One Democrat Stands Above the Rest

I watched the Iowa Democratic presidential debate two weeks ago, and I was especially impressed by two candidates. No, not those two candidates. (I'm appalled that the mainstream media is already reporting this as a two-horse race, and that fundraising matters so much over issues.)

One of the candidates I was impressed by doesn't have a snowball's chance, but I'm glad he's in the race, and getting his views heard.

The other candidate that impressed me should be the Democratic nominee, if Democrats want to take back the White House. A former president finds this candidate exceptionally qualified:

"I can say without equivocation that no one who is running for president has presented anywhere near as comprehensive and accurate a prediction of what our country ought to do in the field of environmental quality, in the field of health care for those who are not presently insured, for those who struggle with poverty."

Paul Krugman writes, as a party the Democrats have substance in spades, but one candidate, the same candidate I found so impressive in Iowa, stands above the rest:

The entire G.O.P. field fails the substance test.

There is, by contrast, a lot of substance on the Democratic side, with John Edwards forcing the pace. Most notably, in February, Mr. Edwards transformed the whole health care debate with a plan that offers a politically and fiscally plausible path to universal health insurance.

Whatever the fate of the Edwards candidacy, Mr. Edwards will deserve a lot of the credit if and when we do get universal care in this country.

Mr. Edwards has also offered a detailed, sensible plan for tax reform, and some serious antipoverty initiatives.

Four months after the Edwards health care plan was announced, Barack Obama followed with a broadly similar but somewhat less comprehensive plan. Like Mr. Edwards, Mr. Obama has also announced a serious plan to fight poverty.

Hillary Clinton, however, has been evasive. She conveys the impression that there's not much difference between her policy positions and those of the other candidates -- but she's offered few specifics. In particular, unlike Mr. Edwards or Mr. Obama, she hasn't announced a specific universal care plan, or explicitly committed herself to paying for health reform by letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire.

For those who believe that the time for universal care has come, this lack of specifics is disturbing. In fact, what Mrs. Clinton said about health care in February's Democratic debate suggested a notable lack of urgency: "Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term."

If you missed the Iowa debate, or haven't heard Edwards lately, check out this excerpt:

Dennis Kucinich and Me

A friend invited me to a meeting of the Commonwealth Club on Friday and the guest speaker was Democratic congressman and Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich.

I was impressed by his candor, his background and his positions on the issues. There isn't a more honest candidate running for President, except maybe Ron Paul, and that's just one of the many reasons why Kucinich doesn't stand much chance of being nominated. Still, I'm glad that he's running. (A recording of Kucinich's appearance is available in Real Audio in the Commonwealth Club's archive.)

Kucinich mentioned an online poll, a presidential survey that asks questions about key issues and then matches your responses to those of the candidates. If I found the same survey Kucinich was talking about, I matched with him on 10 of 12 answers. My next nearest match was John Edwards with six.

Would you support the candidate whose positions you align with more closely, or the candidate who you believe is more electable?

Good/Bad Democrats

My mother-in-law and I were talking politics last night. At the risk of argument, its not something we often do when we're around each other.

Even though she opposes the war, she tends to tilt toward libertarianism. "I'm tired of big government," she cries. While she accepts that there are a lot of corrupt Republicans in Congress and in the White House, she doesn't think that the Democrats are any different. "When I go to vote, I don't have a choice!"

Maybe she's right.

Paul Krugman writes in today's New York Times, "A Test for Democrats":

It's been a good Democrats, bad Democrats kind of week. The bill expanding children's health insurance that just passed in the House makes you want to stand up and cheer. Reports that Senator Charles Schumer opposes plans to close the hedge fund tax loophole make you want to sit down and cry.

The hedge fund tax loophole is a crystal-clear example of unjustified privilege. Because of a quirk in the law, the people who run these funds don't pay taxes like ordinary mortals.

For example, the salaries that pension fund employees receive for managing other peoples' money are taxed as ordinary income, at rates up to 35 percent. But if that money is invested with a hedge fund -- and 40 percent of the money in hedge funds comes from public, corporate and union pension plans -- the fees the hedge fund manager receives for his services are mainly taxed as capital gains, with a maximum rate of 15 percent.

And we're talking about a lot of lost revenue here. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the hedge fund loophole costs the government $6.3 billion a year -- the cost of providing health care to three million children. Of that total, almost $2 billion a year in unjustified tax breaks goes to just 25 individuals.

If being a Democrat means anything, it means opposing this kind of exorbitant privilege. Yet according to a report in The Times earlier this week, Mr. Schumer says that he opposes any increase in hedge fund taxes unless tax breaks for the energy and real estate industries are also eliminated, and pigs start flying.

Mr. Schumer, who heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, insists that the large financial contributions that hedge funds make to his party aren't influencing him. Well, I can't read his mind, but from the outside his position looks remarkably like money-driven politics as usual. And that's not acceptable.

Look, the worst thing that could happen to Democrats is for voters to conclude that there's no real difference between the parties, that when you replace Republicans with Democrats, all you do is replace sweet deals for Halliburton with sweet deals for hedge funds. The hedge fund loophole is a test -- and it’s one that Mr. Schumer is failing.