WASHINGTON, April 3 (UPI) -- "John Kerry believes that we need a smaller and smarter government that wastes less money. ... John Kerry will reduce the size of the federal government," says the Kerry for President Web site.
One of the great things about being a presidential candidate is that you can promise everything to everyone with few people bothering to tabulate the costs of crowd-pleasing rhetoric. Fortunately, a few people have been tallying Senator Kerry's many campaign promises. If he keeps even a fraction them, the size of the federal government will do anything but shrink.
According to the National Taxpayers Union, a non-partisan group that lobbies for reductions in taxes and government spending, Kerry has proposed -- as of March 8 -- a whopping $2.76 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years.
While Kerry, assisted by the Republicans, has developed a reputation for staking out both sides of every issue -- recall his justification for voting against the $87 billion to support our troops in Iraq, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" -- this is ridiculous. Those rumored Botox injections may have more to do with keeping a straight face when making promises like these than with looking youthful on the campaign trail.
Some taxpayers may wonder what they're getting for their $2.76 trillion. Below is a brief example of how President Kerry would spend your tax dollars. (All figures cover expenditures over a 10-year period.)
-- $35 billion in free tuition for students who agree to participate in something called a "National Service Plan" after graduating,
-- $17.5 billion in expanded unemployment benefits (one wonders why this is necessary since Kerry has promised to virtually eliminate unemployment),
-- $57.5 billion more for Head Start,
-- $10 billion to the auto industry to bribe them into producing "energy-efficient" vehicles.
While such profligate spending might strike some as extreme, for Kerry it is nothing new. A close examination of his Senate record reveals a long history of fiscal promiscuity.
Citizens Against Government Waste, another non-partisan group concerned with government spending, labels Kerry "hostile to taxpayers," giving him a score of 13 percent for 2003 and a lifetime score of 25 percent. The NTU, meanwhile, says Kerry has earned an "F" in its congressional ratings for every year but one since its ratings were first issued in 1992.
According to NTU calculations, Kerry voted to approve $218 billion in new spending and proposed $45.2 billion in new spending in the 107th Congress.
One wonders how Kerry would reduce the size of government when he has proposed and voted for so much new spending. Then again, in a world in which Kerry implies his vote against the first Gulf War was actually a sign he supported the war and his vote for the most recent Gulf War demonstrated his opposition to it, maybe he believes you can make the federal government smaller by voting for massive increases in spending.
Kerry implies he will pay for all of this new spending by repealing President Bush's "tax cuts for the rich." Even under the best circumstances, however, this admittedly massive tax increase wouldn't come close to paying for all his proposed spending -- raising perhaps $700 billion in 10 years, leaving a $2 trillion deficit gap.
As the Washington Post recently reported, "Kerry's aides privately admit the Democratic candidate cannot fulfill all of his campaign promises and still reduce the deficit by half as promised."
Even that estimate is generous. Tax increases rarely raise as much revenue as predicted because of their negative effects on the economy. Tax hikes tend to inhibit economic growth, which leads to fewer revenues flowing into Washington.
For instance, one of Kerry's proposed tax hikes would increase the top personal income tax rate. Kerry hopes Americans will back this tax hike as an effort to soak the rich. Unfortunately, the top wage earners in this country are those who invest their earnings in America's economy, helping it grow and creating jobs and wealth.
When Uncle Sam picks their pockets, they don't invest as much, and the economy will likely slow and create fewer jobs.
Further magnifying this mistaken policy is the fact that the majority of small businesses in the United States do not pay corporate taxes, but rather personal income taxes. This means the Kerry plan to tax the wealthiest Americans is actually a massive tax increase on small businesses. Even the most fervent proponents of wealth redistribution must realize the disastrous effect this would have on the economy.
Finally, one might point out that the federal government is already doing a pretty good job at soaking the rich. According to IRS data, the top 1 percent of wage earners in the United States pay 34 percent of all income taxes, while the top 5 percent pay 53 percent. The bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay 4 percent of total income taxes. Someone needs to inform Kerry that it is unwise to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.
So, while you listen to the Kerry campaign over the next several months, remember: If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
--
(Cesar Conda, former assistant for domestic policy under Vice President Dick Cheney, is a board director at Empower America. Eric V. Schlecht is a writer living in Arlington, Va., who has worked on tax, budget and economic policy issues in both Congress and the private sector.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
