| Kerry Put On Defensive About Iraq
Over the past week, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have thrown Sen. John F. Kerry on the defensive with a daily assault designed to tarnish his credentials as a possible commander in chief. But the orchestrated attacks also revealed the president’s vulnerabilities on the issue that continues to shape the presidential campaign as much as any other. The volleys over terrorism came after Kerry and his advisers believed they had put behind them most questions about his capacity to lead the country in a war on terrorism. Instead, Kerry and his advisers allowed themselves to be drawn into a new debate about Iraq and terrorism and were forced to rebut daily charges that Kerry has equivocated and sent conflicting signals on national security. Kerry advisers see the criticisms as both wrong and distorted. But the exchanges are a reminder of how the issue of Iraq has bedeviled Kerry’s candidacy first in the Democratic primaries and now the general election as he has navigated between the demands of the antiwar faction in his party and a desire to project strong leadership to a general-election audience. The attacks also underscore the urgency within Bush’s campaign to deny Kerry a sustained post-convention bounce. With some polls showing that Kerry made clear gains against Bush on terrorism and national security, the president’s weakness on the issues that once were his great strengths is on clear display. More than half the country disapproves of how the president has handled Iraq, and reservations about the situation there have spilled over into attitudes toward Bush on terrorism. The fighting there this week is a reminder that Iraq is far from stabilized, regardless of how much Bush talks about the progress that has been made. Given that reality, Bush has gone on the offensive against Kerry. Kerry designed his convention in Boston around a single goal, to establish the Democratic nominee as capable of being commander in chief. He assembled his former Swift boat crewmates and retired military brass to offer testimonials to his courage, experience and judgment. Bolstered by some polls, Kerry advisers argued that the four-day convention did exactly what they had hoped. But Kerry left himself susceptible to criticism with his effort to draw clear distinctions with Bush on how he would have dealt with Iraq before the war and how he would differ with Bush on the future course in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Bush and Cheney have seized on Kerry’s comment that he would vote again to give Bush authority to go to war, his claim that he would try to reduce troop strength significantly during his first six months in office and his comment about waging a more sensitive war on terrorism. The GOP attacks followed a familiar pattern. Bush struck first, elevating the issue and drawing more attention to the criticism than any of his surrogates could have attracted. Then Cheney moved in with tougher language designed to raise questions about Kerry’s reliability. Bush and Cheney also selectively interpreted Kerry’s words to cast them in the worst possible light. At the beginning of the week, Kerry said that, even if he had known then what is known now about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, he still would have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. But he qualified that by criticizing Bush for going to war without more international support and for rushing to war without a plan to win the peace. “I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has,” he said. Bush chose to ignore that qualifier. Cheney seized on a comment Kerry had made to the Unity convention of minority journalists about how he would differ from Bush on terrorism. “I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history,” he said. Cheney fired back that sensitivity never won a war. “America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive,” he said. “A ‘sensitive war’ will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more.” Kerry allies accuse the vice president of taking the comment out of context. Bush allies say it is Kerry who has sown confusion with his own words. Bush has also put Kerry on the defensive over a comment the Democrat made about troop levels in Iraq. In an interview with National Public Radio, Kerry said, “I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that’s my plan.” Bush responded that establishing artificial timetables for troop withdrawals will embolden insurgents in Iraq to wait out the United States and will make Iraqi citizens more timid in taking responsibility to defeat the insurgents themselves. Kerry advisers said Kerry was only setting a goal, not setting out a timetable. Troop reductions, they said, will depend on bringing more stability to Iraq and training more Iraqis as a security force. But the Kerry advisers said the other key is to bring in troops from other countries to share the burden. They contended that Bush has so poisoned relationships that only a new president can succeed on that front. Some European diplomats and politicians have privately cast doubt on whether Kerry could easily do what Bush has not. On the campaign trail, Bush devotes a significant portion of his stump speech