A new column for the Financial Times:
Barack Obama and John McCain both expect the ailing US economy to work to their advantage in November. Mr Obama promises to make things better. Mr McCain says they will get better by themselves and he will not make them worse in the meantime. These are the customary postures of the two parties. For a fight between an insurgent Democrat and a maverick Republican, the economics in this election is sadly orthodox.
Mr Obama offers the usual Democratic remedies for middle-class anxieties and grievances: new tax breaks and spending programmes, higher taxes for the rich, sabre-rattling on trade, calls for stricter regulation of finance and so forth. Mr McCain, likewise sticking to his party’s script, says that with the economy in a hole, this is no time to be raising anybody’s taxes, restricting trade or doing anything else to get in the way of American enterprise.
Aside from being predictable, the two have something else in common: fiscal myopia. Their tax plans differ in their distributional effects, but less than you might think in overall burden. Mr McCain opposed President George W. Bush’s tax cuts as unfair and inefficient; now he wants to make them permanent. Mr Obama deplores them still, of course, and says he will let them expire – but only for the sliver of the population that earns more than $250,000 (€163,000, £128,000) a year.
Measured against current law (ie, against a baseline that assumes the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule in 2011) and excluding healthcare (which involves some additional tax changes) Mr McCain wants to cut taxes by $3,700bn over the next 10 years. Mr Obama wants to cut them by $2,700bn. That amounts to a 10 per cent cut in revenue for Mr McCain and a 7 per cent cut for Mr Obama. (The estimates are from the non-partisan Tax Policy Centre of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.)
If either man gets his way, the larger part of the Bush tax cuts would thus remain on the books. At the same time, both have ambitious plans for new spending – Mr Obama especially. The budget is in structural deficit and the shortfall is bound to worsen as the cost of the Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare programmes rises. Neither candidate addresses the issue. Politically, they are doubtless correct: voters would rather not think about it.
You can read the rest of the column here.
Dear American Voters, reporters and political professionals,
Hon. Senator McCain and Obama, besides each having many attributes and characteristics. The critical differences between the two of these presidential presumptive nominees are as under:
1. Presidential "Temperament and Composer".
2. Little Washington "insider Versus outsider" experience.
3. "Vision and mission" for our nation future rather than past.
4. American policies, " first U.S.A Centric" than any other country [ ies ] centric.
In my professional opinion Senator Obama leads in all above qualities.
The need of our next movement and generation is a change. The Change in " past Washington and its Leadership". A change we can believe in and not the seductive, deceptive, and confusing slogan of "leader we can believe in" [? Effexor ?".
Our Greatgrand Nation has to address many present and future challenges and start with new clean "Slate and Senator".
God Bless America. its diverse people, and our Greatgrand Nation.
Our Greatgrand Nation is needs the CHANGE at every level and for long time.
I am sure Senator Obama with the help of Senator Clinton and her supporters, can deliver that CHANGE.
Please stay involved, stay engaged, and stay informed. Please do not allow any seduction, deception, and or confusion by some partisan media and leaders effect your vote [ Psychological Terrorism ]..
Yours truly,
COL. [retd] A.M.Khajawall
Disabled American Veteran
Forensic psychiatrist, Las Vegas
PS: Please talk about the " Presidential Temperament And Caliber " of our presumptive presidential Nominees. Thanks.
Col. Khajawall, with all due respect, could you stop spamming blogs with your posts? That sort of conduct actually makes bloggers and readers of blogs less sympathetic to the cause being promoted.
Clive,
Fair points, but shouldn't the military spending be a factor, given one of the candidates is far more likely to spend more? It's hardly a minor amount.
Fair point, James. But I hardly see Obama coming out and saying, "We're going to cut military spending." No matter how reasonable such an assertion is.
And the fact that he can't even say such a thing while campaigning makes it seem unlikely to me that he's going to create significant reductions...
Fair point, James. But I hardly see Obama coming out and saying, "We're going to cut military spending." No matter how reasonable such an assertion is.
And the fact that he can't even say such a thing while campaigning makes it seem unlikely to me that he's going to create significant reductions...