Kerry's $1.7 trillion in new spending

Glenn Hubbard sheds light on what few in the Kerry campaign will admit:

John Kerry has a fiscal surprise in store for voters -- a massive tax increase or a ballooning federal deficit. The latest calculations show that the total of Sen. Kerry's spending and "investment" pledges runs to about $1.7 trillion over ten years. That's $1.7 trillion on top of what the government already plans to spend over the same time period.

If you are worried about the deficit beware of John Kerry: his spending proposals, that far outpace anything Bush has proposed, will either make the deficits worse or require major tax hikes. For example:

So far, the senator's tax-hike proposals include: raising the top tax brackets, forcing individuals and small business owners to pay higher taxes; resurrecting the death tax, so that farmers and entrepreneurs will be forced to pay the government before they can pass on their life's work to their children; and rolling back the tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, so that Americans will have to pay higher taxes when they save and invest for the future. Such tax increases would be an unwise unraveling of the tax relief signed by President Bush. Even after a recession, the worst terrorist attack in our history, two wars, and major corporate accounting scandals, our economy is the fastest growing of all major industrialized nations.

And if you believe that only the "rich" will pay for this spending, do the math:

[Kerry] claims he can raise taxes on upper-income earners and small business owners to pay for all of his spending plans. But the numbers show otherwise. If you add up all of his proposed tax increases, the extra revenue would be at most $700 billion over 10 years. That leaves a hole of $1 trillion.

Laws of math cannot be repealed -- one cannot increase federal spending by $1.7 trillion over 10 years, slash the deficit over four years, and raise taxes only on those earning $200,000-plus to pay for the rest. More Americans would pay higher taxes under John Kerry's administration than John Kerry is willing to let on. Fully funding his promises would require repealing the entire Bush tax cuts, implying large tax increases for lower- and middle-income workers.

If you think that the federal government is too small and are willing to endure hefty tax increases, and a slowed down economy, to accomodate that spending, then vote for Kerry. I suspect that many would support this position: this is classic Democratic tax and spend and it is a perfectly legitimate platform--one that many in Europe have adopted. So why is Kerry misleading people to suggest that he can not only massively increase spending but also cut the deficit and ONLY tax the richest? The math just doesn't work.