to a vigorous defense of his actions in Iraq, which reflects his weakened position politically. But in defending himself as someone who has had no doubts about his decision to dislodge Saddam Hussein, he has contrasted himself with Kerry and has tried to cast doubt on his rival as an equivocator under whose leadership Hussein would still be in power. In Phoenix on Tuesday night, Bush explained his decision to invade Iraq this way: “I had a choice to make. My choice was do I forget the lessons of September the 11th and hope for the best and trust the word and deeds of a madman, or do I take action to defend America. I will defend America every time.” Bush’s goal appears aimed at shifting the focus of the debate from what has happened in Iraq to who can best be trusted to keep the country safe in the future, and he casts the choice as one between a president who knows the difference between good and evil and a challenger who finds shades of gray wherever he looks. Kerry is equally determined to fight back on his own terms and to try to hold the president responsible for what has happened to the image of the United States around the world. It is a debate that will go a long way in determining the outcome of the election in November. |
Kerry On Defensive About Iraq Over the past week, Sen. John F. Kerry has been on the defensive, confronted with mounting concerns about his credentials as a possible commander in chief. In attempting to respond, Kerry and his allies have mounted an orchestrated attack on the president’s handling of the Iraq war. The dispute over Iraq continues to influence the presidential campaign. Kerry has tried to avoid any further questions about his capacity to lead the country in a war on terrorism. However, his campaign has been dogged by growing criticism that Kerry has equivocated and sent conflicting signals on national security. As a result of these mounting questions, the Kerry campaign has been thrown back on its heels, with Kerry and his advisers forced into a defensive mode. The apparent strategy of the Kerry campaign is to try to paint the growing criticism as both wrong and distorted. But critics say that the issue of Iraq has bedeviled Kerry’s candidacy throughout his campaign, as he has tried to appease the antiwar faction in his party, while at the same time attempting to project strong leadership to a general-election audience. Polls have failed to show a sustained post-convention bounce for Kerry. Bush allies note that, though recent polls may appear to show Kerry gaining on Bush on national security issues, Bush still leads Kerry on these issues. Moreover, they say, the polls do not take account of recent questions raised about Kerry. Almost half of the country approves of how the president has handled Iraq, though reservations about the situation there — fueled by attacks by Kerry and rabid opponents of the war, such as Howard Dean — have spilled over into attitudes toward Bush on terrorism. Although Iraq is far from stabilized, sources close to Bush point out that much progress has been made. Kerry hoped that the Democratic convention would establish him as capable of being commander in chief. Kerry advisers have tried to argue that the goals of the convention were met. Some of Kerry’s former Swift boat crewmates claimed that Kerry has shown courage, experience and judgment. However, since the convention, hundreds of veterans, including many who served with Kerry, have argued to the contrary. Bush campaign advisers point to recent controversial comments by Kerry, including his statement that he would wage a more “sensitive” war on terrorism. Bush advisers also dispute that Kerry would have done a better job on Iraq before the war, or that Kerry would do a better job in the future on Iraq or the war on terror. They note that Kerry has said that he would vote again to give Bush authority to go to war. Yet Kerry admits that he would try to reduce troop strength significantly during his first six months in office. The Bush campaign believes that Kerry is so weak on national security issues that they have advised Bush to raise the issue personally, which has had the expected effect of drawing more attention to the criticism. Vice-President Cheney has echoed Bush’s concerns with comments that highlight the growing questions about Kerry’s reliability. At the beginning of the week, Kerry said that, even if he had known then what is known now about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, he still would have voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. But he qualified that by criticizing Bush for going to war without more international support and for allegedly rushing to war without a plan to win the peace. Kerry did not explain how he would have convinced nations like France to go along with the decision to invade Iraq. Cheney pointed to a comment Kerry had made to the Unity convention of minority journalists about how he would differ from Bush on terrorism. “I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history,” Kerry said. Cheney noted that “sensitivity” never won a war. “America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive,” he said. “A ‘sensitive war’ will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more.” Although Kerry allies