Print This Post
Sep
16
Because the Obama/Biden campaign’s proposals related to our economy reflect the beliefs I hold about how our society takes care of those who make up “our society” – and that means as close to 100% of the people in our society as possible, not just a lucky 2% or 5% or even 50% – but a full 100%, as close as we can get.
You know – I really hate the topic of economics but mostly because I’m not facile with the subject and I’ve avoided having to apply myself to it ever since I did crappy in college in micro-econ and went to an economic meeting for a congressman once and it all sounded like Charlie Brown adults.
And, unlike some people who run for elected office, I’m not going to punt, pretend or use pretentiousness to cover up what I don’t know.
So – here’s what I can tell you:
I support candidates who work to make businesses do the right thing. That means I am okay with regulation. As a general rule, Republicans and conservatives don’t like regulation and so, as a general rule, I’m almost never going to support economic policies driven by the GOP or conservatives. This area includes enforcement of pay equity, ADA laws, paying taxes, following immigration rules, respecting ERISA and FMLA among other things.
I believe in personal responsibility, but I also believe that we do not live in a perfect world, which means that government exists in part to level out the playing field and provide a safety net in many situations where one does not exist, particularly for people who are otherwise unable to provide one for themselves due to circumstances beyond their control. This belief also is, as a general rule, at odds with Republicans and conservatives.
I believe everyone should be covered by health care insurance, even if that means paying more taxes and more government involvement. That is absolutely at odds with Republican and conservative beliefs.
I believe in social security and food stamps and welfare to work, but I also believe in oversight and enforcement of all entitlement programs. If taking more money from me means that people who suffer from institutional discrimination will have a better chance to get out from under the oppression of that discrimination, go for it. That too is antithetical to conservative and GOP economic theory.
Now – I admitted up front that I don’t know an awful lot in this area but I can read and find resources, and if I wanted to know an awful lot about it or if my life depended on it, I could and I would.
But mostly, I’m an average voter when it comes to this area and I just want to know that I can trust the people I’m electing. At this point in the game, just knowing that the Obama/Biden campaign recognizes that the problems we face need more than platitudes about how tough and difficult things are goes a long way.
On November 4, vote for Obama/Biden.
One note: In this post, I asked for people to mention what they wanted to know about. Daniel Jack Williamson wrote a comment related to special interests, transparency, regulation and health care and referenced his own very detailed ideas on the subject. Again, I’m no pretender – it’s long and kind of dense even though well-written. The density has more to do with my limited ability to sit and read it and digest it and understand it – not with how Daniel has written it.
Again – my privilege kicks in: I know that there are few circumstances under which I won’t be covered and even if I’m not covered for dire straits, I do, in all likelihood, have a far greater chance of being able to pay what I must than many, many Americans. So my hopes are not for myself and how to make me even more secure. My hopes are for those who don’t have the security I have. And when I think of free markets, I do not think of security for as many as people as possible. I think of a few people controlling a lot of capital and charging as much as they can and using lines about how great competition is for keeping prices down as a pretense for saying that free markets are preferable to regulation.
Simplistic? Yup. But do you actually think that many Americans think of it in any more detail than I do? The ones who do are either at the big end of the food chain eating up everyone else, or at the bottom of the food chain, worried for their lives. I don’t want people worrying for their lives, and I’ll support the candidates that also don’t want people worrying for their lives.
Tomorrow, I will publish some of what I’ve been reading re: analysis of Obama v. McCain economic policies, but I thought I should be brutally honest about my own limitations. I knew what the Bush Doctrine meant, but when it comes to economic principles, I’m probably just going to tell you that you can see the Federal Reserve Bank from Public Square (right?).
By Jill Miller Zimon at 1:20 pm September 16th, 2008 in 57ReasonsObamaBiden, Politics
Comments
24 Responses to “Reason #50 to VOTE FOR Obama/Biden”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
I’ve been listening carefully for Obama and Biden to address rolling back the marketplace distortions that already exist because of the pay-to-play legislation of the past, which is something McCain IS talking about, and so far I haven’t heard anything on that front. So far, while McCain and Palin are talking about their approach to Wall Street woes, Obama and Biden spend most of their time criticizing McCain. That’s hardly leadership on Obama’s part. If one waits long enough through all the McCain-bashing to hear the Obama-Biden approach, one finds that it is only two-thirds of the approach that McCain is taking. In other words, the Obama two-step approach is the same as the McCain approach except that McCain takes it one step further.
Daniel – you are focusing on this: “rolling back the marketplace distortions that already exist because of the pay-to-play legislation of the past,…”
Would you mind repeating what it is that you believe McCain has outlined as to how is going to “[roll] back the marketplace distortions that already exist because of the pay-to-play legislation of the past,” that comforts you? What is that one step further – I’ve already admitted to be a slow learner in this area – can you be more specific – the nuance and implied stuff really goes over my head here.
