The Economy
March 19th, 2008 at 10:27am Geoff
It is beyond argument that the hyperventilating economy is a drag on Republicans—and in consequence Sen. McCain—this election year. Further deterioration will only exacerbate that fact and Sen. McCain and his campaign need to remain on top of the issue.
It is entirely appropriate and beneficial that he is abroad right now, demonstrating his command of the foreign policy sphere and his qualifications to be commander-in-chief; but if it is not already than the economy is likely to be the preeminent issue of concern in the campaign, and disproportionate emphasis on foreign affairs runs the risk of neglecting that which is of the most concern to the voter. This cannot happen. Peter cannot be robbed to pay Paul.
In the coming weeks Sen. McCain needs to be out in front talking about the economy, acknowledging its perilous state in the present and demonstrating that he understands the concommitant apprehension among Americans. He needs to identify the general objectives his administration will pursue economically and some specific policies and programs tailored to curing what ails the economy at this time. His economic advisors and surrogates need to be running the cable news, radio, and Sunday morning gauntlet doing the same.
Most importantly, Sen. McCain needs to get above the Democrats on this issue. Their two presidential candidates propose immense government solutions to the economy, which they promise will be the solution to its deficiencies. But there is only so much oxygen in the atmosphere and the more government consumes the less there is for the economy and the market to grow and prosper. Sen. McCain’s requiem is to demonstrate this. Persuade Americans that there are real problems with this economy but that the Democrats’ prescriptions will not rectify but only aggravate them. The Democrats’ economic program aims to empower the federal government, his seeks to empower the American people.
A specific example of how I would have Sen. McCain approach the economy and his Democratic opponent regards trade. In I think every single speech I have heard Sen. Obama deliver on the campaign trail he has promised to end tax loopholes for American companies that ship jobs overseas. But why, Sen. McCain should ask, do these companies outsource? Because labor costs are cheaper in those foreign countries. Closing tax loopholes and otherwise raising taxes and attacking American business will not stop outsourcing but only create greater incentive for them to practice it even more.
Sen. McCain can be aggressive on the tax issue from another angle as well. As Jeffrey Bell wrote in his excellent article in last week’s Weekly Standard, he “can note that Democrats insisted [that all the Bush tax cuts] expire, a fact that is now causing uncertainty among workers and investors as stiff tax increases loom ever closer.” He must look at the Democratic nominee and “demand that he [or she] explain how leaving the prospect of stiff tax increases in place will help today’s economy and stock market.”
Sen. McCain and down-ticket Republicans cannot alter the fact that the economy will be a burden on them this year, so long as Americans feel burdened by it themselves at least. All he and they can do is tackle the issue aggressively and forthrightly, acknowledging the economy as it is, promoting reasonable policies and approaches, and convincing the voters that Democrats don’t have remedies, only prescriptions for further aggravation. Do this successfully and we just might win an election.
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
18 Comments
1. Diana Powe | March 19th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Well, bad news there, Geoff:
2. Diana Powe | March 19th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Senator McCain is “demonstrating his command of the foreign policy sphere and his qualifications to be commander-in-chief”? Oh, I don’t think so. Yesterday and the day before he failed to distinguish between Sunni al-Qaeda and Shi’a Iran by claiming that Iran was bringing al-Qaeda members into Iran for training before sending them back into Iraq. The second time, Senator Lieberman had to whisper in his ear so that Senator McCain could then correct himself. Yep, that’s “command of the foreign policy sphere”. Probably the most basic fact you need to know about the region and he states it incorrectly two days in a row. That’s actually quite shocking.
3. Geoff | March 19th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
That’s called a gaffe, Diana. I look forward to Sen. Obama contending in the general election that he has greater command of Iraq and foreign policy than Sen. McCain. Won’t that be the act of audacity?
4. Diana Powe | March 19th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Whatever you choose to call it, but I would call a gaffe a one-time event. This was repeated on two consecutive days, at a minimum. If he wasn’t corrected on this most basic of facts on the first occasion (Hugh Hewitt’s radio show), then does that mean his handlers don’t know the distinctions either? If he was corrected, then why couldn’t he state the facts correctly the next day? No, instead, he looked like someone that just really didn’t know what he was talking about and had to have Senator Lieberman to bail him out as they’re speaking in Jordan in front of what one can only imagine as appalled Jordanians:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/19/politics/washingtonpost/main3949282.shtml
Senator McCain has been to Iraq multiple times, he has argued that dealing with Islamic extremism is the defining foreign policy challenge of our time and yet he still goes out and gets Day 1 of Middle East 101 wrong. That video and the audio from Hugh Hewitt’s show the previous day are Grade A campaign material.
5. Sarah | March 19th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Good try, DP! Yeah, John McCain is ’so old’ that he actually knew Abraham Lincoln.
6. Sarah | March 19th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I don’t listen to talk radio, but it will never surprise me when critics on the right appear to keep John McCain on a ‘very short leash.’
