The loser might get a better deal

[AGDLynn]

The loser might get a better deal
Jack Z. Smith - Fort Worth Star-Telegram
Tuesday, November 2, 2004

In the relentlessly unpleasant Bush-Kerry presidential race that is mercifully nearing the finish line, one fate could prove as wrenching as losing.

That fate would be winning.

That's because the victor, whether it is President Bush or U.S. Sen. John Kerry, is likely to face a torturously brutal four years in a job that is exceptionally demanding in the best of times.

As it looks now, the winner probably will face these daunting problems:

> An occupation of Iraq that has proved far more violent, difficult and expensive than expected.

> Record federal budget deficits that could severely limit policy options, leading to dashed hopes and broken campaign promises.

> A growing number of Americans --- now 45 million --- who lack health insurance (and skyrocketing premiums for those fortunate enough to have coverage).

> Disappointing job growth despite the Bush tax cuts that were supposed to juice the economy.

> Record oil and natural gas prices that are crippling businesses and consumers.

> An increasing concern about America's heavy reliance on borrowing from foreigners that some fear eventually could lead to a run on the dollar and a global recession.

> An ever-growing need to deal with long-term funding shortages facing Social Security and Medicare at a time when the oldest baby boomers are only four years from being eligible to draw Social Security checks.

> Nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea.

> The continued worldwide menace of terrorism, punctuated by the fact that Osama bin Laden remains on the lam.

Making matters worse, America appears increasingly polarized politically and culturally.

If the presidential election again is nail-bitingly close and contested for an extended period, as in 2000, the winner could find governance even more contentious.

That would be particularly true if Kerry were victorious. He would face the awesome pressures of mastering a new job and presumably would be dealing with a hostile, Republican-dominated Congress.

If Kerry wins, he'll probably inherit enormous problems --- most notably, Iraq and the budget deficits --- left him by Bush. Kerry could find himself saddled with the blame for negative repercussions from Bush's policy foibles.

If Bush wins, he'll face the same problems. But Bush, having served the past four years as president, will have a more difficult time implicating his predecessor in unfortunate developments in domestic or foreign affairs. (Then again, 100 years from now, some Republicans probably still will be blaming their all-time favorite punching bag, Bill Clinton, for whatever is going wrong at that time.)

The difficulties facing the next president will be compounded by the fact that both Bush and Kerry have overpromised on what they can responsibly deliver during the next four years.

Bush wants to make his excessive and irresponsible tax cuts permanent, although this would put a continued damper on federal revenues at a time when tax increases probably will be required to help rein in budget deficits.

Kerry, meanwhile, has put himself in a similar box by foolishly promising not to raise income taxes on anyone making less than $200,000 annually.

Bush wants to partially privatize Social Security by letting younger workers put part of their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts. But he has yet to say how he would finance the transition cost of $1 trillion or more for execution of this ill-conceived plan.

Kerry opposes privatization, thank goodness. But he has unwisely restricted his options for ensuring the long-term solvency of Social Security by insisting that he won't raise the retirement age or reduce benefits.

The nonpartisan Concord Coalition has unhappily concluded that neither Bush nor Kerry ''has a credible plan for dealing with the fiscal challenges he will face if elected.''

In short, the next four years could be phenomenally challenging in dealing with the budget deficits and an array of other monstrous issues.

Could this be an election in which winning proves more painful than losing? Let's hope not, regardless of who is elected. After all, we really are all in this together.

> Jack Z. Smith is a Fort Worth Star-Telegram columnist. His column appears occasionally.

ETA: Time will tell....

[DeltAlum]

Some pretty good thoughts above.

[carnation]

My husband's cousin was a state senator for 2 terms and those terms turned him into an old man. People think he's my husband's father and they're only a year apart. I *never* want to go into politics.

[sugar and spice]

Oh, I very much agree with this.

I don't think the next four years are going to be easy on the president. I would much rather be John Kerry than George Bush.

However, I'm obviously not going to say that the American people are getting a better deal.

[honeychile]

Originally posted by carnation
My husband's cousin was a state senator for 2 terms and those terms turned him into an old man. People think he's my husband's father and they're only a year apart. I *never* want to go into politics.

I grew up in a political family, and although I get involved with politics (too much at times!), the best move I ever made was deciding against a career in it!

[AGDee]

I had thought about that back during the primaries. I would really like to get into the minds of those who want to take on the job of President. There are so many aspects of it that I, personally, would hate. Every skeleton that was ever rumored to be in your closet would be out there for the world. People know how much you paid for a hair cut, when you last had your toe nails trimmed, etc. You can never have privacy because the Secret Service is always there. And then you add on the issues we're facing right now and geez... it does seem like you'd have to be a little nuts to want to do it!

Dee