try to argue that Cheney took Kerry’s comment out of context, Bush allies respond that Kerry has sown confusion with his own words. Kerry also found himself on the defensive over a comment that he made about troop levels in Iraq. In an interview with National Public Radio, Kerry said, “I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that’s my plan.” Bush explained that establishing artificial timetables for troop withdrawals will inevitably embolden insurgents in Iraq to wait out the United States and will make Iraqi citizens more timid in taking responsibility to defeat the insurgents themselves. Kerry advisers claimed Kerry was only setting a goal, not setting out a timetable. They argued that troop reductions will depend on bringing more stability to Iraq and training more Iraqis as a security force. Although Bush has tried to convince other countries to share the burden by providing more troops, Kerry claims that he will have more success on this front. Kerry partisans claim that Bush has poisoned relationships with other countries, and that Kerry could convince these countries to provide troops. European diplomats and politicians privately dispute this claim. Bush has argued that his actions in Iraq were necessary to defend the American people. Bush advisers dispute claims by the Kerry campaign that Bush’s emphasis on Iraq suggests weakness. They say that Bush has shown himself to be a strong leader who harbors no doubts about his decision to dislodge Saddam Hussein. In stark contrast, they say, Kerry is an equivocator under whose leadership Hussein would still be in power. In Phoenix on Tuesday night, Bush explained his decision to invade Iraq this way: “I had a choice to make. My choice was do I forget the lessons of September the 11th and hope for the best and trust the word and deeds of a madman, or do I take action to defend America. I will defend America every time.” Bush advisers explain that Bush wishes the country to focus on a single issue: who can best be trusted to keep the country safe in the future? Bush casts the choice as one between a president who knows the difference between good and evil and a challenger who finds shades of gray wherever he looks. The apparent strategy of the Kerry campaign is to shift the focus to a different issue: the alleged negative image of the United States that Kerry claims Bush has created around the world. It is a debate that will go a long way in determining the outcome of the election in November. |
Here’s a quick economic quiz about the labor market, with important implications for the $15 an hour minimum wage hysteria that is sweeping the country:True or False? Unskilled employees compete against employers in the labor market for higher wages.
Answer: False
Economic lesson: Despite what we hear from labor unions and the “Fight for $15” crowd, employees compete not against employers for higher wages, butagainst other employees. And it’s also the case that employers compete against other employers for the best employees. It’s like that in every market: buyers (employers) always compete against other buyers (employers), and sellers (employees) always compete against other sellers (employees).
For example, if you’re in the market to buy a home, you’re competing against other home buyers, not against home sellers, to get the best (lowest) price. And the home sellers are competing against other sellers to get the best (highest) price. As a result, the more buyers competing for a fixed number of available homes, the higher the home sales prices; and the more home sellers competing for a fixed number of buyers, the lower the home sales prices,ceteris paribus.
Economic implications of a $15 an hour minimum wage for the labor market: Unskilled workers compete against other workers – especially skilled workers — for a limited number of available jobs at a given point in time. If the minimum wage is increased from $7.25 or $10 to $15 an hour, that will give skilled workers an advantage over unskilled workers, and will take away from unskilled workers the one advantage they currently have to compete against skilled workers – the ability to offer to work for a significantly lower wage than what skilled workers can command. And to the extent that we remove the wage advantage for unskilled workers, we reduce their ability to compete against skilled workers, and reduce employment opportunities for those unskilled workers.
Here’s an example: Suppose that an employer can hire two unskilled workers at $7.25 an hour for a total cost of $14.50 an hour and provide them with on-the-job training, or hire one skilled worker for $20 an hour, provide no training, and get the same hourly output as two unskilled workers. Given that choice, the employer hires two unskilled workers and saves $5.50 an hour in labor costs. Now suppose that the minimum wage goes to $15 an hour, which would require the employer to pay $30 an hour for two unskilled workers. In that case, the employer would switch to hiring one skilled worker at $20 an hour over two unskilled workers, and save $10 an hour in labor costs. Result of a minimum wage hike to $15 an hour? Demand for skilled workers goes up, demand for unskilled workers goes down, and employment opportunities for unskilled workers are reduced.
