Why Obama Has Pulled Ahead on the Economic Issues

by: Mark Weisbrot, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

    Senator Barack Obama's campaign for the White House pulled ahead of his opponent, Senator John McCain, as soon as the current financial crisis hit the headlines. As one of McCain's top strategists recently blurted out, "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose."

    There's a reason for this well-established trend that the Democrats tend to win among those who vote on economic issues. Although both parties are subject to undue influence from powerful corporate interests, the Republicans have been much more consistent in advocating government policies that redistribute income from working and middle-class Americans to the rich. They are also much less friendly to the most important government programs that insure people against economic catastrophe, such as Social Security and Medicare.

    These partisan differences are evident in the current presidential campaign. On Social Security, McCain has in the past supported President Bush's partial privatization plan, which was rightly rejected as an attempt to undermine the nation's most important anti-poverty program and social safety net. McCain has also undermined Social Security by wildly misrepresenting its financial condition, alleging that the program is "going broke." (For the record, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, Social Security will pay all promised benefits for the next 40 years without any changes whatsoever. It would need only minor changes, less than those adopted in each of the decades of the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s to remain solvent for 75 years).

    Obama rejects privatization of Social Security - as well as Medicare, where the Republicans have increased the role of private insurance companies by giving them wasteful taxpayer subsidies. On health care, one of the most interesting features of Obama's proposal is the establishment of a public insurance program similar to Medicare, which employers and uninsured individuals could buy into. This would be subsidized and could be an important step towards universal health insurance.

    McCain wants people to buy their own private health insurance. He is willing to give them a subsidy from the government, but the $5000 he offers is far less than the $12,500 it costs to insure a typical family. Even worse, he proposes to tax the health insurance benefits provided by employers, which are currently tax-free. This would be a hefty tax increase for tens of millions of working Americans. It also puts at risk the health insurance of many of the 160 million people who depend on employment-based insurance policies.

    McCain has also been reluctant to support a fiscal stimulus that will be necessary to limit the size and duration of the current downturn. This could be a costly mistake. As consumers cut back on spending - which is already happening this quarter - the recession will deepen unless the government is willing to make up for it. Obama has proposed a stimulus package that is too small, but will almost certainly support larger plans that will come from the Democratic Congress.

    McCain has proposed yet another cut in the capital gains tax - from 15 percent to 7.5 percent. This would go overwhelmingly to rich people, and would have little or no effect on economic growth. He also wants to make permanent President Bush's tax cuts for rich households. By contrast, Obama has proposed to cut taxes for everyone earning under $250,000 - about ninety-five percent of taxpayers - and pay for it with an increase on the five percent who make more than that.

    With millions of Americans facing foreclosure notices on their homes, insufficient and collapsed retirement savings, rising unemployment, falling real wages, and what is likely the worst recession for at least three decades - it's getting tougher to distract voters from the most important economic issues that affect their lives. Hence, the Republicans' bad luck in the polls.

    -------

    This op-ed was distributed by McClatchy Tribune Information Services on October 22, 2008, and published in The Sacramento Bee and other newspapers.

    Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, DC (www.cepr.net).

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.





     

»




Comments

This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.



" it's getting tougher to

" it's getting tougher to distract voters from the most important economic issues that affect their lives. Hence, the Republicans' bad luck in the polls." Bad luck at the polls? We have the bad luck. The Republicans are just feeling the karma of it. No bad luck there.


For the last eight years I

For the last eight years I have been saying, "When Jesus doesn't pay the mortgage or the rent, maybe they will come around." I would say this is coming true.


i simply don't understand

i simply don't understand that with the state the economy is in now, and these are the 2 options available to us voters (well, the only 2 that will count thanks to the electoral college), that people will still vote for mccain.


Will the Democrats have the

Will the Democrats have the courage to go after the war profiteers, the mortgage bubble profiteers, the meltdown profiteers, and the banking profiteers? Can we just gather up all the profiteers, put them in one of those FEMA or Border Patrol holding pens and strip them of their outrageous profits, leaving them with their merely grossly unfair profits? I hope so, but I doubt it.


Actually, Elflando, the

Actually, Elflando, the problem with 3rd parties not being viable isn't the fault of the electoral college. The problem is two-fold: single-member districts, and winner-take-all elections. Because of winner-take-all, getting 49% of the vote in a given state is the exact same thing as getting 0% of the vote in that state. So, when Nader takes money from Republicans, they don't give it to him because they really want him to win; they give it to him in order to deny the democrat getting 50.1% of the vote in that state. Republicans are just fine with 50.1%, and they call it a "mandate", just like dubya. The electoral college doesn't play the role that you are supposing it plays. The point of the electoral college isn't to prevent 3rd parties from playing a role, the point is to give small states some representation; they ordinarily wouldn't matter one whit, considering the tiny populations in them. If we had no electoral college, politicians would ONLY campaign in the largest of cities because they get more bang for their buck (ie more people will show at rallies and fund-raisers), or time or whatever you want to call it. Me, I'm fine with the cities having more say from a political perspective because I tend to agree with urbanites more often than suburbanites and ruralites. But the deal is, everybody who lives in this country should get to play a role in elections; and if we had no electoral college, people in small states would have no reason to vote and thus no stake in the outcome of an election. Their sense of community would consist of their neighbors and NOBODY else. That would lead to xenophobia. Ever been to Pitkin, Louisiana? Try it sometime, you'll find out how scary xenophobia can be.


I think the intersection of

I think the intersection of Alaska's ability to have low taxes and Sen. McCain's "Joe the Plumber" don't-share-the-wealth position comes down to one unlikely historical figure: Huey Long. If it were not Long's "radical" position to tax the oil coming out of Louisiana, the precedent for Alaska's ability to do the same would not exist. As for the progressive income tax, Long believed that 1) anyone should be able to become rich, but 2) the rich should pay more taxes.