McCain v. Obama: The Economy

Bureau of EconomicsI typically surprise many of my friends with just how fiscally conservative I can be at times.  I believe for some reason that people should get the government they pay for, and no more.  To me that means not running a deficit.  One of the best things we can do for our economy is balance the amount of money we’re taking in versus what is spent.  I do not suggest that this needs to be done on a year by year basis, but rather on a decade by decade basis.

I do not believe in tax breaks for the rich, or even for the upper middle class.  In the United States we have a creaking infrastructure, as I have previously mentioned.  Our roads are in need of repair, our education system is in shambles, our health care system is reserved for the upper middle class who work, and we do not as a country save enough.  To me that means we as individuals have to pay for all of these things somehow.  Either we pay for them in our taxes or we pay elsewhere.  If we pay elsewhere, often times those who cannot get left behind.  In some of these areas I believe that to be bad policy.

Where do the candidates stand?  Senator McCain wants a corporate tax cut from 35% to 25%. As Republican proposals go, this one is pretty mild, and nearly heretical for a Reagan Revolutionary.  Indeed according to Wikipedia at least, McCain generally prefers reducing the deficit to other forms of tax cuts.

Recently, Barack Obama recently sat in a discussion next to Robert Rubin and said that at the time that he would not have been as fiscally conservative as President Clinton was.  The problem with that statement is that it was at least in part that fiscal discipline that closed the budget deficit that itself caused interest rates to drop.  His web site states that he would provide for a $10 billion foreclosure defense fund, and a $20 billion general stimulus package.

At the same time he wants to cut taxes for the middle class as well as for senior citizens.  Once again, Obama does not say how he would pay for all of the programs he mentioned.  I don’t have a problem with the programs, or even the bill for those programs.  But he has to say how he is going to pay for those programs.

Until I hear more details from Obama, McCain gets this round.

Joe Biden: The Spiro Agnew of the Democratic Party

“I don’t want to look like a schmuck.  I want you to look like a schmuck.”

-Kevin Kline in Dave

Senator Obama had his choice of huge range of individuals for vice president candidate.  He could have picked Hillary Clinton, who has a solid constituency, or he could have picked Bill Richardson, who has a brain the size of the planet and represents the left well.  Instead, he picked Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, who received a whopping 1% of the vote in the primaries in which he participated.  Biden has a less than distinguished carrier in the Senate that includes such debacles as the Anita Hill massacre, in which Clarence Thomas was confirmed as a justice of the Supreme Court, having been publicly shamed by his assistant.  Biden chaired the mess.

He also was accused of plagiarizing work of other candidates the last time he ran for president in 1988.  While this is a seemingly normal thing for politicians, it’s not something I want my daughter to aspire to do.

Why, then, pick this man?

Senator Obama has put a huge effort into seeing that he is perceived as a positive campaigner.  He objects to each of Senator McCain’s attack ads, and he does his best to not fight back in kind.  But it’s pretty clear that at least someone thinks he needs someone to fight back.  That would be Joe Biden, in the fine tradition of Spiro Agnew.  This, it seems to me, is why Obama picked Biden.  The man won’t make a great vice president (whatever that means), but he can be nasty, in a whithering sort of way.

How do you spell Soviet Union today?

M-I-S-S-I-S-S-I-P-P-I

The Wall Street Journal recently reported one of the most peculiar incidents I’ve read about in a long time: a Mississippi Supreme Court justice was ordered by the majority not to publish a dissenting opinion in what seems like a relatively pedestrian case.  Dissenting opinions are nearly as important as majority opinions because first they inform us of what the other side of an issue is, and second they often turn into majority opinions of the future, either due to changes in courts or changes in law.  It would be one thing for the court, by the way, to not want to reveal specific details of a case, but an entire opinion is beyond the pale.

Oh Say Can You STEAL?

America’s National Anthem is, well, a symbol of America.  And so it is no small matter when someone steals it.  According to NPR’s Morning Edition the Chinese have done just that, and they did so by playing a version that was arranged by a private individual named Peter Breiner.  He found out about it from friends who heard them play it in that tiny itty bitty venue – an Olympics medal presentation.

File this one under the department of “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up”.

Obama v. McCain: The Courts. This one IS a Knockout

After my last lengthy spewage about Foreign Policy, I figured I’d take on something a little more straight forward.  One of the largest and most lasting powers a president has is his ability to appoint judges to courts, and justices to the Supreme Court.  The issues surrounding the courts are not just abortion, but privacy, freedom of speech, freedom from religion, gun control (or lack thereof), and the ability of the government to protect our environment for the next generation, just to name a few.

The current administration placed Samuel Alito and John Roberts onto the Supreme Court, making it the most conservative court in well over a century, probably dating as far back as the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, which give you some idea just how far backwards we have gone.  The next administration will likely see at least one Supreme Court nomination in the next four years.  Justice Stevens is 88 years old.  It’s almost hard to imagine how the court could shift to the right any further ith Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, considered the center of the court, but that is precisely what could happen.

Here the record of Senator McCain is crystal clear.  He hasn’t waivered from it one bit.  McCain is anti-choice, and he has further stated that he would like to replace the existing left side of the bench (Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, Bryer) with people from the right.  That doesn’t suit me well at all.  The people on the right side of the bench, aside from taking away a woman’s right to choose, also voted to gut the Court’s own power by all but taking on Marbury v. Madison.  A dysfunctional 3rd branch of the government is not what our founders had in mind.

Barack Obama is a lawyer and has tought at the University of Chicago.  He is pro-choice, and in general has a more studied approach that is not subject to the strictness of ideology.  This in part leaves me uncomfortable.  However, given the two individuals in play, the choice is clear.  McCain scores a whopping F and a low one at that on his handling of the court, while we’ll give Obama a tentative B, with perhaps as much as 70 points between them on this issue.