I found this article in Today's New York Times. It is by Paul Krugman, and in it he compares what the three presidential candidates, McCain, Clinton and Obama, have said about domestic issues. According to what Krugman says, McCain wants to save the economy by lowering taxes for the rich and leave struggling homeowners to fend for themselves, whether or not they are able to do so:
Many news reports have pointed out that Mr. McCain more or less came out against aid for troubled homeowners: government assistance “should be based solely on preventing systemic risk,” which means that big investment banks qualify but ordinary citizens don't.
But I was even more struck by Mr. McCain's declaration that “our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.”
These days, even free-market enthusiasts are talking about increased regulation of securities firms now that the Fed has shown that it will rush to their rescue if they get into trouble. But Mr. McCain is selling the same old snake oil, claiming that deregulation and tax cuts cure all ills.
According to Krugman, Clinton instead stresses the need to aid individual homeowners in trouble:
Maybe the most notable contrast between Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton involves the problem of restructuring mortgages. Mr. McCain called for voluntary action on the part of lenders — that is, he proposed doing nothing. Mrs. Clinton wants a modern version of the Home Owners' Loan Corporation, the New Deal institution that acquired the mortgages of people whose homes were worth less than their debts, then reduced payments to a level the homeowners could afford.
Obama strikes Krugman as a lot more cautious than Clinton, and a lot more unwilling to commit himself to the idea of helping individuals in dire financial straits:
I was pleased that Mr. Obama came out strongly for broader financial regulation, which might help avert future crises. But his proposals for aid to the victims of the current crisis, though significant, are less sweeping than Mrs. Clinton's: he wants to nudge private lenders into restructuring mortgages rather than having the government simply step in and get the job done.
Mr. Obama also continues to make permanent tax cuts — middle-class tax cuts, to be sure — a centerpiece of his economic plan. It's not clear how he would pay both for these tax cuts and for initiatives like health care reform, so his tax-cut promises raise questions about how determined he really is to pursue a strongly progressive agenda.
This is how Krugman sums up the three candidates, how they are portrayed in the media versus what they stand for in reality:
Mr. McCain, we're told, is a straight-talking maverick. But on domestic policy, he offers neither straight talk nor originality; instead, he panders shamelessly to right-wing ideologues.
Mrs. Clinton, we're assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive.
Finally, Mr. Obama is widely portrayed, not least by himself, as a transformational figure who will usher in a new era. But his actual policy proposals, though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox.
You may or may not agree with Paul Krugman's assessment, and you may or may not take offence at his choice of words (McCain "panders shamelessly to right-wing ideologues", for example).
But I thought this comparison between the three candidates was interesting, all the same.
Ann
