Blogging a little late tonight?

The similarities between Clinton and McCain are interesting. I wonder if what they are saying is what they both believe, or what they both believe the Economic Club of New York/Chicago want to hear? One thing i would like to say is that Clinton's demeanor on globilization doesn't seem nearly as supportive as McCains. Specificly with Clinton saying "we have no choice about whether or not to embrace globalization," while McCain thinks "government should welcome competition as the people do."

P.S. please excuse the [i'm sure] multiple spelling mistakes.

I wonder if what they are saying is what they both believe, or what they both believe the Economic Club of New York/Chicago want to hear?

[aol]

McCain's voting record causes me to classify him as a moderatly conservative populist. I have a difficult time believing that a populist is going to be the one to rein in entitlement spending.

I suppose it could happen, but it's not something I would expect to happen.

Oh man, you are winding us up right? You kid, I know. Hillary is the standard-bearer for something that is an amalgam of her own and the DC Democratic institutional class' "third way," triangulation nonsense. The reason the rank and file of the party and most Americans distrust her so much is that they all have an innate sense that well over half the stuff that she claims to believe is being said purely because it is what her audience wants to hear, in the name of expediency. For this she is loathed by the party activists she will need to win the nomination and be the standard-bearer for her party.

McCain is a thoughtful conservative who believes in the cardinal virtues of the democratic process; honor, dialoge and compromise. He is an empiricist who goes where the data tells him to. For these reasons he is loathed by the party activist he will need to win the nomination and be the standard-bearer for his party.

A better test would be to get together a random sample of elected officals in both parties and ask them to react to the prospect of:
1) Increasing SS witholding/raising or eliminating the income ceiling on wage taxes
2) Means testing for SS payments
3) Whether they would vote to approve a hemispheric/South American FTA that looks anything like NAFTA.

I suspect you would see some ia lot of reactions clustered around two rather widely divegent sets of responses

Perhaps the problem with these comparisons is that the paragraphs are mostly the 'describe the problem' paragraphs and not the 'describe the solution' portions.

I would argue that both Clinton and McCain and their respective constitutencies would have very different solutions or at least, different degrees of the same solution.

Finally, I'd argue that we do have a 'National Institutes of Energy': it's called the Department of Energy. Additionally, we have the National Science Foundation.

> A tsunami of entitlement spending is
> threatening our economy, while providing
> no real security to retirees. We have made
> promises that we cannot keep.

Krugman and Drum among many many other commentators have demonstrated how it is quite possible, /with rational economic and taxation policies/, to keep our economy growing and also meet our social security (small "s") promises. Any speech which uses the "headed for bankruptcy" Rovian frames without acknowledging the work that the Radicals have done to (1) destroy the economy of government (2) hide the truth (gotten any solid numbers out of the Social Security Admin lately? Exactly why was the last report 2 months late?) is in my mind fundamentally unserious and unsuited for high office. Or low office for that matter.

Let me put it another way: when HealthSouth fired 50,000 nurses, paraprofessionals with decent and necessary jobs and decent middle-class salaries, and paid their CEO a _$600 million_ bonus, what exactly did they, and you, and all the gibertarian free traders think was going to happen to the social future of those nurses? That new middle-class jobs would suddenly appear for them out of midair? That they would not turn to the political system for redress and long-term social security?

Cranky

Surveying two likley presidential candidates is decidedly non-representative. As national candidates thay have an incentive to appeal to the median voter. Even given this convergence, there is still subtantive differences to be read into the politicians speeches. Clinton's comments are a critique of recent GOP spenthrift policies and of tax cuts. Dems have never accepted dynamic models of taxation, believing that every percentage cut generates a proportional loss of revenue. McCain and most GOP folks believe that rate and revenue have no firm connection. The Laffer curve logic resonates with them so they believe that a cut in rate can generate a rise in revenue. Clearly Clinton is not on board with this. Also, the tone of the McCain is a specific need to put Social Security, medicare and other entitilment programs on a subtantially different basis than thye now exist. Clinton's is no to transform the programs but to practice restraint to fund them, believing in the existence of a "trust fund". Again, these are radically different ideas.

Once you get beyond two likley presidential candidates tacking to the center, the differences are even wider. Oneneed only look at the surreal debate over the war, debates about intelligent design versus evolution, gay marriage and other things to see that these folks ar einhabitingtwo very distinct worlds. Once sees domestic problems emenating from intolerance, bigotry and racism in the Americna people, another sees the problems as libertinism, lack of responsibility and liscentiousness as the root causes of domestic ills. We do not even agree al lthat much as to what the problems really are. Are universities flawed because they are not representative enough and too expensive or d they fail becuase they lack standards of excellence and create cultures of dependence and victimhood.

Lets not even get started on immigration. One candidate in a special election this month suggested that illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote. people on the other side want to round them all up and deport them.