Thanks.
Daniel – see, I just read this article about Obama and McCain’s reactions to yesterday’s Wall St. activity and here’s a section of it:
McCain offered no specific remedies during his appearances on the three network morning shows, though he said he agreed with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that the government should not bail out American International Group Inc. (AIG), the world’s largest insurer. AIG stock fell 61 percent on Monday and credit-rating agencies dropped its ratings amid worries that the deteriorating housing market was further undermining its finances.
Saying that the American taxpayer should not be “on the hook” for AIG, McCain said: “We cannot have the taxpayers bail out AIG or anybody else. This is something that we’re going to have to work through.”
Later, a McCain economics and policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said any plan should include regulation of all sorts of financial institutions, consumer protections, improved corporate governance and “systems stability” programs.
“There’s no magic solution, and I don’t think it’s at this moment imperative to write down exactly what the plan has to be,” said Holtz-Eakin. “But there should be an understanding that when you walk out of the Congress with a piece of legislation in the next administration, those boxes are checked and those things are effectively accomplished.”
So – McCain’s saying no bailout and his aide is saying lots of regulation is necessary. Now, Palin too has referenced a need to overhaul regulation to prevent further incidents. How does that, if at all, dovetail with what you’re saying about rolling back market distortions related to pay to play legislation”? Or are you talking just about health care in particular, or other industries?
Daniel check this link out too, esp. near the end.
OK. Let’s take an example that’s closer to home to make my point more clear–let’s use the Ohio General Assembly from early 2007, and let’s use S.B. 117 about cable television utilities as our primary example. You wrote some posts about it as did many in the Ohio blogosphere.
Senate Bill 117 was legislation favored by giant cable utilities like AT&T, ComCast, and Time Warner. Communities across Ohio and some mom-and-pop cable utilities opposed it. Which camp could put more into campaign re-election funds of state legislators? The former. Which camp won the vote on S.B. 117? The former.
That’s pay-to-play politics.
What the legislature did is choose winners and losers in the marketplace. Did your cable TV monthly bills drop since S.B. 117’s passage, like its proponents promised? No. The bill was never about consumers, it was only about getting re-election funds. These are marketplace distortions that allow advantages for some companies over other companies, and consumers in the marketplace aren’t the ones determining who wins and who loses. AT&T, ComCast, and Time Warner are among the companies that receive the most consumer complaints, and this legislation was designed to insulate these companies from consumer backlash. In a marketplace free of distortion, consumers wouldn’t choose cable utilities that anger them, so AT&T, ComCast, and Time Warner would be forced to either make concessions to consumers, or go out of business for lack of customers.
This is the kind of thing that happens in Washington DC. Regulations are made on business that have nothing to do with what benefits the consumer. The regulations pick winners and losers based on which entities are the best connected. We end up with a captive marketplace instead of a free marketplace.
The special interests in Washington DC target members of both parties, Democrat and Republican, just like they do in Columbus, Ohio. To blame just the Democrats is a mistake just like blaming just the Republicans. Both parties are guilty. Congress plays kingmaker, deciding which special interests rule the day. We, the consumers, ought to be the kingmakers. We ought to be the ones that decide which businesses thrive and which don’t based upon what we purchase from who. Special interests seek regulations to insulate their business or their industry from feeling the wrath of consumers. I’ve already written about that in my post about health coverage. Consumers don’t pick their own health coverage–employers do. Consumers don’t get to change their health coverage when they want to–they have to wait for enrollment windows. The fluidity of the health coverage marketplace is extremely viscous.
What kinds of regulations distort the marketplace? Subsidies, tax exemptions, mandates upon consumers, civil liability laws, reporting mandates, and any number of other artificial devices. So, according to my meaning, a subsidy written into law is a regulation that distorts the marketplace. A tax exemption for certain businesses or industries written into law is a regulation that distorts the marketplace. If a law requires that a business submit copious amounts of paperwork in order to participate in certain industries, that’s going to crowd out small businesses, and only the big businesses that can afford to hire paper-pushers can compete. Often big businesses will push for more mandates on business just to limit competition within their industry.
Some Congressional earmarks, as opposed to gubernatorial earmarks, are directed toward certain industries or businesses. Those who are recipients of such windfalls are really well connected in Congress.
Another type of legislation that allows Congress to play kingmaker is using tax dollars to be used as venture capital. Who gets the venture capital? The best connected. Let’s rehash the Obama quote:
“It also means that investment goes to the companies that are best connected instead of the ones that are most productive. Economics 101 tells us special interest politics distorts the free market.”
Obama says the right thing in this passage, but he has never outlined a course of action designed to correct the distortions.
