Yet Another Reason Not To Vote For McCain Or Obama

posted by Curt, on September 22, 2008 07:22 am

A reasonable question was posed to both candidates over the weekend: with $700 billion plus is "unforeseen" bailout expenditures, do you believe you can still pursue your financial plan as you promised earlier in the campaign. Here are some excerpts of their responses, courtesy of the New York Times:

First, from Senator McCain:

But Mr. McCain said in an interview here with CNBC and The New York Times that he would press on with his plan to extend the Bush tax cuts and to cut others. Contrary to the warnings of fiscal analysts, he said he believed he could do so and balance the federal budget, which was falling deeper into deficit even before the financial crisis, by the end of his first term.

"I believe we can still balance the budget," he said. "I think that it is restraint of spending, and I think it’s growth of government and the economy, and the recovery of our economy. And anything you do that would take more money from the American people who are hurting more now, I think, would be a serious mistake."

Mr. McCain also stuck by his support for allowing workers to invest a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in stocks and bonds, an approach that Democrats call privatization and that Mr. Obama has used to suggest Mr. McCain would subject retirees to excessive market risk.

And now, from Senator Obama:

In a separate interview earlier in the day, Mr. Obama said that despite the huge new government obligation, he would press ahead with his plans to overhaul the health care system to insure more people, make college tuition more affordable, give a tax cut to the middle class and raise taxes on those making over $250,000 a year.

"The problem that we have," Mr. Obama said, "in part has to do with wages and incomes that have been flat. And so homeowners and ordinary families out there have been working very hard, but it’s tough for them to pay the bills and stay afloat with rising gas prices and health care.

"So if we don’t address our long-term competitiveness, if we don’t address some of the inequities in the tax code, if we’re not addressing some of the things that weakened the family budget, then we’re not, over the long term, going to solve these larger problems in the financial markets."

Are you kidding me? The total cost of this bailout is almost certain to go over $1 trillion (and could very possibly go to $2 trillion), and yet both candidates want to go on as normal? Either one of these guys could have gained some instant credibility with my by admitting that this throws a big wrench into things and that the government would have to cut back on its spending (or its tax reduction plans). But, to do so in an election year . . . I guess I was just hoping for a little too much.

And after all, is it really that much more absurd to say we'll do these things while we're $9 trillion in debt to say that we'll keep on keeping on when we're $11 or 12 trillion in the hole? Maybe not, but eventually you've got to have the trillion that breaks the camel's back . . . don't you? Even if the camel is a really big one?

Add New Comment

Your Name:
Your Comment:

Security Code: