Clark Lays Out Plan to Spur Economy

Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, offering the first significant domestic policy initiative of his presidential campaign, proposed Wednesday to reinvigorate the economy with substantial new spending on homeland security and aid to states, and tax incentives for businesses to hire new workers.

Clark said he would cover his plan’s $100-billion cost by repealing the portions of President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that benefit taxpayers earning $200,000 a year or more.

The plan positions Clark near the ideological center of the Democratic field, committing him to greater amounts of new spending on homeland security than most of his rivals and a more limited rollback of Bush’s tax cut than some of the more liberal candidates have urged. But, overall, the ideas he proposed fit well within the range of priorities already established by the leading contenders in the race.

More distinctly, Clark also advanced what is emerging as a centerpiece of his nascent campaign: a call for “a new American patriotism” that he defined as “speaking out, questioning authority and holding your leaders accountable,” even during wartime.

In sharp words, Clark, the former NATO supreme allied commander, said his 34-year Army career gave him unique credentials to make the Democratic case against President Bush on both domestic and foreign policy.

“I have led men into combat, faced enemy fire, and have been wounded and come home on a stretcher,” he said. “I can stand up to the people who believe that if you don’t like their views, you can’t love your country. I can reclaim the mantle of patriotism for those who care for their country and don’t care for the policies of this president.”

Clark’s staff did not announce the speech until late Tuesday afternoon, and the hurried arrangements may have reflected his desire to unveil his jobs plan before the 10 Democratic presidential contenders debate economic issues in New York today.

Only about two dozen people turned up to hear Clark’s remarks -- roughly as many as the number of reporters who gathered at the remote East River Park in Lower Manhattan under brilliant morning sunshine. The small crowd included supporters who held signs reading “Wes Wing” and “Silver Star v. Silver Spoon” -- a comparison between Clark’s military medals and Bush’s privileged background.

Clark, who shot to the lead among the Democratic contenders in two national polls released over the last week, delivered a bristling indictment of Bush’s economic record.

Citing the increase in the number of Americans in poverty and the loss of more than 3 million private-sector jobs since Bush took office, Clark declared: “Three years ago, we were told we were getting a compassionate conservative. Instead, what we got were massive tax cuts for the rich, staggering deficits for the country and the worst job losses since the Great Depression.”

He added: “That’s not compassionate, nor conservative; it’s heartless, it’s reckless, and it’s wrong.”

The speech drew fire from two directions for its similarities to the statements of the broad priorities of other contenders.

Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said Clark’s proposals represented “a classic tax-and-spend liberal economic plan.”

She added, “If Wesley Clark had told us he was for tax increases and big government programs earlier, we could have told him he was a Democrat long before he announced it himself.”

Meanwhile, Robert Gibbs, the press secretary for Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, said Clark’s plan tracked closely the proposals Kerry has already issued. It is “probably no surprise that a newly minted Democrat with no experience in domestic policy would unveil an economic plan that is most notable for its similarity to the plans of others in this race,” Gibbs said.

In his remarks, Clark proposed to spend $100 billion over the next two years to “directly fund job creation in a fiscally responsible way.”

He said he would spend $40 billion over the next two years to train emergency personnel to respond to terrorist attacks, fortify the capacity of hospitals to deal with biological or chemical attacks, expand the Coast Guard and the Customs Service and undertake construction projects to improve security at bridges, ports and tunnels.

The other Democratic contenders also want to spend more on homeland security, but Clark’s $40-billion “Homeland and Economic Security Fund” is significantly larger than most of his rivals have urged.

The closest may be Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who has called for a one-year, $16-billion increase.

Clark also said that over the next two years he would provide fiscally strapped states a total of $40 billion in new federal aid: $20 billion for education and training, $10 billion to fund health care for low-income families and $10 billion to meet other “pressing needs,” such as law enforcement and social services.

Kerry and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina have talked about similar sums. Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri would provide states far greater assistance by having the federal government assume much of the cost of providing health care for their public employees. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean has not specified his plans on either homeland security or state aid, but his advisors say he will propose spending levels similar to those of Clark.

Finally, Clark would offer employers $20 billion in tax credits to make investments and hire workers. He said he would give employers a $5,000 credit against their federal taxes for each employee they hired above their existing payroll level over the next two years.

Kerry and Lieberman have already released similar proposals. Gephardt has proposed a substantial tax break to cover 60% of employers’ premiums for their workers’ health insurance. Dean has spoken more generally of providing tax incentives to small businesses.

Clark said he would fund his plan solely by revoking elements of the Bush tax cuts benefiting those earning $200,000 a year or more. Though he did not specify which cuts he would repeal, aides acknowledged that he could not pay for his proposals without repealing the reductions Bush won in the tax rates for the top two income brackets.

By limiting his proposed rollback of the Bush cut to the top earners, Clark sided with Kerry, Edwards and Lieberman and against Gephardt and Dean, both of whom have called for repealing all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts -- even those benefiting middle-income families -- primarily to pay for proposals to cover most of the estimated 39 million Americans without health insurance.

One of Clark’s advisors said that Clark would have to find additional revenue to fund the plans he eventually develops on health care, education and other issues. But the advisor said it was “a bright-line principle” for the former general to do so without increasing taxes on middle-class families.

*

Baum reported from New York and Brownstein from Washington.