That’s the extra step that McCain takes that Obama hasn’t taken. McCain has been speaking about the corruption in Washington and the linkage to the excesses of Wall Street. Beyond the transparencies and anti-fraud regulations that both McCain and Obama are speaking of, McCain has been talking about a shake-up of Washington that includes revisiting legislation of the past, cleaning it up, and removing provisions that distorted the marketplace in the first place. Meanwhile, Obama’s early campaign vows to change Washington are recently falling short of the wholesale change he promised. His most important surrogates these days, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, are people who would rather not rock the boat. McCain’s most important surrogates, Palin, Pawlenty, Jindal, Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee, are Washington outsiders. The Obama camp’s over-reliance on Washington insiders has compromised Obama’s messages of change.
McCain’s speeches on Wall Street excesses place blame on both parties in Washington, but don’t linger upon the blame game. McCain and Palin have been spelling out their approach to deal with Washington and Wall Street. That’s leadership.
Obama has been lingering on the blame game, trying desperately to rope McCain into the group of those who played the game of the special interests. Obama’s approach to Wall Street’s problems has been buried by blame game rhetoric. That’s not leadership.
Daniel – thank you – that is helpful – let me ask you about one thing tho if you don’t mind – no gotcha here just asking:
You wrote that McCain wants to or has promised to or is intimating that he will be “removing provisions that distorted the marketplace in the first place.”
Ok – no – I don’t read this anywhere – he is on the record today anyway saying that he wants more regulation etc. So – what are you looking at when you say he has said he is going to remove such provisions?
You have to listen to his speeches. The media coverage is incomplete.
Well, I can certainly believe that the media coverage is incomplete – here’s NPR on this very issue just 20 mins. ago. Now, I didn’t have a problem with it but, ever the cynic and careful listener (I’m being a bit cheeky) my high schooler was very critical of the coverage and thought it was too much about Obama.
I obviously am not influencing too many people these days!
The NPR guy contrasted the same thing I did – one minute, he’s all deregulation and the next he’s saying they need regulation.
The regulation McCain is calling for is to curtail fraud. The deregulation McCain is calling for includes things like rolling back earmarks, subsidies, and other special favors that Congress forks over in exchange for campaign donations.
Oy I need to stop and make dinner and be a mom and monitor homework, but that less thing – I don’t understand – what do you the dereg he’s calling for is things like “rolling back earmarks, subsidies, and other special favors that Congress forks over in exchange for campaign donations.”??
You mean – deregulate campaign finance rules?? Dereg lobbying rules? Are you talking about his own McCain Feingold stuff? I’m sorry – this is my worst time of day to try to understand what does not come naturally – what exactly are you meaning?
NPR’s article WAS too much about Obama. It let Obama define the entire economic debate. No wonder you can’t find McCain’s views spelled out in an article like that.
Well ya know… she said with hands on hips, if McCain would talk about…McCain instead of Obama, it would be a little bit less “obamified” you know.
From the NPR article: “[Obama] laid the blame for that lost confidence on an anything-goes philosophy that he said rewards financial manipulation instead of sound business.”
Congress has taken part in that financial manipulation. Using taxpayer dollars as capital venture funds, subsidizing uncompetitive businesses and industries, earmarking funds for specific businesses, carving out special tax-exemptions, creating loopholes that can only be accessed by certain companies and industries, these are all examples of REGULATION, LEGISLATION, ACTS OF CONGRESS that need to be UNDONE in order to remove distortions from the marketplace.
So when talking about regulation and deregulation, Obama is glossing over the topic. There are rules that should be in place to protect customers. Those instances call for regulation. There are rules that are already in place that protect businesses from a truly competitive marketplace. Those instances call for deregulation.
Daniel – what you say may be true in your opinion re: Obama, but I hear it as McCain being the one who is glossing over these terms and throwing them out in such nonspecific ways as to make no sense.
McCain’s been in Congress for literally decades, Daniel – do you have an opinion about his past behavior and the current mess?
Yes. My opinion on McCain’s past behavior in Congress is that he’s bucked the kind of politics that produced the mess we’re in. That’s why members of both parties admire him and revile him. He hasn’t been involved in the insertion of earmarks into bills that have already been passed by Congress. McCain’s most reliable surrogates are Washington outsiders who haven’t lined up at the special interest troughs. If Obama wants surrogates to take McCain on as a Washington insider, he’d need to shed both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton to do it, and get Washington outsiders to be his chief surrogates.
But Daniel, I’m fine with you making that argument, but then, don’t you have to say that he didn’t succeed much, if we are where we are today due to years of ignoring what was being allowed to happen? That means he lost many fights, no? When the GOP was in charge, yes?
Yes, he has lost many fights. He hasn’t given up yet.