7. Geoff | March 19th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
This really would be charming, Diana, if it weren’t so comic. It is hard to read with a straight face your claims that Sen. McCain doesn’t have a basic level of competency in Middle East affairs when your own candidates have been and still are in denial of reality in Iraq. Not only do they deny the positive effects the surge has had in Iraq, and that we are now winning there, but they remain inveterate in their plans and call for precipitous retreat from Iraq, disastrous consequences be damned. Sen. Obama specifically strains credulity in demanding immediate withdrawals from Iraq except for a rapid strike force to be used if and when al-Qaeda in Iraq moves in, apparently failing to comprehend the fact that he is essentially saying and admitting that withdrawal from Iraq will lead to al Qaeda’s resurgence.
Further, though you’d like to believe—apparently—that Sen. McCain’s comments were so obviously wrong and misguided that the average eight year old would recognize his error, significant evidence exists that he wasn’t misguided at all. Try this: http://www.meforum.org/article/670
Go ahead and argue Sen. McCain doesn’t have a basic level of understanding of Iraq and the Middle East—despite the fact that alone among the candidates he recognized the surge could work and would work and that American defeat isn’t good for America—and we will see how far it gets you. I’m sure Sen. Obama would be a credible salesman for pitching Sen. McCain’s inexperience and lack of comprehension.
You may be right about that video being ‘Grade A Campaign Material.’ With all those lovely Wright videos out there, you should know such when you see it.
8. Rusty | March 19th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Budget needs Reduction Now!
Citizen White Paper #3
I’m concerned about the Congress Budget process, and the World influence!!
There will be a larger more detailed e-mail later after more research!
Statement of Problem:
Congress owes our associate China $478 billion (plus import deficits) and rising at 20% per year, right under (for today) Japan at $581 billion, our friend;
*They don’t really tell us the TOTAL DEBT of $52.1 Trillion we (I) owe per the retired Comptroller;
* They debate about where they want to spend the presumed savings after the reduction of the GWOT war expenses, when the real question MUST be “how do we reduce our fixed costs and debt that will ruin this country possibly forever!”
They argue about more higher tax % on the richer;
They want to eliminate or tax only the richer on Estate Taxes;
They don’t deal with the $70 billion AMT taxes on the middle class which congress imposed;
Eliminate Earmarks? – Some have many of $342 million for one Senator, or $92 million for another, one even has none! The total cost to the citizens is ?? ;
And they (the Congress) set policies of:
“Pay-Go” or as they go – then allow Discretionary Spending not to be affected, What does that mean? Both sides don’t follow the rules – if there are any! This principal MUST apply to the total budget, not just parts!;
“Offshore Tax Havens” but plug 0 “loopholes”, and how about the onshore ones?;
They work only three (3) days now;
They must cut a budget like we have to do in business or our own household budget, Maybe our “system” must be revised??
Maybe we as a “democratic” society want everything given to us, but don’t want to pay for it, and don’t even want to know about or see the bill we owe??
And we are to be given everything we ever want by a new President? And then pay for:
More Entitlements of a Universal Health Care, when we are going broke (or are alredy);
A bailout of banks (Bear Stearns), lenders who couldn’t figure who could pay or didn’t care, and persons who may have not looked at their contracts, some have reasons;
More dollars for COPS, firefighters, weatherization, that they will give to their “sponsors”, not decided or controlled by the local governments;
Discussion:
Congress needs to do something NOW!, and spend their time focused on reducing my costs – not debating about who spends the most while my debt goes up more!;
We citizens have to balance our budgets – or we lose our homes, health, jobs, family, - and we hired Congress to do the same for our country! It’s not that difficult!
We need to plan retirement for the “baby boomers” bulge, for which Congress said they have done,
We need better education, but can we afford it now? But can we not afford it??
We need VA benefits and medical services for our servicemen,
We need to figure out why are medical insurance co’s make lots of money, but can’t insure many of the needy citizens, maybe we need a max percent of profit for these institutions that are only the middle man - should they be a corporation that goes for max profit? Or a corporation that goes for max public service like a utility corp.? ;
Past budget surpluses were not attained by any party or President – it was the boom of dot-coms and other businesses in the economy! But who cares? It is not important, only what Congress does NOW!
Proposed Solutions: (More later after more research)
1. Budget can only rise by 3% per year from 2008, the rate of productivity, or GDP,
2. Pass the lower taxes for NOW, but only if Congress can/will balance the budget or reduce it, (NO DEFICIT BUDGET) True Pay-Go must be applied to total budget.
If you raise one area, you must lower another an equal amount (or multipules)
3. Raise the limit on Estate Tax to 10 Million now, maybe higher later! ;
4. Eliminate the AMT, we must lower the cost of Iraq to about $130 Billion in 2009, then more each year! Saving 50 Billion in 2008, 70 Billion in 2009!;
* We cannot use the savings from GWOT war which should end in a few years to insure us a permanent Mandatory expense or cost like Soc.Sec./MediCare or SChip, but we MUST pay off our debt which is really $410,000 per working person per David Walker (former Comptroller).