While it is clear that the range of opinion in the US is more constrained than in manyy other democracies in that we do not have a viable communist/socialist movement nor a racialist/fascist movement, do not let that distract from the very different worldviews that animate current US politics.

This doe snot mean there are no decent compromises also. It seems clear that, to take an issue, that there should be common ground over abortion. If those on the pro-choice side focused their efforts on preventing teen pregnancy, while those on the pro-life side focused their efforts on providing a web of support for those who choose to go to term, and both sides preached responsibility, then each side could see results that it wants without the two worldviews ever changing.

Bottom line, the muddle in the middle is not all it is cracked up to be, there are real and important differences, but that should nto stop politcs from operating s long as sides do not demonize each other.

Cranky: Could you please provide a link for your claim of the 600 million dollar bonus?

I think Hillary is the anit christ. I keep it real and so should you!

Holla

"Let me put it another way: when HealthSouth fired 50,000 nurses, paraprofessionals with decent and necessary jobs and decent middle-class salaries, and paid their CEO a _$600 million_ bonus, what exactly did they, and you, and all the gibertarian free traders think was going to happen to the social future of those nurses? That new middle-class jobs would suddenly appear for them out of midair? That they would not turn to the political system for redress and long-term social security?"

I know nothing about this event, but it is a terrible example. There is a tremendous shortage of nurses in this (and many) countries. They don't need new middle-class jobs to appear out of thin air-there are plenty already there. Any nurse that wants to work in this country can.

Steve

Free markets? What is he talking about?

I have no intellectual training in economics, and yet, from reading the newspapers I can see that—quite apart from not regulating being a conscious choice--all markets are regulated to some degree.

So what does he want deregulated? American sugar? How about the land give aways in the West and probably McCain’s state? Shall we stop that? Or at least start charging the cowboy whiners?

As far as I'm concerned, unless McCain advocates the painful measure at home, he is dishonest.

An earlier commenter got it exactly right in pointing out that these quotes represent the easier part: framing the problem that needs fixing, without getting into how the candidate intends to fix it. After all, if a likely candidate for President cannot identify a host of major problems needing fixing, then there is not much to be said in support of that individual's candidacy.

Of the points you highlight -- globalization/trade, fiscal policy/the deficit, and energy independence -- it is hardly surprising to see Hillary and McCain in agreement on the fact that there is a problem needing attention.

Nor would I be surprised if the policy proposals by both Hillary and McCain on globalization/trade were largely congruous. Hillary would be under greater political pressure than McCain to bend in the direction of protectionism. Quite apart from whatever one may think of her in terms of having core principles she will not compromise, she is far too good a politician ever to get trapped in Kerry-like episodes of gross flip-flopping. She obviously knows the political price she would pay if she were ever caught blatantly pandering to one group or another in that manner. Thus, I suspect that when she addresses these issues, and particularly when she offers solutions, she is speaking very carefully and will not lightly abandon what she has so recently said. I think she means what she says when she opposes isolationist and protectionist proposals that have gained some currency among leftier elements of the Dem party.

On fiscal policy/the deficit, Hillary is much less specific. She has consistently been against Bush's tax cuts; and Hillary is far from an enthusiast when it comes to cutting Gov't spending on social programs. And if she were elected, I suspect we would be in for a heavy dose of "revenue enhancement" policies, pushed with the usual "soak the greedy rich" rhetoric. She has never proposed, as far as I am aware, any real policy to restrain the growth of entitlement spending, and I doubt she ever will. On that score, she is as standard a Democrat as one can find.

McCain may not have liked all of the tax cuts, but he is sufficiently practical to realize that those tax cuts had a direct relationship to (1) the economic recovery that in turn has sent tax receipts soaring and (b) an ever-increasing portion of federal tax receipts being borne by the richest taxpayers. He may not propose new tax cuts, but I don't see him proposing new "renvenue enhancement" measures either. And I think he is serious about addressing entitlement reform. Whether he would have any more success that Bush has had is, of course, problematic. But there will never be any progress on that issue unless our national leadership continues to stress it and propose realistic solutions. McCain is quite serious on that issue, and Hillary is not.

On energy independence, McCain is refreshingly realistic when he speaks of nuclear energy as the real option here. Hillary is unlikely ever to do so, in part because the enviromental lobby in the Dem party would go ballistic if she did. For the same reason, she will never support ANWR drilling.

Instead, whenever Hillary talks about a national energy policy, one can reliably expect to hear all the fashionable nostrums about ethanol, renewal energy, etc. -- and nothing about a realistic policy that will address the fact that demand for energy has been increasing inexorably for decades. That trend is not going to be reversed, and unless it ever were, it would quite likely occur in connection with (or if it occurred because of political command, result in) the collapse of economic growth.

Conservation is wonderful as far as it goes -- and the jump in energy prices is probably the best thing that ever happened in terms of fostering conservation. But as the cornerstone of an energy policy, it basically goes nowhere. Whenever conservation is offered as a policy solution, it bears remembering that, at most, conservation will slow the rate of growth of energy consumption, not reduce it in abolute terms. Peter Huber's recent book, The Bottomless Well, is devoted in large part to proving that fact and then elaborating on its consequences. As he shows, conservation measures have always led to an increase in energy consumption, and over time, the demand for energy has been steadily increasing especially for the higher and purer forms of energy (e.g., electricity), the production of which takes ever larger quantities of less flexible sources of energy (burning fossil fuels, consuming uranium, damming rivers). There are no more rivers to be dammed, and the point of an "energy policy" is to reduce dependence on fossil fuels generally, including specifically imported oil. In short, any realistic policy of energy independence clearly requires a robust pursuit of nuclear power.

McCain is certainly open to those realities. I doubt that Hillary ever will be.

Thus, just focusing on the three issues framed by your post, it seems clear to me that McCain is by far the better choice. I wouldn't put much stock in the fact that Hillary and McCain agree that there are problems requiring solutions in those three areas.

I don't know if strong disagreement over whether someone is qualified for the Presidency because of who his father was or who she married rises to the level of a "difference of first principles," but I think we can say with confidence that there is that disagreement as well between Sens. Clinton and McCain. As it is also a disagreement between President Bush and McCain we can't say it's represents a difference between the parties.

There is a tremendous shortage of nurses in this (and many) countries.

There is NO shortage of nurses in the US. What there is a shortage of is nurses willing to put up with low pay, low status positions. Instead of increasing pay, US hospitals find it easier to go to Africa or INdia and get nurses from there

I am told that there are two sources of the nursing shortage: a lack of nurse educators/spots in programs and that there is pretty high turnover in nursing as many nurses leave to become mothers.

Is this not simply median voter theorem at work? The parties do have substantial disagreements on a many issues, but the people most likely to win the presidency (e.g., McCain and Hillary) spend their time running to the center and jumping on issues of common agreement for easy points, while occasionally throwing bones to the wings.

If you were to really look at party differences, you would probably say:

- GOP is solidly behind Bush & war, while there is a crisis over the war in the Dem party

- there is substantial disagreement over the role of the state in private affairs, especially abortion, sexuality and drug use

- there is an old Civil Rights wing of the Dems that fights for affirmative action & other racial issues, the GOP is solidly in the opposite direction

- both sides pay lip service to fiscal restraint, but violate it in different ways; you could say that median voters of both parties like the idea of fiscal restraint, but they are willing to tax and spend for different pet projects

I think you picked the last point in your post. Mainstream politicians of either party grasp at the same vague principles of energy dependence and conservation. When it comes to governance, each of these politicians will cater to different constituencies and compromise their positions in various ways.

I am told that there are two sources of the nursing shortage: a lack of nurse educators/spots in programs and that there is pretty high turnover in nursing as many nurses leave to become mothers.

I know an ex-nurse.

What Erg says about crappy hours and lousy pay are pretty accurate. The one I know decided to switch to being a Doctor's secretary- the pay is better, the hours are sane*, and the Doc is delighted to have a secretary who has a good handle on the medical stuff.

*also, she doesn't have to deal with med-school grads doing their residency any more, which was a surprisingly large factor (to me, at least).

I think a more interesting experiment would be to examine Clinton and McCain's economic rhetoric when they speak to non-economic audiences. Of course both of them are courting business and will hew closely to a rational economic approach with nuances.

However, put Clinton in front of a union audience and McCain in front of prairie populists and see a) how much of their speech they devote to economics and b) how much it diverges from the Economic Club rhetoric.

"McCain is a thoughtful conservative who believes in the cardinal virtues of the democratic process; honor, dialoge and compromise. He is an empiricist who goes where the data tells him to. For these reasons he is loathed by the party activist he will need to win the nomination and be the standard-bearer for his party."

McCain has made it quite clear that he'll go along with anything, and do anything, in hope
thathe'll get the presidency. Bush tamed him quite nicely.

J McCain and H Clinton are both (relatively speaking) political opportunists. I think the proof for McCain can be found here (especially when one compares that with his more recent record, here).

Damn free trade. Damn PNTR and MFN status for tyrannies. Damn the triumph of economics over politics. Damn the DLC and the Republicans and at least a few people, like Sherrod Brown, Kendrick Meeks and Deborah(sp?) Wasserman Schultz and the many Democratic activists who think NAFTA and CAFTA are POC(pieces of cr*p) and those that think the WTO is neo-liberal death.

I forgot to include the links, sorry.

First was this and the second was this.

A third link I should have added would have included the mathematical reality that in no one's living memory has US politics been so polarized.