The Speech That Kerry Could/Should Have Given
Ladies and Gentlemen! I am running for president because I have a vision for the country, am fully aware of the critical issues facing our citizens, and have a plan for getting us all there in one piece - safer than we are now, able to individually and collectively pursue our dreams and ambitions, and, as a leader of the free world, also inspire and assist our allies and emerging democracies to realize similar universal goals.
There are a number of areas on which i will focus my attention - the National defense and foreign policy, the Economy, and Healthcare.
The best national defense requires a combination of a number of elements - a strong and flexible military, brilliant and innovative thinking in our defense establishments, a coordinated homeland security effort, and diplomatic and economic initiatives that will strengthen the UN and reduce political and military tensions around the globe. Pursued in a coordinated and integrated fashion these initiatives will get us to a safer and better world faster than our oponents who lie to the American public, have a deficient military and political strategy, and a long record now of inept execution of government policies.
How would a Kerry administration implement National defense and foreign policy? Excluding the Afganistan invasion, the policies and military operations of the Bush administration are at best examples of what not to do:
We are in Iraq now. We are stuck with it. Amerian prestige and credibility are at stake. Although not the initial reason that we went there, the Iraqi people deserve a chance to emerge from the Saddam Hussien era with a government that serves them and provides for greater freedom and security. American soldiers are dying everyday as this administration fumbles through. We cannot change the awesome responsibility we have undertaken and the committment we have made to the Iraqi people and to ourselves.
But we can change this administration and the way its functionaries are conducting the war and intenational diplomacy. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powel, Condolisa Rice, Douglas Fief, Carl Rove, Richard Perleman and a host of other so called "neo-conservative" operatives are the architects of this mistake. They are running the government and running our president and they spend way too much time spinning excuses for their mistakes and failed policies. To them the philosphy of government and American hegemony are so important it is acceptable to implement them with brute force, neglecting civil rights, and lying to the American people and the world. They are not elected by anyone, but use "the conservative agenda" to seize and maintain their power. Is that really what you want? After honesty, fairness, defense of the constitution, military and economic security, and protection of the homeland, does the American public really care whether government policies reinforce conservative or liberal agendas? I don't think so.
I can promise that once elected everyone of these people and others like them will be gone. I can promise that i will form a government composed of the best leaders, thinkers and analysts available to focus on the Iraq war. They will not be chosen for their tough talk and conservative or liberal philosophies but rather for their understanding and insight about a complex world. They will come up with strategies and tactics that share the burden of this war and insurgency by gaining regional Arab partners and bringing our western allies back into the nation-building process. The European-American alliance for Bosnia and Yugoslavia under American leadership was largely a success (at a very low cost of American lives) and it can be again under new Kerry-Edwards leadership. Rather than a "bull in a china shop" approach to the world, our policies will be multi-faceted combinations of diplomatic, economic, and surgical military initiatives that will get results. We will lobby hard and well to show all nations in the region their common interest aligns with ours for a just end to this war and a representative government in Bahgdad. We will lobby hard and apply political and economic pressure on everyone in the Middle East to make tangible progress toward solving the Israel Palestinian crisis which continues to kindle anti-Americanism in the region and around the world. Our middle east policies and initiatives will not be controlled by Israeli special interests, its lobbyists in Washington or anyone else.
Regarding the Economgy, i will first call a spade a spade. We have to recognize that globalization seeks to achieve the most efficient source of output possible. This means that competition from cheaper labor markets will continue to be very intense. The economic engine that drives this competition comes from rising economies around the world that increasingly have access to American and European markets. As these countries sell more and more they have the potential to expand their middle classes when the wealth of their economies is distributed fairly to their citizens. That is a good thing. But we also cannot export jobs to other countries indefinitely simply because we find it cheaper to obtain the output of these jobs from overseas sources. We have to modify the economic equation where we can achieve other benefits to our society. But, before we do that we have to have a vision about what we want our lives, our communities, our environment to be besides having access to the cheapest goods and services available. My vision for our country is essentially embodied in the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. I believe that people have a right to the pursuit of happiness, to live in a safe and clean enironment and at peace with their neighbors. I want to reduce the potential for class warfare by expanding the middle class and asking everyone to pay their "fair share." It would be my job to assure citizens that the share they pay is fair. Toward that end i would repeal the 2003 tax cuts that showered fully ~65% of the benfits to taxpayers that earned more than ~$1,000,000 per year.
We believe that we can justify the costs of these benefits against the gains to Americans. We have strategic industries in this country - auto, aerospace, computer, energy, pharmaceutical/research and others. We cannot afford to have these companies move their production offshore just to compete on the world stage. I believe we can address some of their biggest competitive problems. Two of them are healthcare and perscription drugs. Another is the US has the most stringent environmental standards in the world. I consider these to be core quality of life issues for all Americans.
