Any Kerry Platform Crumbs For Conservatives?

With the Democratic Convention over and John K. Kerry nominated, it is possible for conservatives to ask if the world's oldest party offers them any alternative to the reckless domestic government spending habits set by Republicans during the last four years. Unfortunately, the short answer is, No.

From Sen. Kerry himself, to tort lawyer John Edwards, to Bill Clinton, to Jimmy Carter (he really is bitter is he not?), to blustery Bill Clinton, the message was more government to solve every problem imaginable -- from raising one's children, to finding a job, to taking care of one's health, to receiving an education, to cleaning one's neighborhood. Hillary Clinton made the message explicit, hectoring her global village children as national Mom regarding how Democrats would take care of their every need.

The serious part of the festivities, the platform, spelled it out. George Bush's largest increase in national education spending since the program's inception was still not enough. The Democrats want to increase elementary spending at least by $27 billion but, of course, nothing should be spent on educational vouchers for those who need to escape the failed government monopoly school system. And they want to give the same priority to spending on college education, at least $25 billion more per year.

The Republican $500 billion increase in health spending per year for seniors was insufficient too and Democrats propose a "real" prescription drug benefit for them, costing billions more. And Democrats want more health spending for children, low-income adults, and middle-income adults (through catastrophic coverage) too -- pretty much everyone. While there are some positive aspects of the Kerry health program, it will cost at least $653 (and probably $1 trillion) and would forbid any privatization of Medicare or Social Security that might restore some fiscal sanity (which they also promise to do, somehow) to these soon-to-become-bankrupt programs.

To pay for this, Democrats want to rescind the Bush tax cuts for people earning over $200,000 per year, which might bring in $80 billion per year, hardly a dent in the proposed spending. They promise jobs but they also want to raise the minimum wage and increase environmental regulations that economists say tend to restrict job creation. The platform supports new gun controls, supports abortion and homosexual rights, the right for stem cell research, and offers citizenship to all illegals in the U.S. who can pass background checks. It supports "some" provisions of the Patriot Act but calls for unspecified revisions of others. It even pledges to give all Americans the right to Internet access. What else could the Democrats possibly do for us?

Democrats do not even give solace to critics of the Iraq war. The platform courageously sits on the fence by saying, "People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war." The most the Democrats can muster is that the U.S. should have relied upon the United Nations and the "international community" more and done more research beforehand. The platform, however, does support an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops to stabilize the Middle East, precisely the position that drew the nation too deeply into administering Iraq in the first place. This represents a pro-Iraq troop presence that exceeds the commitment of the Bush Administration, which promises to leave as soon as it is possible. Those who want an exit from Iraq anytime soon cannot look to a President Kerry for support. Finally, Democrats will enforce trade laws to the letter (that is, help unions) and will fight terrorism, with which no one could disagree.

According to Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute, spending would increase by $ 2 trillion over ten years if Democrats had their way. It is hard to believe that even the most disheartened conservative could find solace in this platform. Even the spendthrift Republicans in Congress could not match this wish list nor could their convention promise more or, if they could, we shall soon see their platform and know the worst.

By Donald Devine, Editor.