Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Who Won? "That One"

Dysfunctional Debate: Voters who base their decision on whom does best in the presidential debates might be scrambling for a write-in choice today. Neither Democrat Barack Obama nor Republican John McCain strayed far from their campaign talking points Tuesday night. Neither offered reassurance how they would tackle the economic crises. Both fibbed on the other's record and policies. The debate's Town Hall forum and rules both campaigns agreed upon left voters to fend for themselves. It boiled down to which candidate appeared more presidential. In that regard, Obama won by a landslide except on foreign policy questions where they battled to a draw. Going into the debate, political junkies including both campaign zealots agreed McCain had to perform extraordinary to turn the tide of the election. He didn't. The CBS and CNN instant polls, although not all that reliable, crushed the notion that the debate would be a game changer. For one thing, Obama's efforts to explain questions from the audience were more direct and crisp than McCain's on how the financial markets crash would effect their pocketbooks. McCain's responses wandered the spectrum from vague to weird. If elected, McCain said he would order the Treasury Secretary to buy troubled home mortgages and renegotiate new loans reflecting the diminished value. "We're going to have to do something about home values," he said. "Is it expensive? Yes." He did not elaborate. The program is one favored by many Democrats in Congress and would cost an estimated $300 billion. Such proposals drive the conservative Republican base nuts. On energy issues, McCain posed a question to the audience. He asked which of the candidates voted in favor of the Bush/Cheney energy package "loaded with all kinds of goodies." Not me, he said, and then pointed to Obama. "That one." Post debate pundits who are Obama cheerleaders agreed the reference was weird. Howard Fineman of Newsweek compared it to a grandfather pointing out an offending grandchild as "that one" who spilled the cookie jar. Yes, on stage McCain appeared a grumpy old man compared to his younger, cooler and calculating opponent.
Fact Check: McCain repeated his assertion that the U.S. spends $700 billion to purchase foreign oil from countries who do not like us. Actually, a third of that expenditure goes to allies such as Canada and Mexico. Obama said Bush policies supported by McCain stripped regulations on the markets and consumers leading to the financial collapse. Although McCain supports deregulation, he advocated reforms for financial mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years before they were bailed out by the feds. McCain said the last time a president raised taxes -- a jab at Obama -- during an economic recession was Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression. Not true. Although the recessions were not as severe as during Hoover's presidency, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton raised taxes leading to economic recoveries. Obama said McCain's $5,000 tax credit in exchange for treating employers' health insurance contributions as taxable wages amounts to "what one hand giveth, the other taketh away." McCain's proposal in the first years of the system would amount to a savings since the credit would exceed the amount of the tax. Over 10 years as premiums rise, the costs would increase the federal deficit by $1.3 trillion mainly because it would mean less revenue and thereby a true tax break overall. Obama said the cuts in federal spending he envisions would cover the costs of his ambitious domestic spending agenda for such programs as education, renewable energy and health care. His specifics do not bear that out.
Sacrificial Lambs: Neither candidate enunciated the extreme sacrifices facing Americans in this time of economic chaos. They had their chance and blew it in a direct question from moderator Tom Brokaw. Hate to use this tired phrase, but they tried to apply lipstick to a pig. Well, the pig raised its ugly head today in a report from the International Monetary Fund that a global recession is near and likely to continue well into 2009. The IMF's projection came before the Federal Reserve joined by central banks around the world slashed interest rates to stall the financial meltdown. The U.S. bailout is aimed at thawing the credit freeze by buying mortgage-related bad debt from the financial institutions. It will work only if banks lend between themselves to keep businesses operating and consumers gain confidence in the economic future. Credit availability is likely to remain constrained through next year, the IMF said. The IMF projected growth down to 1.8% in Germany, o.8% in France, 1% in Great Britain, 0.7% in Canada and Japan and drops -- for the first time in five years -- to 9.7% in China and 7.9% in India. Bush, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke all have poorly articulated the severity of the crises that consumers can understand. The ball soon will shift to one of the candidate's court. One will inherit this mess. None of us has a clue how he will handle it. There is one more debate between Obama and McCain. It's time for both to stop playing defense and speak the truth. Fat chance.

1 comment:

LJR said...

Last night's debate was a clear victory for Barack Obama. But much of this "victory" was a function of John McCain being more out of his element than Obama. Read: Grasp of economic issues, beyond simple finger pointing.

Couple of observations: 1) McCain's notion of the Treasury buying distressed mortgages, ostensibly at a price that the mortgagees can afford the resulting re-written payment needs a lot more flesh on the bones. It's a permanent short-term solution but with potentially longer-term ramifications. Say the government buys someone's distressed mortgage. How is it determined how much the mortgagee can afford? What does the new mortgage amount say for the fair market value of the underlying collateral (the value of the home)? Is the new loan amount right at the current value, or is the mortgage underwritten to traditional loan to value, that is, 80%? FHA allows qualifying buyers to leverage up to 97%. That's great and the government provides a guarantee. But what happens if home prices continue to slide? Then, may not mortgagees be inclined to discontinue paying on the mortgage because there's no value upside; does the government carry the upside down mortgage? In a free market, does the government have to write down the decline in collateral value, as banks do today? Finally, long term, what happens if home prices rise, as is bound to happen? Do the bailed out mortgagees get a free upside to this rise in home prices? Shouldn't they have to pay some kind of tax penalty for the government's largess in bailing them out? Lots of questions, not any answers other than "it's going to cost a lot."

2) Sarah Palin saying in the VP debate that paying taxes is un-American (putting her spin on Obama's alleged intent to raise taxes) is just an incredible assertion. Which is bad enough, but then the two presidential candidates themselves continue to argue for tax breaks. In the current climate, how can this happen? It won't. Sorry everyone, but paying taxes is inevitable, as Thomas Freidman quoted Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "I like paying taxes. It builds civilizations." Taxes are a necessary evil. The alternative is higher national debt and/or foreign borrowings. If we're worried about our national security, the heavy borrowers we've become should worry us sick. Guess it doesn't. Sad state of affairs. LJR