Nicole Griffin of Potomac Ponderings has decided to try not to make fun of John Kerry in this post. UNfortunately, she tried to analyze John Kerry’s most famous incoherency on Iraq where he said he voted for the 87 billion dollar funding bill before he voted against it.
Bad choice, Nicole. That’s like walking into a tigers’ cage weaing porterhouse underwear. It’s just not going to go well.
But she does make a very good point and you ought to read it.
I want to cover another point.
The money graf she quoted from the story is:
Kerry ultimately voted against providing $87 billion for military operations and aid in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although he initially supported the appropriation when it was to be funded at least in part by rolling back tax cuts for those with the highest incomes, Kerry said he ended up voting against the final version of the bill in the Senate as a protest over its funding, which included no-bid contracts.
“It was just a very inarticulate way of saying something and I had one of those inarticulate moments,” Kerry said in an interview broadcast Wednesday on “Good Morning America” on ABC. “But it reflects the truth of the position … I thought that the wealthiest people of America should share in that burden. It was a protest.”
Okay, so if I understand this correctly [Are you sure you want to do this? - ed Quiet You!], John Kerry’s opposition was not to the bill itself. It was fine with him for us to spend the money. His problem with is was how we paid for it. He wanted the spending partially offset by raising taxes on the rich.
Now he calls this “shar[ing] in the burden” but that’s smoke and mirrors. The rich already share the burden. In fact they share disproportionally more of the burden than anyone else since they pay more of the taxes than anyone and get less of a break. So what is he really saying?
He’s saying that he would only support funding our troops if he could force the rich to pay for it themselves. No tax hike, no funding. Period.
Is that really the sort of precedent we want to be setting here? Do we really want a President who feels that we can’t fund our troops in active combat unless that cash comes only from the wealthy?
And what happens if we have to respond to an attack, as Kerry’s said he would? Will he then try to raise taxes on the rich again? How would that affect our ability to respond quickly, if we have to wait for the bill to get through Congress and for the money to finally make its way into the Federal coffers? Would he try to speed up the progress in some way?
Those would be questions suitable for Thursday’s debate, I think.