In the heat of election politics, it's really good to read some common sense.
As citizens, we are forced to perform a kind of voodoo exercise in which we decide which candidate will figure it out when they get there. Unfortunately, the electorate has communicated to politicians that we don't want reality. The first candidate who says "it's going to cost you," is instantly marginalized. We just don???t want to face the music.
I would like to say that, at least, we operate from our self-interest, but that's not true either. To continue your sports analogy, we view candidates like we view our favorite team or Nascar driver, two examples of choices we make that have little to do with fulfilling any substantial self-interest, but which instead make us feel better for a little while when our guy beats the opponent???s guy.
In this election, I prefer Obama of the two candidates. I have read all the positions on both candidate???s websites, read the news like a junkyard dog looking for clues to success and that???s just where I land. I trust him more, think he will unite the country and think he has the organizational chops and intellect to sort through the myriad challenges facing the next president.
I do think the unfettered free market philosophy has failed. I think the reason for that is nothing more than human nature. And, I must admit, I just think it???s time to give the other party a chance to run the thing. I think Republicans have had their chance and things just haven???t worked out so well.
I would like to think there is an equitable system that can provide for a decent living for all Americans and to also reward the industrious, creative and lucky among us appropriately. But your comments resonate with me because I believe that to achieve such a system, you must start with a balanced budget and a pay-as-you-go fiscal philosophy.
If we lived in such a world, I think it would then be possible to build responsive institutions which work on behalf of all people. Universal health care, low-interest student loans, correctly regulated and above reproach financial markets, Social Security that actually pays enough to live on.
When you mention further clutter in an already complex tax system, you???ve also got a point. But more important are the unwieldy and overly complex number of levers available to government. It???s like a giant mobile gone awry. With a balanced budget at its core, the techniques available to those in office would be much simpler, and much more effective in addressing the needs of citizens.
- 1
- 2
The Rise of Fantasy Politics
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
The most exhaustive examination of the McCain and Obama budget proposals I've found comes from the Tax Policy Center, sponsored jointly by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. It's discouraging reading. Though details differ, neither plan would realistically limit spending or eliminate deficits. This is especially true when the Obama and McCain health proposals are considered. Both would cost far more than $1 trillion over a decade, says the Tax Policy Center.
Obama and McCain have each embraced symbolic gestures that falsely suggest they've made tough choices. Democrats blame deficits on Bush's tax cuts for the rich and the Iraq War. OK, let's whack the rich. Obama would restore the 36 percent and 39.6 percent income-tax rates for couples with taxable incomes above $200,300 and $357,700. He's suggested higher capital-gains taxes and Social Security taxes for those with incomes exceeding $250,000. Together, these changes might generate about $80 billion of revenue in 2010, says the Tax Policy Center. By contrast, the 2008 budget deficit is reckoned at $389 billion. Even adding a $125 billion saving on the Iraq War—highly optimistic—wouldn't erase the deficit.
McCain denounces wasteful spending, citing congressional "earmarks." These are projects usually designated by individual members of Congress for their districts. OK, let's scrub them all. In 2008, earmarks numbered 11,610 and cost $17.2 billion, estimates Citizens Against Government Waste. That's less than 1 percent of federal spending.
Elections serve, in civics textbooks, to reach collective decisions about the future. The real world is different. Many campaign proposals are so unrealistic or undesirable that they may never be enacted. McCain would cut taxes again for the rich. Is that needed or likely? No. Obama would actually keep most of Bush's tax cuts and divert the increases from the rich to more special tax breaks for homeowners, college students, workers and retirees, among others—further clutter in an already complex tax system.
All this makes sense only as fantasy politics. Proposals and agendas aren't necessarily intended to be adopted. They're selected to win applause and please voting blocs—just as quarterbacks, in fantasy football, are selected for their accuracy. Meanwhile, the country's actual problems often suffer from inattention, because they pose disagreeable choices. Why run a bum play? In November, one candidate or the other will win this game. But the country as a whole may lose.
© 2008
- 1
- 2
Discuss