A comparison of the 2004 and 2008 Democratic platforms reveals there is little difference between the economic positions of Senator Kerry and Senator Obama. Despite Senator Obama's campaign promise of change, many of his proposals simply mirror the policies that voters rejected during the last election, instead of presenting substantial new strategies.

Senior Fellow  Kevin A. Hassett

There was much talk about change last week at the Democratic convention. But are the Democrats really offering any substantive change?

To find out, I pulled out John Kerry's 2004 Democratic national platform and compared its fiscal policy with that contained in today's Barack Obama-inspired missive.

The documents are so similar it's creepy. While there are a number of new minor policies, and fresh details on old targets such as health care, the big picture has stayed the same.

When Democrats say they offer change, what they really mean is that things will be different if voters accept the policies they rejected last time.

To be fair, there are some alterations this year.

Both platforms promise to extend the Bush income-tax cuts for the middle class, but repeal them for the rich. In 2004, Kerry defined rich as those making more than $200,000. Today, Obama promises not to increase taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.

So the definition of rich has increased from $200,000 to $250,000. That's change you can believe in that will be especially appreciated by everyone making between $200,000 and $249,999.

The 2004 platform proposed a big increase in the earned- income tax credit, or EITC, which provides refunds for the poorest working Americans. The centerpiece of the 2008 platform is a radical new idea to help the poorest Americans: an increase in the EITC.

Augmenting the EITC increase in 2004 was a proposal to "pay for child care and eldercare." This time around, there is a promise to "help pay for child care." There is no mention of helping to pay for the elderly, but that is probably just an oversight, unless jettisoning the elderly is change we can believe in.

Silly Language

The platforms for 2004 and 2008 both promise to change the tax code to make it less rewarding for U.S. corporations to locate operations abroad. Back then, Kerry promised also to reduce the corporate-tax rate a smidgen, an acknowledgment that the U.S.'s high taxes were undermining our competitiveness.

This convention's plan has ditched that carrot, and replaced it with the silliest passage in platform history: "We will bring together government, private industry, workers, and academia to turn around the manufacturing sector." Obama's plan to help the manufacturing sector appears to be, "Unleash the bureaucrats and professors."

Like this year's version, the 2004 energy platform emphasized expanding government investment in alternative energies and tougher fuel-economy standards. The biggest change seems to be an edit to the 2004 platform.

Oil, Social Security

Back then, when oil cost $40 a barrel, Democrats were willing to concede that it might be a good idea to allow some exploration, saying, "We support balanced development of domestic oil supplies in areas already open for exploration, like the western and central Gulf of Mexico." This time around, with oil trading at about $115 a barrel, the word "exploration" appears only in reference to outer space.

For Social Security, both platforms promise to protect it, and not to privatize it. The platform this time around also advocates automatic enrollment for 401(k)s, a sound policy idea that has strong academic support.

Back in 2004, the platform promised to use "pay-as-you- go," or paygo, budget rules to enforce fiscal discipline. Such rules were, of course, adopted in 2007 by the new Democratic Congress. The result was hardly spectacular, as the deficit increased from $248 billion in 2006 to a projected $357 billion for 2008, in part because Congress voted to ignore its own rules when it became inconvenient.

Old Promises

This failure had no impact on the 2008 platform, which again promises tough paygo rules. It isn't clear why we should believe that the rules will be more effective the next time around. After all, it wasn't George W. Bush who voted to ignore the paygo rules; it was the Democratic Congress.

So when you line it up, the call for change is really just a call to enact those things Democrats have been promising for oh-so-many years.

The failure to offer substantive change is important because it suggests a disconnect between the message and the reality. A candidate who provides a new perspective on the causes of our government's myriad failures, with compelling solutions, might have a chance to bring positive change to Washington.

A candidate who rehashes old entrenched positions and calls it "change" is really just calling for more effective partisanship and the annihilation of his political enemies. That idea might thrill Democrats, but it is hardly the kind of post- partisanship voters are seeking.

Kevin A. Hassett is a senior fellow and the director of economic policy studies at AEI.