Despite the unfortunate fact that presidential debates depend mostly on impressions, images and perceptions, the real purpose, namely the substance of the debating points of each candidate, is unattainable in a medium that has been referred to the “glass teat” or one that encourages us to “amuse ourselves to death”.  A careful examination of the memorized answers and retorts to each innocuous question reveals the appalling absurdities of the policies advocated by each candidate.  In addition, the format of the debate and the choice of moderator preclude any real truths surfacing from these artificial exchanges.

McCain’s response to the question about how Main Street will recover from the bailout to the large institutional investors, was a proposed a payout to mortgage holders in danger of losing their homes.  This response is absurd on two levels.  The bailout was a monstrous failure for the very reason that the package was handed out to the very institutions that caused the crisis in the first place and not to the people who were suffering as a result.  McCain was proposing that on top of the $700 billion gift to the corporate criminals whose recklessness and irresponsibility created the crisis, he would pay out further funds to those who held tenuous mortgages.  Did anyone bother to ask about his plan to finance this proposal given the huge debt and deficit dragging down the economy?  Furthermore, did anyone point out that McCain had been constantly accusing Obama of being a liberal over spender and that McCain’s package would cost far more that Obama’s earmarks.

Obama correctly identified healthcare as a right but did not even hint at a universal single-payer system which has been adopted by all other Western democracies.  There was no reference to a plan to rescue those living in poverty or near poverty who can’t afford medical insurance.  Obama seems to divide the American people into two classes; the wealthy and the middle class.  Apparently the 85 million people living in poverty or near poverty are somehow not deserving of even an honorable mention in Obama’s policies.

On the question of energy, both candidates are living in the past advocating clean coal, nuclear energy and offshore drilling.  Conservation and alternate forms of energy were limited to a cursory mention rather than the main focus of an energy plan for the future.

Foreign policy is where both candidates fail miserably to understand the realities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Neither seems to realize that the Afghani people now support the Taliban because they are attempting to drive the murderous, heathen occupiers from their land and that the Taliban are gaining strength and control more than 50% of the country.  Furthermore, America’s allies, the warlords, have not improved the lives of women or anyone else for that matter.  At least the Taliban stopped the opium trade whereas the warlords have captured 90% of the world market.  In addition, it is astounding that neither candidate seems to be aware of the negotiations in Saudi Arabia between the Afghanistan government and the Taliban.  Encouraging and supporting the peace negotiations would seem to be a far more effective and civilized tactic rather than sending more troops to kill more innocent people.

Setting aside McCain’s reference to “that one” and his passive aggressive attacks on Obama and Obama’s composure and ability to focus his eyes on McCain the entire time during which he was speaking, the substance of the debate could induce a nation-wide state of depression and longing for a third candidate who is critical of corporate power and the proclivity of both Obama and McCain to prostrate themselves at the alter of corporate money and influence.   Wait a minute.  There is such a candidate, namely Ralph Nader.  Unfortunately, the perception of the American people is that he is a lunatic and radical who is not to be trusted.  Is something upside down?

http://www.stateofdarkness.com  

Or, why the Sac Bee and Modesto Bee are wrong to oppose Prop 1A.

California is staring into the abyss. 30 years of conservative economic policy, including tax cuts, have brought the national and the state economy to the worst economic crisis we have faced since 1933. The state budget is in perennial deficit – caused by those same conservative policies. Since Prop 13 in 1978 the state’s revenue levels have been set artificially and deliberately too low to maintain our core services. The purpose was to force crises like this and tell Californians “either we raise your taxes or we destroy government.”

The budget deficit is a difficult problem. But it can be closed fairly easily by returning to the income tax levels on the wealthy that Ronald Reagan supported, that were in place from 1991 to 1998.  It is a question of political will – our budget deficit is not a force of nature but a deliberate creation of man. What we make, we can unmake.

More importantly, how exactly are we going to close that budget deficit, provide short-term relief and long-term economic growth without infrastructure projects? Many economists argue that government spending on infrastructure must be part of not just an economic stimulus right now but also of any financial rescue plan. These economists understand what we at this blog have understood – that we need stimulus to revive our economy.

Banks aren’t lending just because of the bad assets on their books – they’re not lending because the economy is sliding into recession. To stop that we need government spending on new stimulus. That was conventional wisdom during the Depression and it eventually brought us out of the depths – while also setting up the prosperity of the postwar era.

Unfortunately California newspaper editorial boards remain trapped in the failed conventional wisdom that brought us to this point of crisis. Instead of returning to tried-and-true economic principles of infrastructure stimulus, they argue we should sacrifice the future to the failure of the present. That because we are in crisis now, we cannot act to rescue ourselves from that crisis, and cannot act to provide a more stable future.

Such is the position of the Modesto Bee in its editorial against Prop 1A and of the Sac Bee. They both claim it is “too costly for the state.” In doing so they merely demonstrate their lack of knowledge about high speed rail and their unwillingness to act to reverse the slide into severe recession.

Details over the flip.

From the Modesto Bee:

The annual cost to operate the high-speed rail network would exceed $1 billion. Backers believe they can operate in the black. We’re skeptical. Passenger rail systems throughout the United States require subsidies.

The Modesto Bee should NOT be skeptical. Every single HSR system around the world functions without operational subsidies. In France HSR is so profitable it subsidizes the other systems! Even Taiwan HSR has achieved profitability after just 18 months in operation. Of course we should remind the Modesto Bee that every other form of transportation in America is subsidized – but HSR stands on its merits. Ongoing subsidies are just not likely. The Modesto Bee misleads its readers in not mentioning that.

That aside, our main concern is the price. A review by the independent legislative analyst’s office says that if the bonds are sold at an average interest rate of 5 percent and paid off over 30 years, the cost to the state general fund would be about $19.4 billion. That works out to about $647 million per year.

State legislators struggle to produce a budget year after year, and the current budget, just signed, is expected to be nearly $5 billion in the red unless drastic action is taken. As we noted in opposing Proposition 3, California can ill afford to encumber the general fund with more debt, especially the staggering cost for high-speed rail.

The Modesto Bee and the Sac Bee, which used almost the same argument, would do well to read Pete Stahl’s “semi-biennial lecture on bonds”. Pete reminds us that bonds are a fixed cost over time that become much easier to pay off as general fund revenues increase. Further, HSR construction will actually BOOST the general fund by providing increased income tax and sales tax revenue. Combined with the green dividend from HSR it is likely that it will pay for itself – the benefits to the general fund will equal or outweigh the ongoing bond service costs.

Newspapers like the Modesto and Sacramento Bee are suggesting that we were wrong to build Shasta Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge during the Great Depression. Both required public bond financing to be constructed. Modesto and Sacramento STILL benefits from Shasta Dam water. Instead, according to papers like the Sac and Modesto Bee, we should have waited until the 1950s. Of course that would come at the cost of not only higher unemployment during the Depression – which is the last thing you need – but it would have limited our ability to have postwar growth.

The equation is very simple, people. Prop 1A = jobs now + long-term economic growth. California would be engaging in an act of extreme recklessness if it sacrificed the future because of the failures of the present. The best way to ensure that we continue to have unemployment and a budget deficit is to reject Prop 1A.