Both Presidential candidates have recently released plans to tackle the struggling economy. Not too surprisingly, both proposals are long on rhetoric and short on specifics. And neither squares their plan with the bleak long-term fiscal picture for the country.

Actually, neither plan is really long on anything. Sen. McCain’s plan weighs in at 13 pages, while Sen. Obama’s self-described “ Economic Policy Full Plan ” tips the scales at 6 pages. Instead of proposing aggressive policy positions to deal with the nation’s economic woes, these documents are about hammering home the candidates’ sound bite filled platforms. And of course the nearly $10 trillion debt the country faces is the fact-that-shall-not-be-named.

As you might expect, the likely suspects make cameos in both plans: the mortgage crisis, rising energy costs, trade, and to differing degrees, providing tax relief. But there are areas highlighted by only one of the candidates. These include credit card reform (Obama); getting rid of earmarks, pork-barrel spending, and waste (McCain); a government-matched credit to promote savings (Obama); and lowering corporate tax rates (McCain). 

In the areas of similarity, the two candidates’ solutions for the economy vary in their tack. In the area of tax relief, for example, McCain concentrates on businesses, proposing to reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent, maintaining the 15 percent dividends and capital gains rate, and implementing a tax credit for wages spent on research and development (R&D). According to his plan, Obama focuses on the middle-class. He proposes a refundable payroll tax credit to simplify filing one’s taxes, a refundable tax credit to help pay for college, and expansion of the child and dependent care tax credit – making it fully refundable. Nowhere does either candidate talk about the cost of these proposals.

But which plan will goose the economy? It really depends what type of fiscal moves are better for getting the economy going, which is an eternal debate for economists. One thing is for sure—in both plans , the deficit will increase, which brings up another enormous economic challenge for the candidates. The country is staring down the barrel of a $500 billion budget deficit next year and that won’t even include all the war funding and certainly doesn’t include any additional costs from the candidate’s economic plans.

RELATED ARTICLE
The F-35 Quagmire

The current economic slide is causing real pain across the country. But whoever wins in November, they won’t be able to even begin pursuing their solutions until February of next year. In recent years, Congress and the President have been lurching from crisis to crisis throwing money at problems without a long term plan to meet the perceived needs in an economically responsible manner. And that isn’t even considering the head in the sand approach that has been taken regarding the twin 800-pound fiscal gorillas of Social Security and Medicare

RELATED ARTICLE
A Fiscal Commission is the Gift that Keeps on Giving for Taxpayers

So while the candidates’ economic proposals are fine and dandy, the country is in desperate need of strong fiscal leadership, not just pandering on narrow tax cuts and new spending programs. The next President needs to put all options on the table to balance short-term economic needs with our long-term budgetary challenges . Fiscal stewardship isn’t a sexy issue, and doesn’t win many votes. But the public needs an honest accounting of the steps necessary to avoid our republic going the way of the Roman Empire. Both candidates need to clearly articulate how their economic plans will bring the budget back into balance and cut the nearly $10 trillion debt. A plan and commitment to deficit fighting and budgetary responsibility will be one of the strongest means to stabilizing our economy.

Share This Story!

Related Posts