McCain and Obama - - Who Makes Sense?

The Republican and Democratic campaigns are wildly divergent in how they address tax cuts, job creation and decisions to use military force. The McCain camp paints Obama as an isolationist who would disrupt trade policies and desert Iraq while McCain advocates open-ended trade agreements, lop-sided tax cuts and an occupation that bears no resemblance to the original justification sold by this government.

In the face of its constantly shifting rationale for our presence in Iraq the current administration has never come to grips with the regional impact of a disrupted nation in the Middle East that has strengthened enemies and left Iraq in a shambles. McCain says government must do a better job of educating the American people about why it engages in conflicts like Viet Nam and Iraq and that those who object are tantamount to traitors, a philosophy he developed over time, especially during his long years as a POW when he felt the war effort was being undermined by protestors at home.

But if the people of this country simply go along with anything those in power decide to do no matter what, that is hardly the basis upon which the hopes and aspirations of a nation were framed in the early days of our founding. Patriotism isn't something to be used as a hammer to pound away at political opponents. As Senator Carl Schurz put it, when so confronted in the late 19^th century, yes "my country right or wrong" but he added "if right to be kept right; and if wrong to be set right." Just ‘going along' closes off the opportunity to set things right - - end of discussion.

One major flaw in the McCain campaign is that the ramifications of his policies are rarely examined in any meaningful way. His economic advisor submits that revenues increased because of tax cuts and explains why corporations are allowed to protect income overseas by saying that, if the corporate tax rate were lower, they'd come back home, which doesn't really clarify why offshore income is protected in the first place.

And the argument that lower taxes help create jobs hasn't been borne out in recent years unless lower-paying, benefit-less employment is seen as a positive national trend. The very rich are buying more luxury items, eating out more often, driving larger, gas-hungry cars and deciding which of their homes to occupy, while the poor and middle class struggle to put food on the table and work enough jobs to just get by, wrestling in addition with the prospect of losing their homes in the mortgage crunch. One often hears the point made that poor people don't create jobs, but the second part of that equation is that the pay scale of top executives is astonishingly generous compared to employees whose job security, health care and pensions are always in a state of flux.

Of course not all tax cuts are created equal. McCain originally contended the Bush tax cuts favored the rich over the middle class, but now his contention is that those tax cuts are just the thing to bring the economy back to health - - that once spending is restrained things will trickle down into the outstretched hands of a grateful public. No explanation of how to replace lost revenue is ever made, and the notion that suspending earmarks is a big part of the answer is ludicrous in the extreme.

Besides while there are some notably outrageous earmarks, there are others that help sustain projects in states and municipalities that would otherwise go wanting or cripple local budgets - - $368,000 for renovations at the Akron-Canton Regional Foodbank; $294,000 for new Day Care/Family Service Center in Cleveland; and $2 million for a Combat Mental Health Initiative to study risk factors for deployment-related post traumatic stress disorders, just in Ohio for example. Obviously such projects add up, but are they outside the realm of reasonable expenditures to serve legitimate national needs not factored into the federal budgeting process?

Perhaps most significant in terms of the economy though is the way the two candidates would address the country's economic shortcomings. The McCain strategy is to continue on the path of tax cuts and spending restraint while Obama wants to implement a massive infrastructure overhaul and alternative-energy initiative - - both areas of great national concern with tremendous job-creation potential.

McCain has tried to suggest that Obama wants to return to the policies of the ‘50s and ‘60s, but it his tax-oriented policies that are behind the times and offer no creative solutions for today's problems or change that would implement a more productive future.