Ok – well – then let me ask you this – for arguments’ sake: don’t you think that kind of might make a voter tentative about supporting him as president? If he couldn’t get his colleagues to help him win fights, and that’s when he was w/Republicans in the majority, how would he manage as president?
I don’t know, Daniel…this doesn’t seem to be the strongest way to go.
The colleagues that wouldn’t help him are the scoundrels that are culpable for the behavior that we, the people, are opposed to. That’s why he’s lining up people from outside Washington to help him shake up Washington.
Daniel – this HuffPo piece identifies how McCain and Obama both have millions in campaign support from Wall St. (Obama is ahead by about $2million) and how many entrenched such lobbyists McCain has, though Obama isn’t completely free of that either.
So – before you continue to promote McCain the way you suggest here, shouldn’t you say a few words about that? Or at least, find a way to reconcile it with your arguments?
It’s one thing to say that the system is rampant with it but your guy is clean and it’s another thing to say the system is rampant in it and here’s what he’s going to do to change it.
NPR was on it this morning too – listen < ahref="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94699066">here when audio is up. (It’s just what came on while I was typing this – I’m sure WSJ and other more conservative media will have reports on this too.)
[...] As I wrote yesterday, I tend to go for those politicians whose proposals are going to benefit the many, even if it’s at my expense, and especially if the alternative is that those people otherwise would be unable to get anything. And the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama’s health care reform proposals epitomizes how that type of preference (as opposed to letting capitalism run free, with the hope that business will do the right thing to please the consumer) plays out in planning. [...]
Daniel – here’s another article, today from WaPo about how McCain did not embrace regulation in the past but seems to be saying he will now. That’s what I thought.
Point taken, Jill, but while I can accept the numbers (dollar figures, that is) on Huffington Post, the conclusions that Huff Po contributors jump to defy all logic. On my own blog sidebar, where I have a blogroll of left of center blogs, I don’t even include Huff Po, because they are too intellectually dishonest.
Unfortunately, both the Washington Post and McCain have it wrong about deregulation of the insurance industry. My own definition of deregulation does not equal the “deregulation” of political rhetoric, nor of journalistic lingo. The insurance industry is not lacking in regulations (deregulation), and that’s where the politicians and journalists get the story wrong. The insurance industry, instead, is the beneficiary of the WRONG regulations that build in protections from the ups and downs of the marketplace at the expense of consumers. McCain still needs to be converted (as do 99.9% of the other politicians) to free market principles in the insurance industry. The insurance industry lobbyists have so distorted the discourse about the insurance industry, that the politicians can’t even think straight when they think about insurance. The trial lawyers, also, distort any discussion of insurance. The laws regarding insurance make it a gold mine for trial lawyers, utopia for scheming insurers, and a nightmare for consumers. Unfortunately, far too many of our representatives in Congress are lawyers. Legislative branches at all levels of government–Federal, state, and local–should be microcosms of the population at large (something I’m sure you and I can agree with at the gender level or at the race level, but in this case, I’m talking more about a sufficiently diverse legislative body at the occupational level). The end result is that we get insurance laws that carve out a special niche for that industry, allowing insurance firms to pursue a selfishly reckless course that was designed to be remedied only on a case-by-case basis in civil court rather than by marketplace forces or by unambiguous, even-handed legislation. The insurance industry hasn’t really pushed for deregulation, in my sense of the word. Instead, they’ve always pushed for wrong regulations where conflicts are only resolved through arbitration and litigation, not in legislative chambers, and certainly not in the marketplace.
Unfortunately, when it comes to insurance, none of the politicians running for President have any clue, and I include the minor party and independent candidates in that group. I predict that even with a new regulation regime put forth by McCain or Obama, the problems with the insurance industry will not be solved, because lawyers and insurance lobbyists will continue to warp the discourse on reform. Ultimately, after several years have passed, I predict that politicians will try to solve the insurance dilemma by socializing the industry, absorbing it into quasi-governmental entities, which is a solution far inferior to a free-market solution, but to get to free-market solutions would be like pushing water uphill because special interests have erected bulwarks of resistance to free-market solutions.
McCain, however, has shown greater desire for reform, greater capacity for reform, and a better track record of reform than Obama. Obama has only broken ranks with the Democrats on 3% of the votes that have come before the U.S. Senate, and he’s broken ranks to take a more leftward position just as much as he’s broken ranks to take a more centrist position. With all of Obama’s talk of unity, how am I supposed to feel a sense of unity with a person who would only vote with the centrists 1.5% of the time? Also, with Obama’s reforms, the socializing of industries into quasi-governmental bodies would occur at an accelerated pace, which, in my mind, is the wrong direction of reform, which is why I resist his recipe of reform.
[...] Reason #50 to VOTE FOR Obama/Biden [...]