Monday, June 16, 2008
Paul Krugman unkowingly points out a very disturbing, but not totally unexpected fact in his op-ed today for the smashingly liberal NY Times. In examining the McCain and Obama economic "plans" (or whatever you want to call them), Krugman notes that neither of them takes into account the interests of the American people. Naturally, of course, a NY Times columnist has a different idea of what constitutes that than I do, but, for the sake of argument, let us assume "interests" means the same thing.
McCain's economic "plan" seeks to "pacify" the middle class with minimalist tax "rebates" of $1,000 dollars per family, while affording generous breaks to the business sector (which has generously financed his campaign) by lowering corporate tax rates.
Although he plans to lower the amount of money the government takes in, McCain plans no co-inciding spending cuts, but rather, he will increase spending, only further lengthening the budget deficit and weakining our currency--as more will be printed by the government to try and cope with its insatiable spending appetite.
Strange as it may seem, how can one expect McCain, a man who has run up hundreds of thousands in credit card debt (and allowed one of his children to do the same thing), to have a shred of fiscal responsibility in him? The same can naturally be said for Obama, whose economic "plan" incudes the usual collectivist drivvle of "more taxes for the rich" while, at the same time, promising nothing for the middle class escept even more new spending than McCain. Seriously, why would anybody trust a man who wants to increase the top tax rate to 52%? Why does anybody, no matter how rich they are, deserve to have to "give" more than half their income to the government?
Krugman points out in his op-ed, that even with Obama's plan for massive new tax rates, he still will not have enough money for "universal healthcare" which, for many moons, has been touted by Obama to be next great government fix--which, thankfully, will never get to see the light of day. However, in his great rush to find new alternatives to spend the government hard-stolen loot on, Obama, will only be able to set aside a tax rebate of $500 dollars "per worker," even less than McCain's rebate, although Obama would have much more available money to hand out.
Both candidates essentially offer the same thing--bigger, but not better government, for which purpose they will try and buy off the opposition of middle class voters with minimalist monetary handouts which will do nothing to improve their condition.
It is not surprising that the two major party candidates will not talk about the about cutting the size of government, offering voters the non-choice of big government or even bigger government.
The only candidate to talk of such things is the libertarian presidential nominee, Bob Barr, a former GOP congressman who left the party over his correct concerns that it is slowly morphing into the mirror likeness of the Democrats--an image which John McCain does nothing to disprove.
Barr says "What we need to be doing is tackling government spending. That is the root of all evil, so to speak." Government can not solve America's economic problems by giving itself even more power and control. A Republican president once said "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Even though they were rarely able to act on such beliefs, Republicans were, at one time, able to express them, in order to at least give some attention to the interests of ordinary Americans in the public forum.