If I were to write a formula representing the two presidential candidates’ reactions to the impact the federal bailouts to the financial sector would have on their proposed social and economic programs, it would look like this:
Obama: Progressive Tax + Universal Health Care + More Funding for Education = Progressive Tax + Universal Health Care + More Funding for Education + $700 billion
McCain: Tax Cut + Open-Market Insurance + Semi-Privatized Social Security = Tax Cut + Open-Market Insurance + Semi-Privatized Social Security + $700 billion
Try to solve for the variable and you get a mathematical impossibility: 0=$700 billion!
In other words, in interviews with the New York Times, both Obama and McCain refused to admit that the cost of bolstering the system requires them to rethink their proposals for tax cuts and other government programs.
It is good and necessary that the Times is asking the candidates to make the connection between the current financial debacle and the broad sweep of promises made in the heat of the trail. But, it’s bad and disappointing that the Times didn’t push Obama and McCain harder on their stances.
When McCain insisted that he would be able to preserve the Bush tax cuts despite the recent expenditure and still balance the budget, by some magic trick of restrained spending, the published article didn’t offer any analysis about the feasibility of this proposal. McCain’s recent mantra about cutting spending and reducing the size of government may play well on the campaign trail, but in this context, not pushing for specifics is practically criminal.
Obama’s calls for close scrutiny over financial institutions strikes the right note in the current climate, but it also merits more probing questions about precisely how much regulation he proposes and with what powers will the regulators be endowed.
John Harwood, the reporter behind the piece, has done good work during the campaign, and it’s clear that he’s aware of the disconnect between the economic situation and the candidates’ proposals. But his failure here to push more aggressively for specifics leaves voters to wade through the morass.
To help voters evaluate the candidates more closely, articles like these need to ask specific questions, like “Senator McCain, do you really think it’s fiscally responsible to cut taxes after spending $700 billion on a banking bailout? How, exactly, will you balance the budget after doing so?” At the very least, these articles should enlist the expertise of economists and historians to gauge the feasibility of the candidates’ claims. Or just ask a seventh-grader. ‘Cause the equations don’t add up.
Katia Bachko is on staff at The New Yorker.