Republicans retain control of Congress.
It seems a likely scenario to me. Republicans have a slim lead, and probably will keep it.
As a result (let us suppose), Kerry is unable to convince Congress to jettison the tax cuts. As a result, a major source of the funds Kerry says he wants to spend are not available. Whereupon Kerry is faced with an unpleasant choice.
He claims he wants to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. He also wants to spend a good deal of money right away. . If no new funds are available, would you recommend that he
[ul][li]abandon the spending, and concentrate on cutting back so as to eliminate the deficit, or[/li][li]spend the money on job creation anyway, and hope the theoretical increase in tax revenue makes up the difference (Reaganomics redux), or [/li][li]spend the money on increasing health care, and disregard the deficit, or [/li][li]spend the money on health care and job creation, and hope the economy returns to the fever pitch of the 80s and 90s, or[/li][li]something else?[/ul][/li]If you think he should cut spending, where would you like him to start? Medicare? Social Security? Defense? Homeland security? Cut and run in Iraq, and never mind what happens later? Cancel the prescription drug benefit? Hope to buy enough cheap drugs from Canada to make up the difference?
Or do you expect that gridlock (and Kerry’s shortcomings as a legislator) will prevent Kerry from doing much of anything, about the deficit or anything else? This is my expectation. I am guessing that Kerry won’t be able to rescind the tax cuts, nor will he get major spending passed. Then, either the economy will continue to recover and the deficit will be reduced anyway, or it won’t, and it won’t.
Your thoughts?
Regards,
Shodan