some awareness our hightech infrastructure is falling behind.
+ Advocate of emerging technologies to solve problems and improve efficiencies.
+ There's a chance he might understand how new innovation yields higher wages and new jobs.
- Corporate Competitiveness: he doesn't advocate improving underlying causes to USA corporate competitiveness: he doesn't support new innovation specifically to create jobs & higher wages.
- Doesn't support upper education enough (he seems to think college is enough.) Doesn't support graduate level students or universities.
+ Has an ultra creative idea to get more poor people into college thru 2yr public service. (so college isn't just for ROTCs).
+ Smart advocate of volunteer programs (rather than using tax payer money on expensive labor.) Very smart idea.
+ Small businesses can get quality health care too, not just large corporations.
- Immigration: Just like Bush, he wants only your poor but not your smart.
- Shortages: Doesn't seem to realize there's a shortage of PhDs in hard core sciences, math teachers and nurses.
+ Pro-education for lower levels
- Doesn't realize Nafta countries are losing because we're not as competitive as Asia.
+ Believes Protectionism more than what he should, so risks well-being of next generation Americans and future retires.
- More interested in Middle-East oil, than policy that protects Israeli people. (Same as Bush)
+ Believes Mothers have a right to remain alive (huge improvement over Bush).
- Deficit: not as good as Dean.
- Current rules make incentive pay more attractive than undeserved luxury, so he may create unintended bad consequences that make ethics worse.
Comment: would feel more comfortable if he aligned himself with a Dem who wants the USA to remain competitive. Kerry might create short-term protectionism gains that hurt all of us in the long-term.
Dean:
- Doesn't support education enough
- Incorrectly assumes USA corporations are competitive enough
- Doesn't seem to realize small business don't have negotiating power for good quality health care.
- Doesn't realize Nafta countries are losing because we're not as competitive as Asia.
- Believes in Protectionism (next generation Americans and future retires may need to move overseas.)
- Immigration: wants neither your poor nor your smart.
- Shortages: Doesn't seem to realize there's a shortage of PhDs in hard core sciences, math teachers and nurses.
+ Not interested in policies for Middle-East oil.
- Supports old economy public work projects (doesn't seem to realize we're falling behind in hightech infrastructure).
+ Believes Mothers have a right to remain alive (huge improvement over Bush).
+ Deficit: would get rid of it.
- Current rules make incentive pay more attractive than undeserved luxury, so he may create unintended bad consequences that make ethics worse.
Details:
Defict: Dean promises to get rid of the deficit, Kerry doesn't. Balanced budget continues to be Dean's stronger point.
Abortion: unlike Bush who gives no exceptions when a women's health is at stake, both D & K believe women have a right to remain alive. So that's a huge improvement.
Household Taxes: Dean would repeal Bush's tax cut. Kerry would repeal cuts above $200k/yr.
Corporate Competitiveness: Neither candidates advocate improving underlying causes to USA competitiveness: Innovation. Though Kerry at least advocates new technologies that'll also help job growth and create higher wages.
Unemployment: Dean proposes $100B fund for States & Locals to add 1M jobs, but supports public works for building like bridges, roads and schools and other infrastructure. Feels a bit old-economy. Doesn't appear he understands innovation is needed for higher wages and technology is needed infrastructure we need to improve so the USA is competitive to foreign countries. Renewable energy investments into renewable energy companies. Farming credits for less than 5 employees. Dean seems to favor older industries.
Kerry favors providing a manufacturing jobs credit. (What about software?) He mentions giving support to new technologies (wow, a candidate who actually has new technologies on their agenda, but doesn't specify if it's hightech) and supports education (but doesn't support higher education, like grad school universities.)
Corporate Governance: Dean would focus on salary and pensions and not let corporations become citizens of foreign countries for tax breaks. Kerry: ban govt contracts to companies with accounting fraud histories. Kerry: ban corporations from having foreign banks to avoid tax evasion. Kerry: tighten tax laws on tax deductions around performance-based exec compensation. (If Dean or Kerry completely kill the incentive for perf-based pay, we may see a return to the bad corporate days of luxury rewards not aligned to shareholder interests like planes and other non-perf based comp. Current rules make incentive pay more attractive than undeserved luxury. Kerry & Dean may create unintended bad consequences that make ethics worse.)
