Aversion to economics

OPINION:

There is something very disturbing about how the Democratic presidential front-runners deal with the economy — they don’t, at least not in a clear, substantive, commonsense way.

Pollsters tell us the softening economy, the prospects of slower growth ahead and rising unemployment have become the No. 1 issue among voters. But in all their talk about “change,” or being “ready to lead on Day One,” has anyone heard Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama say what they would do to strengthen the economy and create jobs?

Indeed, you never hear them talk in terms of accelerating “economic growth,” lowering taxes on venture capital investment to fuel expansion and new business formation, cutting corporate tax rates to boost profit margins to make businesses more competitive in the global economy, or opening new trade markets for American goods and services.

On the stump, in debates or interviews, they talk only of raising taxes on the people who invest in businesses, raising taxes on the oil companies who meet our energy needs, preserving the death tax, and imposing new protectionist barriers on trade.

Listen to their economic rhetoric carefully and it is peppered with such phrases as “standing up to the oil, drug and insurance companies,” taking on big corporations, making the wealthy pay their “fair share.” Never mind that the top 10 percent of income earners pay the largest share of all income taxes and the bottom 50 percent pay about 3 percent.

As near as anyone can tell, the No. 1 economic proposal in their campaign agendas is to raise the top tax rate back to nearly 40 percent. But how does taking more money out of the private economy and turning it over to government bureaucrats create a new business or stimulate new job creation?

Among the Democrats, no one practices the dark politics of corporate hatred and class warfare more zealously than former North Carolina senator and wealthy liability lawyer John Edwards. He made hundreds of millions of dollars by suing corporations, which is why his economic agenda is focused almost entirely on “standing up to them,” “taking them on,” “going after them.” America would be better off once we rein in corporations, raise their taxes and restrict what they do, he says. If this sounds like the politics and economics of a Hugo Chavez or a Huey Long, well, draw your own conclusions.

Some Republican candidates, too, have similarly disturbing views on economics. One is former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who wants to replace the Internal Revenue Service with a 25 percent to 30 percent national sales tax, on top of the state sales taxes we pay now.

To help consumers pay for this, everyone would get a monthly check from the government — creating the biggest welfare-entitlement program ever. And we all know about entitlements: They grow.

Mr. Huckabee campaigns as a conservative and talks of lower taxes and curbing spending. But he compiled a record as a governor who raised taxes (sales tax, gas tax, grocery tax, nursing home bed tax) more than he cut them, according to the Club for Growth.

He and two tax-hungry Democratic governors got together in 2004 to oppose a federal ban on taxing the Internet, the last place on Earth that is untaxed. Thanks to some clear thinking in Congress, the ban remains in place.

But with the economy slowing down, and the Fed warning that things may get worse in the months ahead and promising to cut interest rates further, this is no time to raise taxes on struggling businesses that have payrolls to meet.

Some Republican candidates understand this and propose tax cut agendas to revitalize our economy at several levels. Mitt Romney has laid out one of the best, and perhaps least known, growth plans to fuel business investment, especially in small businesses, and new job creation. He would cut the corporate tax rates, cut capital gains taxes, and boost tax breaks for savers and retirement investments.

Rudolph Giuliani also has a sweeping plan to cut taxes and overhaul the IRS code that would shrink the federal income tax form to a single page. He would cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, give the death tax the death penalty, lower capgains taxes from 15 percent to 10 percent, and phase out the alternative minimum tax. He would end the double-taxation of personal savings accounts and, like Mr. Romney, make President Bush’s tax cuts permanent.

And what about John McCain? He joined Democrats to vote against President Bush’s tax cuts twice, denouncing the rate cuts in language that sounded like John Edwards. He has since said he would preserve the tax cuts, but he has had little if anything to say about getting the tax rates down lower to fuel increased long-term growth.

Mr. McCain’s hostile record on tax cuts should have been a huge issue in the New Hampshire primary, but for some reason Mr. Romney’s message on that never got the attention it deserved. And that’s the bottom line.

Donald Lambro, chief political correspondent of The Washington Times, is a nationally syndicated columnist.