Economist Walter E. Williams has used the following example to illustrate the competition described above between unskilled and skilled workers by looking at the market for different qualities of beef (see examples here, here, andhere). Suppose that hamburger sells for $4 per pound and sirloin steak sells for $8 per pound. Hamburger is a much lower quality variety of beef compared to sirloin steak, but can attract a significant number of buyers who choose hamburger over the higher quality option for the 50% savings in price. Likewise, many employers may choose lower quality, unskilled workers over higher skilled employees for the significant savings in labor costs.
But now suppose the government imposes a “$8 per pound minimum beef price law.” In that case, most shoppers who buy beef will then purchase more sirloin steak and less hamburger because the lower quality meat has lost it main weapon to successfully compete against higher quality sirloin steak – a significantly lower price that compensates for the lower quality. Result? Hamburger sales will suffer due to the “minimum beef price law” and sirloin steak sales will increase. Just like in the labor market, a $15 an hour minimum wage will remove the most effective weapon that unskilled workers currently have to compete against skilled workers – the ability to work for a lower wage. Result? Employment opportunities for unskilled and limited-experience workers will contract, while employment opportunities for skilled workers will increase.
Bottom Line: Much of the economic confusion about the $15 an hour minimum wage hysteria can be traced to the mistaken assumption that unskilled workers are competing against their employers to get higher and higher wages. That’s absolutely not the case. The economic reality is that unskilled workers compete against other workers to get higher wages, especially skilled workers, and ultimately against investments in labor-saving technologies and automation. If you understand and agree that a “minimum beef price law” would disadvantage hamburger sales and enhance sirloin steak sales, then you should also understand and agree that a $15 an hour minimum wage law would disadvantage unskilled workers and deny many of them the valuable opportunity to get an entry-level job and gain the skills, training, and experience that will put them on the path to a better and more prosperous economic future. At $15 an hour, many unskilled workers simply won’t be able to effectively compete against skilled workers and against automation, and we’ve therefore handicapped America’s most vulnerable workers by taking away from them the most effective strategy they have – the ability to offer to work for a competitive wage that is consistent with their lack of skills.
Update 3: From Walter Williams:
Update 2: Related quote from Milton Friedman:The steak example applies to any mandated minimum price. In the case of minimum wage laws, a mandated minimum lowers the cost of – hence encourages – the indulgence of racial preference in the labor market.Some might object to the validity of my example by saying that people are not the same things as cuts of meat. That is true – just as steel balls are not the same as people. However, although steels balls and people are different, both obey the law of gravity. The independent influence of gravity on a steel ball’s acceleration is 32 feet per second and its influence on a person is exactly the same. Similarly, quantities demanded for cuts of meat are influenced by the law of demand, and so are quantities demanded of a person’s labor service.
Update 1: In the related video below (“The Cruelty of the $15 Minimum Wage“), Don Boudreaux reminds us that “Taking away from workers an important bargaining chip, namely the ability to offer to work at a wage less than the minimum, is the cruelest thing you can do for a lot of these workers.”The minimum wage law is most properly described as a law saying that employers must discriminate against people who have low skills. That’s what the law says. The law says that here’s a man who has a skill that would justify a wage of $5 or $6 per hour (adjusted for today), but you may not employ him, it’s illegal, because if you employ him you must pay him $9 per hour. So what’s the result? To employ him at $9 per hour is to engage in charity. There’s nothing wrong with charity. But most employers are not in the position to engage in that kind of charity. Thus, the consequences of minimum wage laws have been almost wholly bad. We have increased unemployment and increased poverty.