On healthcare my policies will be designed to take care of all our citizens by giving every American citizen a healthcare and perscription drug benefit equivalent to what our 9 million federal employees currently receive. This system will use private heatlh care providers to deliver the services, but use the Federal government and economies of scale to administer the plan achieving massive savings for American companies. We expect these companies once relieved of a substantial part of the burden of health care and perscription drug costs, to do what they do best - develop new products, train new employees, and manufacture them... in the United States.
On the environment, my policy will be not to reduce environmental standards in our country but increase them in other countries. We will look at all kinds of measures that will adjust the current equation that says: get it made more cheaply somewhere else, import it, and then make a profit on it. This equation only recognizes one standard - cheaper is better. But what is simultaneously accompanying this equation is the systemmatic destruction of the environment and the export of air and water pollution that gradually affects us all. This spaceship earth in the opinion of the scientific community is under significant stress. Our sacred job as goods stewards is to reduce and manage the stress on the planet more effectively so that our children have a healthier future. So we will look at policies that assess the environmental impact of the manufacture of imported goods and modify the economic equation by adjusting import duties accordingly. We will not stifle trade with emerging economies, but we will encourage the clean-up of their manufacturing facilies so that the world is a better, healthier place. The new equation will be: you can import cheaper goods into this country and compete with domestic industries if you can make your product as cleanly and as safely as we make it in this country. Your primary advantage when competing with Amerian companies will be the prevaling labor rates of your country, not the pollution controls you can avoid, unsafe/unclean working environments you maintain, or the women and children you exploit.
My fellow Americans, we can only maintain our leadership in the world if we make it a safer, more just place for our citizens and also our friends and allies at the same time. etc... We have to in a sense rejoin the world community as a partner and a leader. We have to work with international institutions and partners to achieve these goals through diplomatic, economic and political inititatives and sanctions. The last resort is the military option. The premature and unilateral use of military action by this administration in Iraq has already destabilized the world not only directly but also indirectly by stimulating the Korean nuclear reprocessing initiatives. I will bring sanity back to the United States government and its policies by selecting a cabinet that will achieve results through expertise and pragmatism. We will implement effective domestic economic and social policies; we will rebuild lasting partnerships around the globe; we will use these partnerships to strangle Al Quaida in every corner of the earth; we will seek justice and fairness in our dealings with our public and we will protect and enhance the environment to secure our childrens' futures. Thank you all, God bless you, and God bless America!
_________________
| Support Ken for the 24th! |
Note for Viewing. Best is at screen resolution of 1280 x 800 pixels. If you need to change, go to Control Panel, Display, Settings and adjust Screen Resolution.
Federal Budget Assessment and Health Care Commentary. April 2006. David Durenberger, Former Republican Senator from Minnesota and now Chairman of The National Institute of Health Policy, wrote a commentary on the Bush's FY 2007 Federal Budget (starting October 1, 2006). In this commentary he uses words like "unrealistic," "pork," and "unethical" to describe a number of legislative activities before finally talking about health care. Go to Budget and Health Commentary for an enlightening read.
Health Care Debate. April 2006. The World Health Care Congress just wrapped up its conference in Washington, DC providing a great overview of health care issues of concern - cost and quality. There are two competing views regarding the direction the country should pursue - "Consumer directed" approach (championed by the Bush Administration) making extensive use of health savings accounts OR the Single-payer approach (championed by Ted Kennedy and others) which is what is currently practiced in most of the country (group practice/"integrated medicine") but extending it to all citizens. Regardless of which approach one favors, the conference made it clear that neither system can really deliver its promise without making medical information more readily available to consumers - the prices of medical procedures and services and the quality of medical treatment ("outcomes") by physicians and hospitals.
Money and Politics. April 2006. According to a a recent article in the Democrat & Chronicle (4/13/06, J. Machacek), the price of the 24th Congressional District's seat in Congress has appreciated almost 300% from the $1.7 million spent by Sherwood Boehlert (who is retiring) and his opponents in 2004 to the estimated over $5 million expected to be spent in a combination of party primaries and then the election in November. The tactics of off-term elections are focused on the districts where a seat has a chance of changing hands from one party to another and thereby making a difference in which party controls the House of Representatives. The major parties identify the districts that are contestible and then all resources are shifted to these elections. It would be interesting to know where the money comes from. Is "all politics" really all that "local?" Or maybe voters in the 24th Congressional District have that kind of money to spend on political campaigns.