NVR Logo
McCain, Obama On the economy
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Save and Share Share
At the beginning of this presidential campaign, the war in Iraq dominated the news.

Today the economy dominates the news, and a period of historic turmoil on Wall Street — with the government seeking to provide $700 billion to bail out troubled mortgage lenders, an insurance firm and an investment bank — has promised to keep the political spotlight on economic issues.
The economic planks of Democratic nominee Barack Obama and Republican nominee John McCain share some common ground, though their principal positions won’t surprise anyone familiar with the doctrines of their respective parties.

Here’s look at their economic positions, and their reactions to the dizzying recent events.
Consistent with Republican orthodoxy, McCain touts tax cuts and caps. McCain has supported President Bush’s tax cuts and favors cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent to stimulate domestic job and economic growth.

He opposes taxes on internet transactions, and earlier this year favored the ideas of a “tax holiday” suspending the federal tax on gallons of gasoline for the summer.
In policies laid out before the landscape changed this week, McCain said that through spending limits such as a one-year freeze on non-military, non-veteran federal budget growth, slashing of earmarks and other tools, that the federal government could eliminate the national debt by 2013. However, he has said the key to budget reform is in major revamps of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Consistent with Democratic orthodoxy, Obama calls for government investment to help stimulate jobs, and seeks to strengthen the rights of workers and consumers.

Obama opposed Bush’s tax cuts, has proposed enacting a windfall tax on oil company profits, and calls for launching a $50 billion spending program to invest in roads, infrastructure and the jobs they create and a $25 billion fund for states to maintain social services in a time of cuts. Obama proposals include stricter protections against mortgage fraud and tighter controls on credit card companies.

On the federal budget, Obama has called for reinstatement of so-called Pay-Go rules requiring the government to identify a funding source before approving an expenditure, and a rollback of the tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration.

Both men support increased global trade, though Obama says recent trade deals such as CAFTA and NAFTA should be renegotiated so they are more favorable for U.S. workers. Both men encourage a slate of “green technology” stimuli. Both advocate tax law changes that would favor companies that grow their domestic labor forces, and policies in which the government would help provide stable mortgages to prevent more homeowners from slipping into foreclosure.

Both men have said they support the bailouts of the insurer AIG, lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and investment bank the Lehman Bros. Both men have offered balancing statements, asserting the bailouts present dangerous risks and should not protect those who profited while others suffer the financial consequences.

McCain this week proposed a new agency within the Treasury Department to protect against future failures. He also criticized Obama’s response to financial pressures.

“The crisis on Wall Street started in the Washington culture of lobbying and influence peddling, and he was right square in the middle of it,” said McCain.

Obama has yet to offer his own policy response to the developing problems, but stated his support for the emergency bailout powers sought by the Bush administration and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Friday.

“It is critical at this point that the markets and the public have confidence that their work will be unimpeded by partisan wrangling, and that leaders in both parties work in concert to solve the problem at hand.”
17 comment(s)

common sense wrote on Sep 21, 2008 8:25 AM:

" McCain's economics are similar to Reagan's. Obama's are almost identical to Jimmy Carter's.

Jimmy Carter inherited a bad economy and made it much worse...and Obama wants to use Carter-esque policies. Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it...

Reagan had enough knowledge and sheer stubbornness to stick to his economic plan, which he knew would work...and when the economy came roaring back, he was proven right (and rewarded with winning 49 of 50 states in the next election). Reagan's plan, among other things, incorporated lowering taxes and bipartisan compromise.

The choice on economics is clear...John McCain has the right package of low taxes, spending reform, and sheer stubbornness to do battle in Washington DC. Most important, he has integrity...you might not always agree with him, but you know exactly where he stands. "

misfit wrote on Sep 21, 2008 9:31 AM:

" If anyone heard George Stephanopolis, George Will, Sam Donaldson, Cokie Roberts and Donna Brazille discuss the candidate's reactions to this crisis this week, it seems Obama wins handsdown with his thorough grasp of this situation. McCain revealed himself this week as having no knowledge whatsoever of the real problems and causes of this crisis. It's beginning to crumble for John McCain. "

glenroy wrote on Sep 21, 2008 10:32 AM:

" Good points Common Sense…..needless to say whenever Obama’s ‘economic’ plan comes up for discussion only portions can be mentioned to give the appearance of being smaller than it really is. Thankfully….Investors Daily, Wall St Journal and the Economist calculate the minimum tax increase needed to fund all of Obama’s ‘economic’ plans, to be around a trillion dollars….and it’s not even a plan in ‘economic and our economy sense,’ it’s purely spending by expanding exiting programs that Democrats gave up trying to defend years ago.

