I’ve
found the Republican debates interesting on a number of fronts: the questions
the reporters asked (or didn’t); the way the politicians answered (or didn’t)
and the Mitt Romney challenger-of-the-week club that almost everyone other than
Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman has joined. (Ron Paul is excluded because he is the
perpetual thorn in the Republicans’ side and Jon Huntsman because he didn’t
bother trying to win Iowa—and maybe because people who appear to talk straight
have no chance of winning these days.)
What
struck me as very worrisome at the Saturday night debate (1/7/2012) was the
aggressively militaristic position taken by all candidates other than Ron Paul
and Jon Huntsman. Paul’s reasoned points regarding the size, cost and
performance of the last decade of Republican wars gets lost in the isolationism
inherent in his extreme libertarian positions. That’s too bad.
Huntsman,
however, is not an isolationist. He is an internationalist and one who has
experiences none of the other candidates have had, including his years as
ambassador to China. I find his position on Afghanistan interesting. He
essentially says our work is done: declare victory and withdraw. The Taliban
are not in control. Those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks on the US are dead.
Why are we still there?
When
asked by a reporter if he isn’t afraid that by leaving Afghanistan a civil war
will break out, he says he thinks one will break out regardless of when we
leave. I can only wish President Obama would listen to Huntsman on this war.
Which
now brings me to the rest of the republican contenders. They lambasted Obama
for withdrawing troops from Iraq, for “allowing Iran to develop nuclear
weapons,” and for proposing to reduce the nation’s defense budget. The question
that was not asked of them, nor did they proffer their own solutions, was this:
what would you do differently?
In one
of the debates, one of the contenders (I don’t remember which debate nor which
person, which is kind of lame, but there you have it) indicated that Obama
should have negotiated harder to keep our troops in Iraq. I am sure we could
have forced our preferences by tying it to our providing aid. That would
certainly have pushed Iraq into our enemies’ arms, and gotten more of our
troops killed. Obama insisted that U.S. personnel would be subject to the U.S.
legal system; Iraq would not agree and Obama pulled out the remaining troops.
I’m glad a war Bush and his warmongers should never have started is finally
over for us. If Iraq regresses into civil war, so be it. If that is their path,
they would eventually find it once we withdrew, whenever that time might be.
Iran is
suffering mightily for its pursuit of nuclear weapons, which is why they are
making a big show of testing missiles and threatening to cut access to the Straits
of Hormuz. Should they actually cut access, I have no doubt the U.S., in
concert with other nations, would interpret that action as an act of war and
react militarily. For the U.S. to be the aggressor would not achieve any
political, economic (other than to our defense industry) or moral objective. We
would again become the bully Bush projected to the world.
Lastly,
Saturday night all except Paul and Huntsman excoriated Obama for daring to cut
defense spending even though, as Paul pointed out, our defense spending dwarfs
any other nation (or four or ten nations combined—depending on whose statistics
one chooses to believe.). Recognize that all the Republicans with the exception
of Jon Huntsman have signed a pledge to “not raise taxes.” Most want to lower
taxes, particularly for corporations and those individuals with assets (by way
of eliminating the capital gains tax and/or estate taxes). All agree that our
current budget deficit is unsustainable.
The
three legs of the stool they are proposing are (1) we can’t cut defense
spending, (2) we can’t raise taxes (in fact we should lower them) and (for
many) (3) we must “balance the budget.” The only way to balance this stool is
on the back of cuts in nondefense spending. The question we must ask and force
these candidates to answer is this: how EXACTLY are you going to cut spending?
Now,
they are going to say that by cutting taxes and decreasing regulations their policies
will increase federal government revenue. Since we are still in the early
stages of an economic recovery, pretty much whatever we do, government revenues
will increase some. Cutting taxes is no guarantee—Bush’s tax cuts preceded a
very deep recession and the largest budget deficits in history.
To cure
the current budget deficit without increased taxes would require a roughly 40%
reduction in expenses. I’ll cut the candidates a break and grant them some
improved tax revenues and assume they only need to cut total spending by 30%! Now,
tell us exactly whose ox you are going to gore.
A
pivotal question this election should answer is how the American people choose to
address the fiscal imbalances we currently have. Democrats under Obama have one
idea (cuts in the budget, including entitlements, combined with increases in
tax revenues). Ron Paul, whether you like his solutions or not, has been clear
in his desire to eliminate large chunks of the current federal government,
including much of the defense budget and most so-called entitlements. Jon
Huntsman’s approach has so far been nuanced. He has refused to rely on throwing
red meat to the Republican base. His complete solution relies on a combination
of cuts and increased taxes. While he has provided some specificity, especially
around his changes to the income tax, like Obama’s approach, his is not yet completely
transparent.
The
other Republicans are not serious about providing voters with a real
understanding of their policies. They are spouting red meat untruths for their
far-right bases in order win the nomination. They refuse to tell us what we individually
and collectively will need to give up in order to maintain the current defense
spending, decrease current taxes and balance the budget.
Here is
my suggestion if you can vote in the Republican primaries: Until the other
candidates provide enough information so you know what the economic effects of
their policies will be, I recommend you vote for Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman as
your preferences dictate.
~ Jim
No comments:
Post a Comment