The McCain campaign charges that Obama will raise taxes on all Americans. Apparently, since this threat always worked in the past Republicans figure they might as well give it a shot again this year, true or not. The Willie Horton gambit doesn't have the traction it once did but the tax thing always seems to get people's attention even if it doesn't have much to do with healing the nation's ills.
It is puzzling, though, that anyone claiming to be a serious candidate talks about issues in the abstract. McCain promises to balance the budget by the end of his first term with spending cuts and by winning the war in Iraq. He claims off-shore drilling will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil, that gas-tax relief and another round of tax cuts would pull the nation out of its economic doldrums. And, he promises to create jobs, make health care "affordable and portable", encourage development of forty-five nuclear facilities and devise some kind of private-investment strategy to shore up Social Security
What's missing in all of these scenarios is anything specific about how current policy would change and what the ancillary costs might be if it did. For example, a gas-tax furlough would close down highway and bridge projects, occasioning a loss of jobs in those construction sectors. In any case such a proposal would never get through Congress so it turns out to be just one of those mindless, crowd-pleasing bromides.
And while nuclear energy is a clean, seemingly viable alternative, it comes with its own special set of problems. France satisfies much of its energy needs with its nuclear program. But identifying suitable waste-disposal sites to serve as "burying" grounds is the subject of intense debate there. According to the World Nuclear Association, "some useful ingredients of spent fuel can be recycled", but cooling periods for waste products range from twenty years to several lifetimes. And there are concerns about the possibility of contamination at whatever locations are chosen. Already in this country a plan to deposit nuclear residue at Yucca Mountain has raised a storm of protest in Nevada.
It would be refreshing if, at the outset, proposals were considered in the full light of what their implementation would mean. Coal extraction techniques in Kentucky and West Virginia continue to wreak terrible environmental consequences because of strip mining that lops off mountain tops allowing runoff to drift into nearby streams, clogging them and eventually obliterating them. Surely, the issue of nuclear waste should be addressed before starting ambitious reactor programs that could pose potential risks far more ponderous than those occurring in coal-mining regions.
And where would the spending cuts in McCain-world be made? Voters might like to know how their localities would be affected if some of their federal support systems were de-funded. Besides how does a continuation of the war in Iraq comport with budget restraint? The notion that somehow "winning" there would reap financial benefits here ignores the financial burden that has been incurred by borrowing and over-spending and the long-term effect the deficits created will have on the economy.
For argument's sake, then, why shouldn't the imposition of a small war tax be considered? If 100 million US taxpayers each paid five or ten dollars specifically for war funding, and Iraq, reportedly running a surplus, financed its own reconstruction, the dynamic of our Iraqi adventure would be significantly altered; at last the American people would be contributing directly to the war effort. We or our descendents will have to pay for our government's folly in the end anyway. So if we aren't able to leave any time soon, maybe we should get creative about how to pay for staying.
That would be raising taxes in a way of course, and who would be so bold as to suggest such a thing? Leaders are good at shifting the conversation away from ill-conceived policies and lack of accountability and talking beside the point about such things as tax cuts and drilling for oil. Taking a new direction to find real solutions would be to admit being mistaken in the first place. The McCain feel-good generalities are not, contrary to his assertions, "change we can believe in". It remains for Obama to take a stab at touching base with reality and charting a course for meaningful change.