When was the last time anyone heard a Democrat try and explain where the 4 trillion dollars spent on the ‘War of Poverty’ went and why the poverty rate hasn’t been reduced a percentage point? 40 years later no change…. Explain the tripling of the education budget over the past 25 years without any measurable test score improvement? Quadrupling the early retirement ‘benefit’ burden for government employees without government efficiency or productively gains? Since the early 1990s our Federal government has been run just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!

The fact is, if government employee productivity gains were just half as much as they have been in the private sector our federal government would be half the size it is today. Without means to measure productivity…..it’s a big black hole. "

sickothis wrote on Sep 21, 2008 11:00 AM:

" McCain - Keeting 5. McCain - deregulation. McCain - "the fundamentals of the economy are strong." McCain - Lobbyists. McCain - Carly Fiorina. McCain - Phil Grahm. McCain - Bush 44.

$700,000,000,000.00

700 THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS

And Bush doesn't even put a cap on CEO pay?

ENOUGH!!!!! "

Raven wrote on Sep 21, 2008 3:02 PM:

" so all you McCain economic plan supporters....explain what he will do differently than the current administration....and we can see just how well that has worked.. "

common sense wrote on Sep 21, 2008 4:42 PM:

" The problem with Obama's economic plan is that he is a PROTECTIONIST.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was debated in 1929. It was the catalyst that led to the stock market crash. After it was passed in 1930, we became more protectionist...and in 'revenge,' other countries passed laws becoming more protectionist as well. The result? Trade came to a standstill and what should have been a recession turned in to the Great Depression.

If Obama wins, we take a bad economic situation and make it worse. While it may be painful, we need to keep our markets deregulated to the maximum feasible extent possible (note that I didn't say "unregulated"). Most importantly, we need to reign in spending. And this is precisely where McCain's strength lies...he's been saying we need to reign in spending for decades.

How do you know McCain is serious? Look at earmarks. He has ZERO. That is far less that Obama. Or Hillary. Even Ron Paul requested more earmarks than John McCain. Just as Bush is a big government Republican, Obama is a big government Democrat...the only small government candidate in this election is John McCain. "

sickothis wrote on Sep 21, 2008 6:32 PM:

" Keeting 5. Keeting 5. Keeting 5. Keeting 5.

History repeats itself. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Sep 21, 2008 8:12 PM:

" I am sorry to tell the NVR Editorial Board the news, but McCain's accusation about Obama being right in the middle of 'the Washington DC culture of lobbying and corruption was at best 'inaccurate'.

Normal people would call this kind of Republican twisting of the facts -- lying!

See... for Obama to be 'right in the middle' of the 'culture of corruption' he would have to elbow John Dubya McCain out of the way !!!

If you look at who gets the most lobbyist money and big checks from the 'mismanagement' of those financial companies looking for a handout -- that would be...

John Dubya McCain.

Who gets the most small donations from employees of some huge financial companies but less from their lobbyists and 'mismangers'? Barack Obama.

Yet the Editorial Board of the Napa Valley Register let this Republican lie go un-questioned into their editorial today.

Why is that?

I don't think anybody could really accuse the Napa Valley Register of 'LIBRUL bias' over letting this Republican whopper get over on Napa voters.

~Ruff "

common sense wrote on Sep 21, 2008 8:38 PM:

" sickothis, you're hilarious. Of the 5 in the 'Keating 5,' 4 were Democrats. Even so, John McCain was completely CLEARED of having acted improperly.

The Ethics Committee (in a Democrat majority Senate) ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was CLEARED of all charges against him. McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf. The report also said that McCain's "actions were NOT improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated NO law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."

