In a column titled Balancing Priorities, Washington Post writer E.J. Dionne credits Senator John Edwards for his honesty in telling America that he has "higher priorities than a perfectly balanced budget." Mr. Dionne contrasts that principled stand with an easily detectible lack of honesty from President Bush, "who campaigned on a balanced-budget pledge, then dug the country hundreds of billions of dollars deeper into debt with huge tax cuts and an unpaid-for war, and now promises a balanced budget four years after he leaves office."
Regarding Senator John Edwards' beliefs about the need for a better stewardship over the federel budget, one that balances the requirements of responsible leadership with wise decisions about tax revenue, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently offered a related economic recommendation, advising federal legislators to carefully target reclaimed future revenue toward responsibly improving American lives, adding that a broader benefit to this style of leadership would be the philosophical example set by leaders in Washington, D. C., offering "a demonstration of the benefits of good government." [link]
E.J. Dionne puts it this way:
The real issue, given the burgeoning costs of health care and the retirement of the baby boomers, is how to put policies in place now that achieve sustainable fiscal balance -- meaning low if not zero deficits -- over the next 30 years.
What needs to be done? Hint No. 1: Extending President Bush's tax cuts to eternity will make the long-term problem much worse. Hint No. 2: The hardest part will be how -- simultaneously -- to meet the fiscal need to rein in health costs and the social need to get health insurance to everyone. Hint No. 3: Most Democrats don't like to talk about it, but somebody's taxes are going to have to go up.
"Somebody's taxes are going to have to go up.." If there was ever a politically difficult truth, here it is staring at all of us in the face. Yet, Americans have seen, for the past six years, what easy lies will do. We can only believe what comes from the mouths of George W. Bush and the Grover Norquist crowd as long as we deny what we see with "our own lyin' eyes." Their policies and ideas have failed most of the American people.
Mr. Dionne explains some of Senator Edwards' ideas...
He would start by eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the top 2 percent of income earners, which he defines roughly as those earning more than $180,000 to $200,000 a year.
He wants to increase the capital gains tax for an interesting reason: In an interview this week, he argued that it's wrong to tax income from work at a higher rate than income from capital -- an extension of his long-standing theme that the country should not value "wealth over work." He also favors a windfall-profits tax on oil companies.
These are values-based ideas that tie into Senator Edwards' plan to eliminate poverty as we know it in the next 30 years while enhancing opportunities for the middle class. With his 'Two Americas' message still ringing in our ears, Senator Edwards seems to be tapping into the will of the country by appealing to our sense that 'we are all better than this.' If you look at the polls reflecting the public's approval ratings of President Bush's leadership, it also seems to be a common belief among most Americans that it's not enough for leaders to simply provide false hope when they talk about the issues. They have to have a set of ideas and solutions that work and make sense to people. E. J. Dionne is crediting Senator Edwards with being frank while introducing ideas that are more than just "magical thinking". They are ideas that stand to have much more than just a snowball in hell's chance of succeeding.
Looking toward the 2008 presidential campaign, Mr. Dionne makes a point that stands out like a sore thumb.
...if they want to trump Edwards's candor, Sens. Obama and Clinton should take the lead in showing how they would begin to clean up the mess they hope to inherit in 2008.
Mr. Dionne has thrown down the gauntlet to Senators Obama and Clinton to take a strong lead based on Senator Edwards' complete candor, because a new direction for this country, requiring good government based on complete candor is what Americans voted for last November. What will they do with this challenge?