I was going to take the hammer and saw to the Kerry economic editorial today, but I got busy. Thankfully, McQ wasn't as busy and really gets after it.

This isn't much of an economic plan in my estimation. Its a "I'll do it better" plan built on a mischaracterization of where we've been (recession, 9/11, war) and where we are (1.7 million new jobs, 5.4% unemployment, increased productivity, total compensation up, and the highest homeownership percentage in the nation's history).

McQ's second piece at QandO takes up the claim that Bush's economic plan spends more money than Kerry's. Privatizing Social Security and tax cuts are cost when you think the money belongs to the government. As a wise man once said,

...how can we ever cut government down to size? I believe there is one and only one way: the way parents control spendthrift children, cutting their allowance. For government, that means cutting taxes. Resulting deficits will be an effective--I would go so far as to say, the only effective--restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature. The public reaction will make that restraint effective.

How much of Bush's plan is tax cut and how much is spending increase? How about Kerry's? The Globe article McQ critiques didn't make the distinction.