If this is the best that the liberals have against John McCain, he'll win the election. At least McCain didn't get his house from a convicted felon like Obama did (tony Rezko). "

Rocco wrote on Sep 21, 2008 9:03 PM:

" Although I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not nearly as well versed in govt. regulations concerning our financial institutions as I would like to be, I do remember quite a few Democratic policies back in 2003 and 2005 that forced the private sector to lend money out to people that had no business borrowing money. Despite many reassurances from the likes of Barney Frank that everything was OK, I can also remember President Bush and Senator McCain publically stating their concerns that state sponsored “private” lenders such as Fanmae and Fredmac were becoming overextended. How can “market forces” be expected to work when these institutions are obligated to take on socialist burdens? Where were Clinton and Obama during this period of time? They were in the senate, quietly cashing their contribution checks from these very same institutions. Given that, and being true to my “Independent” mindset, I still would need to blame Bush more than anyone. On no one other’s watch has the top-down socialist agenda gained such a foothold and momentum…the Marxists won’t need mobs with pitchforks, we’ll just make sure that every moneymaking institution gets taken over by big-government…done! Of the four individuals on the current tickets, (including Clinton when she takes Biden’s place) the only person with any real “experience” of shaking things up and honestly exacting any populist reform whatsoever is Gov. Palin. Like myself, (and apparently even John’s mother) a large block of independents will hold their nose and vote McCain/Palin. Will it make a difference? Hope springs eternal. "

Raven wrote on Sep 22, 2008 9:07 AM:

" home owning is a socialist burden, Rocco? "

Rocco wrote on Sep 22, 2008 12:09 PM:

" It becomes a "socialist burden" when private lending institutions are coerced into making bad loans, go under, and then get bailed out by big government. You have been reading the headlines lately haven't you? (I never voted for my government to become bank and insurance company owners…did you?) "

freeport56 wrote on Sep 22, 2008 1:11 PM:

" Wrong again Ruff-

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.


Bloomberg 9/22/2008 "How the Democrats created the Financial Crisis" "

Raven wrote on Sep 22, 2008 5:47 PM:

" again with the 'coercion'.....

no one who was standing beside these bankers and loan officers with a club and threatening them if they didn't make those loans....both the people signing for loans they couldn't afford and the banks and mortgage companies who gave them the loans were caught up by greed....pure and simple....

do I want the government to become an owner in any company?..no.....but, if we are to believe the powers that be....it is a necessary evil....and there is more than enough blame for this to go around to both parties.....

freeport,
according to CNN, McCain has gotten more than 10 times the money from Fannie Mae directors and officers than Obama...more than 160,000 dollars

as for the bill.....seems to me that in 2005 the republicans controlled both houses of congress and couldn't get bit passed.... "

Rocco wrote on Sep 22, 2008 10:31 PM:

" Both parties ARE to blame...Legislation WAS passed by the Dems and phony conservatives that FORCED the lending agencies to make home loans to poor people that should have continued renting. I'm not making this stuff up. And WE, the drooling, insipid, apathetic slope heads we’ve become have allowed this oligarchy…this socialism for the rich, to totally envelope us. Market forces? Hamstrung! Capitalism? Emasculated! Where was Bush during this time? Why weren’t these treasonous acts exposed and at least vetoed? We don’t need more regulation…we need to hold ALL of our senators, the vile silent conspirators, accountable for looking the other “wink, wink” way. Will Barney Frank be brought up on charges? Don’t hold your breath. And as far as the corrupt chairs of these entities…they’re no different than rats grabbing a last chunk of cheese as they swarm off of the sinking ship. I’m mad because it’s happening…others like Ruff, MJH, misfit and all the other junior socialist wannabees are probably mad because it isn’t happening fast enough. So Raven…comrade? In whose camp do you pitch your tent? "

Common Sense wrote on Sep 23, 2008 9:45 AM:

" Wow, now Biden says NO new coal plants (not even clean coal!) for the United States. That can't be good for the economy. "

Raven wrote on Sep 23, 2008 5:34 PM:

" slope heads? treason?....take a breath there....


I march to my own drummer, though I can see what camp you want me to fall into, but people aren't so neatly placed in one pigeonhole or another.... "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy