In last Friday night's debate, moderator Jim Lehrer tried to get a straight answer to an important question. He really tried. I can't remember a moderator being more persistent in asking the same question over and over again. But, in my opinion, he never got a satisfactory answer. I suspect that if one of the candidates had answered straightforwardly, that candidate might reduced his chances for election significantly. But I'll hold my analysis to my next post. First, here's what happened. (You can read the full transcript of the debate at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/26/debate.mississippi.transcript/ , if you want to check my summary.)
Lehrer started off by asking both candidates:
"As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billion, $700 billion, whatever it is it's going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?"
After the initial responses, he followed up with:
"But if I hear the two of you correctly neither one of you is suggesting any major changes in what you want to do as president as a result of the financial bailout? Is that what you're saying?"
Lehrer still wasn't satisified. He persisted:
"What I'm trying to get at this is this. Excuse me if I may, senator. Trying to get at that you all -- one of you is going to be the president of the United States come January. At the -- in the middle of a huge financial crisis that is yet to be resolved. And what I'm trying to get at is how this is going to affect you not in very specific -- small ways but in major ways and the approach to take as to the presidency."
He even tried a fourth time:
"Before we go to another lead question. Let me figure out a way to ask the same question in a slightly different way here. Are you -- are you willing to acknowledge both of you that this financial crisis is going to affect the way you rule the country as president of the United States beyond the kinds of things that you have already -- I mean, is it a major move? Is it going to have a major affect?"
Obama dodged the question entirely, first stating "it's hard to anticipate right now what the budget is going to look like next year." and then talking about programs he felt were too important not to fund. ("We can't shortchange those things.")
McCain, at least, said he would eliminate ethanol subsidies and 'cost-plus' governmental contracts, and $15 Billion in one type of Medicare subsidy. When pushed, he added "How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs."
Obama acknowledged "there's no doubt that as president I'm go doing have to make some tough decisions", but wouldn't get more specific.
We're being told by our leadership in Washington that without unprecedented, massive government intervention our nation and the world will almost certainly fall into an economic malaise that will rival the Great Depression of the 1930s. The cost to avoid this catastrophe is equivalent to one quarter of the current federal annual budget. But even this price doesn't eliminate the problem; it merely postpones it, or pushes it to another arena where it will once again emerge, probably sooner than later. Spending freezes and $15 Billion here and there are not a solution. I was disappointed that neither candidate was man enough to tell the American people the truth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Leahr made and admirable attempt.
Another aspect of the bailout is mindboggling (although not really surprising). The announcement of the bailout agreement is made after midnight on Sunday morning. The world is informed that "it will have to be written up" and later on Sunday morning people were told that they would have to see what was on the paper. We are also told that the bill was expanded from 3 pages to well more than 100 pages. About 24 hours later, there are 435 Congress Critters ready to debate and vote on the bill.
When was the last time that a 100 page paper (of meaning) was produced, duplicated, distributed, digested, and debate in less than 30 hours?
I wonder how many people in Congress ever read any of the bills they vote on?
Of course, these day a bill doesn't have to be printed on paper for people to get access to it. (I did note that they promised to publish it by noon EDT Sunday, and I don't think it hit the net for several hours after that.)
And actually, the way the bill is formatted, 110 pages isn't a whole lot to read. See
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2008-09/42631254.pdf
But I must admit I didn't actually read the whole thing. Much of it is boilerplate. The part I was most concerned about was section 115, which dealt with the expansion of the authorization from $250B to $350B to $700B. As I read it, if 'the Secretary' wanted to expand the limit from $350B to $700B, all he would have needed to do was notify Congress, and if Congress didn't introduce a very specific, joint resolution denying the request WITHIN THREE DAYS OF RECEIVING THE NOTIFICATION, the Secretary could go ahead and proceed. I had visions of the request being made on a holiday weekend when Congress was not in session. How long would it take to get everyone together and get such a resolution introduced?
Actually, I have heard of reading things on-line. And I knew it was a possibility/probability. But I don't trust it. It's too easy to have different versions of the same thing. I assume their are safeguards, timestamps, etc., but I don't really want to assume anything about Washington.
Of topic: I saw a new Obama add this morning on healthcare. He talks about two extremes-- government mangaged single payer system vs. totally unregulated insurance companies. Obama's claims to want to split the difference. He wants to regulate insurance companies to keep the cost down and then he introduces several specifics. One of those is to guarantee coverage IN SPITE OF PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS.
That's just plain crazy. If insurance companies are private, for profit enterprises, how can money be made if people who know that they are going to need a half million dollars worth of cancer treatment are allowed to sign up. Public control of private enterprise is not a solution.
In my mind, we will have to go to public financing of medical care. That means that we will have to chose not to do some other things.
We're back to Lehrer's question. What can't be done.
It would seem to me that we simply can't afford to be the world's only super power.
Post a Comment