5. Make and allow the Budget committee do its job! It has a mandate to enforce “Pay-Go” or “SOS” - we want no Deficit, reduce the debt, no Earmarks,
6. We will have to cut the budget, but compare it to 07, 08 , not itself– and do it like most businesses do. You only spend what you have! If you don’t get it, then you can’t spend it!
9. forrestal | March 19th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Comical indeed! Got to love the trolls. I was listening to NPR today (I know, I know), and the host was quick to point out that McCain is abroad. Something to the effect of, “While Sen. McCain is off on a junket abroad, the American economy continues to tank. Does Sen. McCain have a fix all for domestic issues?” Got to love that liberal media!
According to sources inside the campaign, on McCain’s return, he’ll be giving several important wide-ranging speeches on his domestic policy solutions. The tour will also be a way for McCain to re-introduce himself to voters, and fresh back from abroad, he’ll have some much needed perspective on the role the U.S. should play in the world.
Looking forward to the next news cycle!
10. Diana Powe | March 20th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Interesting fantasy you try to spin, Geoff. So, I take you to mean that when Senator Lieberman stepped up to correct Senator McCain, then it’s Senator Lieberman who doesn’t understand the difference between Sunni and Shi’a Islam in the Middle East and Senator McCain was so considerate of Senator Lieberman’s feelings that he couldn’t bear to not repeat what he was told even though it made him look uninformed. What a very nice man.
11. Sarah | March 20th, 2008 at 6:51 am
We watched the left, as Amy Holmes on CNN said, “cannibalize” Senator Lieberman in 2006. Don’t even try to throw his name around. Politics is not for kids, my Dear.
12. Diana Powe | March 20th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Senator Lieberman “cannibalized”. That’s droll. He runs in the Democratic primary in Connecticut to defend his seat in the Senate. He loses. He then gins up a fake political party so he can run in the general election with the support of Republicans who help him win. Fine. He can do that. However, having decided to repudiate the will of Democratic Party primary voters he doesn’t get to call himself a Democrat and naming himself an “Independent Democrat” is false advertising. He ran as the candidate of the Connecticut for Lieberman Party so he is properly a Connecticuter for Lieberman member of the United States Senate.
13. Sarah | March 20th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Geoff, did she just prove my point?
14. Diana Powe | March 20th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Sarah,
I presented the facts. The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman, Senator from Connecticut, was the winner in the general election as the only candidate fielded by the Connecticut for Lieberman Party. He is the standard bearer for the party he created with the assistance of Republicans which was his perfect right to do. However, he is not a member of the Democratic Party. It doesn’t make him a bad person but it does mean that he’s not any kind of Democrat. It’s really not complicated at all.
15. Dasein Libsbane | March 20th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
I’d like to do a Diana Powe here and change the subject.
Regarding the economy I note with interest that the commodities market (and gold in particular) is suffering under the apparent strengthening of the USD. The indices appear now to have precluded, or at least made more problematic the “inevitable” recession. I believe that the growth rate will remain positive and GDP will show no signs of contraction into negative territory.
McCain has the best policy recommendations to continue economic growth and monetary stability. The democrats’ have proposed increased taxes and chastised the Fed for lowering rates; this makes the American economy appear to be a bad investment to the rest of the world; if elected it would be a self-fulfilling prophesy.
But, getting back to Diana Powe’s subject change, it’s amusing that she has posted ten times (so far) on the subject of McCain expressing what is essentially true (Iran’s support of al Qaeda) and remained amusingly silent of Obama’s statement that we’d have to go “back into Iraq” should there never be an al Qaeda presence there. The difference between the two is that McCain quickly explained that he meant Islamic extremists, and Obama reiterated his naive assessment as if there was any truth to it.
feel free to change the subject to anything else you know nothing about, Diana; it’s always amusing to watch.
16. Geoff | March 20th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
After the two speeches on Iraq delivered by Sens. Clinton and Obama it is a bit difficult to see how I’m the one spinning fantasy, especially as you try to create a mountain out of the absence of a mole hill with Sen. McCain’s recent comments in Iraq.
Regarding your position on Sen. Lieberman, I think it is entirely legitimate (to actually side with Diana–kind of) to believe that Sen. Lieberman should have abided by the results of the primary. That isn’t a position I personally share, but it is credible.
Whether or not he’s a Democrat is for Democrats to decide. I would just say that on almost every important issue aside from Iraq he is in line with the views and principles of the Democratic Party. What’s more, he is almost perfectly a FDR-Truman-JFK Democrat, who were just as hawkish as he is.
17. Diana Powe | March 20th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
And Senator McCain’s comments the day before on Hugh Hewitt’s radio program and the press release and…
There’s some kind of question as to whether a candidate should abide the results of their party’s primary? What question would that be, Geoff?
18. Geoff | March 20th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Oh just a few of your fellow lefties who have been morally offended by Sen. Lieberman not being a defeatist regarding Iraq believed that it was wrong for Sen. Lieberman to run in the general after he lost the Democratic nomination. That appeared to be your sentiment, maybe I misread you.