(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...South Carolina’s Results or Can We Get Back To Discussing the Issues?
After days of racially charged debate with the Clinton camp, Barack Obama emerged successfully from South Carolina, African American vote in hand. Now the story has become: Obama’s unbelievable win in Iowa, Hillary’s unbelievable comeback in New Hampshire, Hillary’s unbelievable victory in the Nevada, and Obama’s unbelievable victory in South Carolina. However, the main narrative consists of Democratic voters choosing between Change on the one hand and Experience on the other. Isn’t it disgusting that we choose between a highly inspirational yet under qualified candidate, and the preeminent Washington Democratic dynasty (and lets not forget John “I’m praying for a brokered convention” Edwards)?
Meanwhile, I have not heard a candidate talk about the issues in months. Lets for a moment examine the candidates economic stimulus plans.
Both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton called for increasing aid to unemployed workers as well as assistance for paying heating bills, and a call for more investment into alternative ethanol. Edwards also calls for additional aid to local and state governments, whereas Clinton’s plan distinguishes itself by including more aid. Obama on the other hand has been calling for tax cuts, which have been demonized by the Democratic Party when Bush offers them, but are somehow more palatable these days. (NYTimes)
What is striking about these plans is that they are all shortsighted handouts aimed at getting votes, with very little in long-term investment. One year from now, what do we have to show for any of these plans besides more national debt, and thus a further impoverished currency?
In contrast to Mike Bloomberg, we can infer that his economic stimulus package would include significant investment into our nation’s infrastructure. That means roads, bridges, and levies but more importantly, it means jobs and tangible long-term results. A year from now, a $500 tax cut is not going to drive the economy; neither is one or two less heating bills. However, thousands of jobs, rebuilding the nations aging infrastructure is a legacy that we can proudly build the future on. That is what I call the right kind of Change and the right kind of Experience.
If you agree, sign the petition.
January 27th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
The media is a joke. All we’ve been hearing now is how this big Obama win changes the race. I want to hear one, just one reporter ask the question “why should this change the race?” If someone likes Obama, then they should vote for Obama. If they like Hillary, then they should vote for Hillary. Why is there this mentality that voters should change their loyalties to a candidate like they’re changing their socks. It’s clear that the bulk of the voters don’t have a strong preference with this collective flip-flopping of “favorites”
In the meantime, I can either beat my head against a brick wall or just support the person who is best equipped to lead this country. That would be Mayor Bloomberg.
January 27th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Yep! The media likes the soap opera tabloid short-term feel good politics and stuff for sure. All the candidates are long on promises but short on the costs/sacrifices required and the means of implementation of what the promise.
At least Bloomie makes a real good attempt at syncing up the Must Dos with the Can Dos in a nonpandering and cogent implementable kind of way - a thing the other candidates can/should emulate and that might just get Bloomie some respect from many quarters foreseen and unforeseen!
It is in “synching up” the vast ends-means disconnects present in politics on the REAL nation-busting issues out there that Bloomie can really differentiate himself from the rest and position himself to be a real contender/player come November.
January 27th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I really wish the media would ask the below key fiscal questions (from Concord Coalition) and hammer them all away on this rather than continue to wallow in the tabloidesque politics we see now:
http://www.concordcoalition.org/press/2007/070907release-keyquestions.htm
“The candidates we elect in 2008 will face crucial decisions about the path of our nation’s fiscal policy. They should not take comfort, nor should we, in the fact that the deficit has declined in the past few years. The debt continues to go up and the long-term outlook is as bad as ever. During the next presidential term, the baby boomers will begin to qualify for Social Security and Medicare. Both programs must be reformed to achieve long-term sustainability. Important tax policy questions also await as the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are set to expire by 2011 and the Alternative Minimum Tax digs deeper into the middle class. Campaigns are the best time for voters to find out how candidates plan to deal with the looming fiscal challenge, or whether they have even thought about it at all,” said Concord Coalition Executive Director Robert L. Bixby.
“Some candidates will be tempted to tell the voters what they think they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear. It’s up to the voters to make each campaign a ‘pander-free’ zone. For our part, we hope these questions will help in that effort. We also encourage candidates to show initiative by bringing up these issues themselves, without waiting for the voters to demand answers. That is what real leadership is about,” said Concord Coalition Field Director Harry Zeeve.
Do you believe that budget deficits matter?
The accumulation of large deficits, year after year, burdens taxpayers and undermines future living standards. It does so by soaking up national savings and crowding out productive investment. Today’s budget policy threatens to place ever-tighter constraints on the ability of future citizens to determine their own fiscal priorities. It also increases our reliance on borrowing from other countries, in effect, mortgaging our future national income. The United States would be in a stronger position to weather difficult times, address emerging national needs and invest in future economic growth if it had greater flexibility and strength in its fiscal position.