Trade: Dean is a bit out of touch on international issues, like how Nafta countries are behind Asian countries for their desirability. Dean favors a development fund for CN/USA/Mexico for infrastructure (this might enhance USA attraction but no mention if this is old-economy infra or hightech so it could be useless in making USA & Nafta countries as attractive as Asian countries), education, and labor rights and enviro standards. Wants WTO to include labor and enviro standards, to be considered a free trade partner.
Trade: Kerry will review trade agreements in the first 120 days, but he doesn't say what he is targeting, so he comes off sounding like he may be a random, wild-card of unintended bad consequences. Both Kerry & Dean seem to be operating under the old model of assumptions - not realizing the power Asia has, their net policies may end up hurting CN/USA/Mexico under old economic assumptions that incorrectly assume America is the only market.
Both seem to favor protectionism at the cost of improving our competitiveness here.
Due to both candidates lack of insight into the international competitiveness realities, there's a huge risk the USA could go from being competitive to falling behind - creating an issue for the next Ameican generation and future retires. Neither candidates appear to have Clinton's sophisticated level of awareness for international issues so our country could be at a huge risk here.
Education: Kerry encourages more college students by an innovative volunteer program (2 yrs of public service in exchange for 4 free years of college.) Finally we have a candidate who understands poor people have a right to college without being forced to enter ROTC. Kerry would give $50B to universities & schools, but he doesn't emphasize how much goes to universities. Kerry did not vote for Pell Grant scholarships to low-income college students, which is concerning. Dean would only give $6B in loan money for students, though he has a creative idea to target 8th graders for college (smart idea.) Kerry support AmeriCorps 1995 college in exchange for public service bill. Overall, Kerry seems more pro-education than Dean.
But neither is emphasizing grad school & universities.
Grade schools: Dean doesn't want to improve the competitiveness of our grade schools, which will increasingly put the USA at risk. Kerry wants schools to be competitive, and he also suggests they should be graded on their graduation rates but doesn't propose how to avoid a situation where schools start graduating people they shouldn't. Overall, Kerry's position on education is better because it is more competitive. But again, neither support universities enough.
Middle East: both candidates understand that our dependence on oil makes USA vulnerable to MiddleEast, so both sponsor energy efficient investments. However, Kerry doesn't appear to understand the connection between oppressive countries and an oppressed country's unemployment rates, with terrorism. Israeli high-tech folks seem to believe terrorism is a result of unemployment and settlements, but Kerry doesn't appear to understand the root cause and seems to only care about USA oil, rather than caring about the Israeli people.
Immigration: Both Kerry & Dean favor immigration for poor immigrants, but again, neither Dems or Republican Parties support bringing PhDs into this country. Both Parties say, "Give us only your poor, but not your smart."
Health Care: Dean proposes removing tax incentives for companies that don't offer health care (think WalMart). Kerry would allow everyone to get the same quality health care that federal workers get, as long as they pay for it - this would greatly help small businesses who are always excluded from good coverage because they have no negotiating power. Only large corporations can negotiate. Both support drugs from Canada. Kerry supports bonuses to encourage quality care and also technology to reduce medical err (think scanners for internal bleeding.)
Security: Dean would give international countries $ support to keep WMD out of people's hands (smart idea) and would give $5B to States for enhancing their security. Kerry wants to improve the health services to handle bio & chem attacks (hopefully, to install epi software like NY NY hospitals all have & coordinated.) Kerry supports hiring more police workers and enhancing technologies and communications, and he would create a program with hundreds of thousands of volunteers for handling an attack (smart idea).
Kerry appears to be the only candidate who advocates using volunteers rather than tax payer money to pay for expensive labor. Smart.
Competitiveness: Unfortunately, none of the candidates seem to understand the need for the USA to get more competitive HERE. They're all out of touch with where the USA is in world-wide competitiveness (including Bush).
Regards,
Amy J |
