2008 Woodie Awards
McBamaHilonomics Part 2: The nitty gritty
Stephen Zill
Issue date: 5/5/08 Section: Features
Last week's column briefly summarized the main planks of the economic platforms of the three remaining presidential candidates.
This week, I'll offer a critique of those platforms. Although the media seems to focus on such pressing issues as flag lapel pins, pant suits and temperament, the economy, as you may have heard, has overtaken the war in Iraq as public issue number one. My only reservation lies with the fact that the public seems overly concerned/preoccupied with short-term issues, and though the candidates have laid out their economic plans, little has been mentioned about the longer term.
As mentioned last week, none of the candidates' plans would likely result in a balanced budget (i.e. the end result would be more deficits). But comparatively, McCain's fiscal plans would blow Obama's and Clinton's away with regard to deficits. Much of his platform smacks of supply side economics, which I am not generally a fan of. Just for a bit of levity, I must mention his silly populist politics plan to have a gas tax holiday over the summer. On the other hand, he should be commended for his courageous proposal to end ethanol subsidies, despite our insistence to our food in our gas tanks - which has in turn jacked up the price of that food.
Obama's main proposals were outlined here last week. These include a cheaper plan - compared to Clinton's - to provide universal health care (I'm against the government providing such a service - remember, they "run" the public school system - but something does need to be done about the number of uninsured); raise the minimum wage (I'm not against this, but it should probably be left to the states); remove the cap on social security taxes (since I'm not rich, I'm okay with that); and raise the capital gains tax from 15 to 28 percent (you don't have to be rich to disagree with that), but he has since reduced that figure to 20 percent. He's also tough on free trade, probably because he knows that will garner votes. A bowling ball in every pot!
This week, I'll offer a critique of those platforms. Although the media seems to focus on such pressing issues as flag lapel pins, pant suits and temperament, the economy, as you may have heard, has overtaken the war in Iraq as public issue number one. My only reservation lies with the fact that the public seems overly concerned/preoccupied with short-term issues, and though the candidates have laid out their economic plans, little has been mentioned about the longer term.
As mentioned last week, none of the candidates' plans would likely result in a balanced budget (i.e. the end result would be more deficits). But comparatively, McCain's fiscal plans would blow Obama's and Clinton's away with regard to deficits. Much of his platform smacks of supply side economics, which I am not generally a fan of. Just for a bit of levity, I must mention his silly populist politics plan to have a gas tax holiday over the summer. On the other hand, he should be commended for his courageous proposal to end ethanol subsidies, despite our insistence to our food in our gas tanks - which has in turn jacked up the price of that food.
Obama's main proposals were outlined here last week. These include a cheaper plan - compared to Clinton's - to provide universal health care (I'm against the government providing such a service - remember, they "run" the public school system - but something does need to be done about the number of uninsured); raise the minimum wage (I'm not against this, but it should probably be left to the states); remove the cap on social security taxes (since I'm not rich, I'm okay with that); and raise the capital gains tax from 15 to 28 percent (you don't have to be rich to disagree with that), but he has since reduced that figure to 20 percent. He's also tough on free trade, probably because he knows that will garner votes. A bowling ball in every pot!
Be the first to comment on this story