By Marvin Jones, in support of John McCain for president:
The third and final presidential debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama on Oct. 15 was the most informative for highlighting the core differences between the two candidates. Specific examples of several of these core differences follow. Not all were discussed Oct. 15.
Taxes: McCain wants to lower taxes on that segment of the population that creates jobs. Obama wants to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire resulting in a massive tax increase on the entire population, including the same people that create jobs. Such a tax increase would have a negative impact on job growth.
McCain wants individuals such as “Joe the Plumber” to succeed in business, increase his income, and keep more of what he earns. If Joe earns more, he can hire more employees, and pay more taxes without any change in the current tax system. That is a win-win-win condition for Joe, his employees, and the government.
Obama wants to increase taxes in order to redistribute income. That is , if Joe the Plumber makes more money, Obama wants to take it and transfer Joe’s money to someone that does not make as much. There would then be no reason for Joe to work harder to earn more money if he could not keep most of the increase. That is a lose-lose condition for all.
Much of Obama’s so-called “tax cut” would go to individuals that pay no tax. That is not a cut. That is redistribution of income. Karl Marx’s economic system has such a feature.
Spending: McCain says spending is out of control, and that he will initiate a spending freeze on most departments in the federal government. That would allow time to evaluate specific programs in order to eliminate the nonproductive ones. McCain wants to eliminate earmarks as well.
Obama objects to a spending freeze, wanting to cut a little here, a little there. Obama defended earmarks. He said they amount to only $18 billion a year and that is not enough to be concerned about. Eighteen billion dollars a year, and that is not enough to be concerned about. Eighteen billion dollars a year would be a good start for reducing federal spending.
Housing and the economic crisis: Changes in government regulations last century set the current mortgage problems. The changes occurred in the late 1990s under a Republican Congress and a Democrat president.
In 2006, John McCain was third on the list of 20 Republican senators that endorsed the Federal Home Enterprise Regulation Reform Act (S. 190). This bill would have limited Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from continuing to issue the “sub-prime” mortgages that have been the root cause of the financial collapse. Congress failed to pass the bill.
Barack Obama was not in the Senate at that time.
Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have committees to oversee the banking/mortgage industry. Barney Frank is the chairman of the House Committee. Chris Dodd is chairman of the Senate Committee. Both committees failed their responsibilities, even ignoring specific warnings of the potential crisis.
Also, the governors on the Federal Reserve Board are not entirely blameless.
There is sufficient blame to go around. Wall Street is a convenient target to dump on. However, the same government individuals that fiddled as the crisis developed are the ones that are trying to fix the problem. Why does that not give me a good feeling?
John McCain’s approach for improving the economy is similar to the approach used by Presidents John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. The results were long periods of economic growth. Barack Obama’s approach is similar to that used by President Lyndon Johnson. Remember the Great Society that created a welfare system with individuals totally dependent on the government? That dependency was finally reversed under President Clinton and a Republican Congress.
Health care: McCain is willing to allow individuals to have control of their own health insurance. Obama seems to want the government to control the health-care industry. Such government control has resulted in delays and rationing of health care in other countries, Canada for example.
Both candidates have been somewhat vague on how much their respective plans would cost. If you thing health care is expensive now, wait until it is free!
Iraq: This is one area of stark difference. McCain was critical of the way the Iraqi war was being conducted. He recommended the surge long before it was initiated. The surge worked. Even Algeria has ended its nuclear weapons program because of our success in Iraq.
Note the geography of the region. A stable Iraq, and Afghanistan, isolates Syria and separates Iran from the rest of the middle east. It splits the radical Islamic regions into two or more parts.
Obama has been willing to cut-and-run even after it became obvious that the surge was working. Such a defeatist policy would allow hostile Islamic radicals to control the area from North Africa all the way to India. Democratic Israel would be right in the middle. The consequences of such a radical Islamic caliphate could be catastrophic for the entire world.
Diplomacy: John McCain’s diplomatic techniques are more conventional. As an example, use third-party channels to communicate with unfriendly governments. Meet with everyone, anywhere when the groundwork has been performed in order to have a meaningful meeting, not just a photo opportunity.
Barack Obama said he would meet face-to-face with rogue leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and negotiate without preconditions. Obama recommended unilaterally invading Pakistan to capture Osama Bin Laden. The first proposal was naive. The second was not only dangerous; it would violate a friendly, as least not hostile, country’s solvency. Such suggestions are reckless.
U.S. Supreme Court: Senator McCain stated he wanted qualified jurists that are strict constitutionalists. That is, any justice should adhere to the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. There would be no litmus tests for individuals he would nominate. For example, a nominee would not be excluded because of their position on Row vs. Wade.
Senator Obama was more ambiguous. He implied he could nominate activist justices. That is, he seemed to have no problem with the court system, in effect, writing new laws.
The choice is yours.
Marvin L. Jones is chairman of the San Benito County Republican Party.
