Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Karen Lawrence who wrote (34187)	1/4/2004 1:55:12 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

Assessing Mr. Gephardt washingtonpost.com Washington Post Editorial Sunday, January 4, 2004 OUR VIEWS on Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) can be divided into three parts: We applaud his consistent and responsible position on the war in Iraq; we have irreconcilable differences on the question of trade; and we are concerned about his free-spending approach to the federal budget, particularly the fiscal implications of his costly health care plan. Mr. Gephardt is one of only two of the Democratic contenders (the other is Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut) who's gotten it right for both critical congressional votes on Iraq. Mr. Gephardt, who led the congressional opposition to the Persian Gulf War, has taken flak for throwing his support to President Bush this time, but he was right to do so. When the war became unpopular and some of his opponents seeking the nomination seemed to be regretting their vote in favor of it, they took a dive on the critical question of reconstruction spending to get the job done right. Mr. Gephardt -- unlike Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina -- did the responsible thing and supported the $87 billion package. Trade is a different matter. Mr. Gephardt's pitch has become more sophisticated over the years, but the underlying protectionist impulses remain the same. Where once Mr. Gephardt cast his stance upfront as a means to save American jobs, he now speaks movingly about the plight of exploited workers in other countries. His proposal to create an international minimum wage, varying according to a nation's level of development, would merit consideration if the goal were truly to expand trade in the most humane way possible. We understand the pain that removing trade barriers has caused for American workers who have seen factories close and jobs move offshore. Yet we believe, as Mr. Gephardt does not, that on balance free trade improves and has improved the economic situation of people in this country as well as overseas. And then there is the question of fiscal responsibility. The deficit this year will top $500 billion, and the pressures in coming years grow only more intense, as baby boomers begin to collect Social Security and Medicare. In the face of this, Mr. Gephardt's answer is to undo Mr. Bush's tax cuts -- but then to spend all the savings on an array of new programs, with a tab of some $3 trillion-plus. As Mr. Gephardt says in an ad touting his health care plan, "I help part-time employees, full-time employees. I help people who already have insurance, people who don't have insurance. I help public employees." That may be the attraction of his plan, but it's also the downside: The cost is high. Mr. Gephardt, who understands the problems of Medicare and Social Security as well as anyone in the race, fails to level with voters about the need for major changes in both programs as the baby boomers begin to retire. Much as former Vermont governor Howard Dean has seemingly morphed from centrist governor to liberal campaigner, Mr. Gephardt has evolved, over a longer period, from a young lawmaker who backed President Reagan's tax cuts and opposed abortion to a liberal stalwart whose closest political alliance has been with organized labor. "If it's a fresh face you're looking for, I'm probably not your man," Mr. Gephardt said at one of the early debates. His experience on the national stage, and the depth of his knowledge about the issues facing the country, work to his advantage as a presidential candidate. Whether it is also enough on the campaign trail will be answered soon enough.