Do you believe that either Congress or the President has a realistic plan to balance the budget? If not, what would you do differently?
President Bush and the Democratic leaders of Congress share the goal of balancing the budget by 2012, but there is reason to be skeptical that they are prepared to make the necessary trade-offs required to achieve that goal. Both rely on assumptions that overstate likely revenues and understate likely expenses. A serious effort to address the deficit will require policymakers to tackle the underlying structural problems resulting from existing entitlement and tax laws.
Do you support budget enforcement laws such as caps on annual appropriations and a pay-as-you-go requirement for tax cuts and entitlement expansions?
Pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules for all tax and entitlement legislation and spending caps for appropriations are proven tools for fiscal discipline. These enforcement laws were an important part of bringing the budget back into balance from 1998 through 2001. This year, Congress took a positive step to bring back PAYGO budgeting by enacting parliamentary rules, but stopped short of writing these rules into law. Doing so would put additional teeth into the PAYGO rule by establishing a mechanism that could not be waived without new legislation.
What specific spending cuts would you propose to help balance the budget?
Politicians often talk tough on spending without mentioning what programs they would cut. This is a convenient way to avoid making hard choices. Vague calls to crack down on “pork” or “waste, fraud and abuse” are not enough to get the job done.
The tax cuts passed since 2001 are set to expire by 2011. Do you support extension of the expiring tax cuts and, if so, how would you address the budgetary implications?
Since 2001, Congress has enacted four tax cut packages with “sunsets” that cause them to expire by 2011. In light of the deteriorated fiscal outlook and the fact that we have not taken action to prepare for the costs of the baby boomers’ retirement, it makes sense to reassess whether any or all of the tax cuts enacted during the surplus era should be extended. Economists generally acknowledge that tax cuts do not fully pay for themselves through greater economic growth. Thus, extending the tax cuts will require Congress to make substantial spending cuts, raise other taxes or significantly increase the national debt.
How do you propose to keep Medicare from overwhelming the federal budget?
Medicare costs are projected to grow faster than the economy, and faster than can be reasonably supported by the federal budget. Putting Medicare on a financially sustainable path will require some combination of reductions in services, increased cost-sharing by beneficiaries, increasing the eligibility age, bringing more revenues into the system and improving the cost effectiveness of Medicare and the health care system overall.
What steps would you take to close Social Security’s long-term funding gap?
Social Security promises far more in future benefits than it can deliver under current law. Candidates must confront some tough issues. Finding a cure for the challenges facing Social Security will require reduced benefits, increased revenues, or both. Candidates who promise to preserve benefits at the levels promised under current law should explain where the money will come from to fund these promises. Likewise, candidates who promise to oppose any tax increases should explain what changes they would make to restrain the growth of Social Security costs to stay within current tax levels.
Key Questions Booklet: http://www.concordcoalition.org/doc/keyquestions/2008-internet.pdf
January 27th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Yes, can we PLEASE get back to the issues and off the “Obama wins!” hype? I live in Columbia, SC, and can’t seem to escape it! It’s all the rage in the conversations at the local coffee shops. I hope some of these people will take notice of the Columbia Bloomberg Meetup I’ve posted on the bulletin board
January 28th, 2008 at 10:35 am
McClatchy had a good article the other day on the stimulus and how it exacerbates the deficit/unfunded liabilities/national debt question:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/25332.html
Bloomberg would be best at assembling a team to address the long-tern questions without pandering to the short-term pressures with short-term feel good palliatives like what is going thru Cap Hill now. The best guess is that on the rebates the checks will not go out until this July and the minimal stimulative effect of the $140 billion package will not even be felt until next January.
Thought Rivlin and Walker said it best in the article:
“In the long run, we are in serious deficit trouble, and the long run is not so long anymore,” said Rivlin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 1975 to 1983. “We have just made too many promises under our entitlement programs, and we’re going to have to change course.”
“Comptroller General David Walker, the chief auditor of the government’s balance sheet, has all but shouted from the rooftop that the U.S. government had more than $50 trillion in unfunded liabilities at the close of 2006, compared with $20 trillion in 2000. That number is the sum of everything the government has promised to pay in the future, from pensions and government health care to interest on the debt.
The liabilities now amount to about $170,000 per person or $440,000 per U.S. household, according to Walker. The largest drivers of this trend are big entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, the government insurance program for the elderly. These programs will come under even more strain when the first baby boomers — Americans born between 1946 and 1964 — reach official retirement age in two years.”
THIS is the nation-buster issue that Bloomberg must show he can effectively address.