|
|
Get Four
|  | JULY 26, 2004
Talking Business with John Kerry The Democratic Presidential nominee-to-be lays out why he's the better bet for U.S. companies Wary CEOs, Take Note: John Kerry wants you to know that business has nothing to fear from his Administration. On July 16, the Democratic standard-bearer sat down with BusinessWeek Editor-in-Chief Stephen B. Shepard, Washington Bureau Chief Lee Walczak, and Washington Outlook Editor Richard S. Dunham for a detailed discussion of his economic philosophy. Here's an extended, online-only version of the edited excerpts that appear in the Aug. 2, 2004 issue of BusinessWeek: Q: Who would be better for business -- John Kerry or George Bush? A: I am going to be better for business. In Congress, I carved out an economic portfolio that has been both thoughtful and visionary -- on technology and trade, on capital formation, on entrepreneurship. I decided to go to the Banking and the Commerce Committees, and now to the Finance Committee, in order to carve out a different kind of portfolio. Q: And what's in that portfolio? A: In 1993, I did a targeted capital-gains reduction. I supported critical technologies, worked on reducing paperwork and improving [small business'] access to credit. In 1985, I was one of the first Democrats to push for the [Gramm-Rudman-Hollings] deficit-reduction effort. It was considered heresy in Massachusetts.... I am going to bring Corporate America to the table -- not to lecture but to say: How do we make you more competitive? How do we get out of your way? Research-and- development tax credits? I'd make them permanent and larger. Manufacturing tax credits? That's a smart way to help. Q: Do you think you get credit for these things? A: No. Q: Why not? A: Because American politics has been reduced to simplistic sloganeering. But we are going to go back to pay-as-you-go budgeting when I am President, and I have said how I am going to pay for my initiatives. I have [also] said that if we can't afford them, we will scale back. Q: But haven't you antagonized business with attacks on "Benedict Arnold CEOs"? A: Unfortunately, in primaries and the heat of politics, things get misinterpreted. I am 100% in favor of companies going abroad to do business -- I'd be an idiot not to understand that. In fact, my proposal on deferral of taxes on foreign investment has been geared to recognize the distinction between legitimate business [and tax avoidance]. But a sham transaction [to relocate a corporate headquarters overseas] is a sham transaction. We have these shifts purely for the purpose of tax avoidance, and to me that's avoiding your responsibility. Q: Still, on the trade front, you suggested that you will reopen the World Trade Organization and NAFTA pacts to strengthen labor and environmental protections. A: What I said was that I will appoint a commission. I would want my Treasury Secretary on it -- and my model is somebody like Bob Rubin. I am going to do a 120-day review to look at what's working and what isn't. Is there currency manipulation? Are markets closed to us that were supposed to be open? To what degree has dumping taken place? Q: To amend the WTO and NAFTA, don't you have to reopen the treaties? A: To do that you have to create an international process. You can't do it unilaterally. I'm not going to just kill [treaties]. I have suggested a dialogue. The less-developed countries know they have to do better on things like air pollution. I am convinced we can work out a deal where American knowhow and technology is part of the bargain in helping people to start meeting different standards. I want to do it at a pace that is smart -- you can't just jump in with American standards. I told Howard Dean we'd have an international depression if we did that. I will do this in a thoughtful, reasonable way that helps other countries and all of us to meet our responsibilities to raise the playing field. Q: President Bush is often described as favoring a CEO management style. Describe your system. A: Well, you saw the way I managed my Vice-Presidential pick. [And] I put together a multimillion-dollar campaign. I changed the manager in midstream, put the pieces back together, and won the nomination. I'm decisive. I'm a strong leader. I push. I know how to set goals. I had four years in the military as an officer, and it's a form of management. I have been a manager of one of the 10 largest District Attorney's office in America, and I'm proud of the reputation I have for having modernized it from a sleepy backwater.... People who know me know that I'm decisive, I'm strong, and I am very demanding. Q: So why hasn't this registered with voters? A: Because America hasn't had a chance to get to know me. And because nearly $90 million has been spent [by the gop] to define me otherwise. Q: How can you be an unknown with a 20-year Senate record? A: Tell me whose record in the Senate does register. I have not spent my life trying to self-promote. I'm not chairman of any major committees. And if you are not, your name isn't on a bill. Still, I think I have broken ground with innovative programs. I led the fight to put an additional 100,000 cops on the streets. I broke with my party on education reform in 1995 and talked about the need for accountability -- we couldn't just throw resources at the system. So I think I'm willing to think outside the box, and that will come through. Q: You paint a pretty bleak picture of a middle-class squeeze. Are things really all that bad out there? A: I'm not painting a bleak picture at all. I'm very optimistic. The pessimism is at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., where they tell you the best we can do is lose 1.9 million jobs over four years. You guys think that's great? Come on, folks. I think we can do better. I'm not the one saying how tough it is out there -- it's Americans who are telling me, in places like Iowa and Wisconsin and Ohio. You tell them it isn't tough when they're sitting there with no health care, legacy costs that nobody picks up, and record personal bankruptcies. I think you can do better, and the way you do better is by investing more intelligently.
  | | |
 Copyright 2004, Bloomberg L.P.Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |
Printer-Friendly Version
