-
- DickMorris.com |
- Archives |
- PBP Archives |
- FAQ |
- Contact |
- Register
Published in the New York Post on August 7, 2008
The conventional wisdom has it down pat: A bad economy works against the candidate from the party in power, as voters take out their rage and fear on the president’s party and back the challenger, just like they did in 1992. But this isn’t a normal economic slowdown (or recession), and Obama isn’t a normal challenger. We think the conventional wisdom may be dead wrong.
It isn’t so much that unemployment is so high (5.7 percent) or that the economy is in the tank (1 percent growth this quarter) as it is that everything seems to be falling apart. Banks are under assault; mortgages are in default; quasi-government agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac need bailouts; financial institutions go hat in hand to foreign sovereign wealth funds peddling shares of their equity in return for desperately needed cash; the cost of filling a gas tank has tripled. It isn’t the present circumstances that have voters freaked; it’s the threats that seem to loom on the horizon.
And Obama is no ordinary challenger. Not like Bill Clinton, for example. In 1992, from the moment the campaign started, Clinton billed himself as the expert who could solve the economy’s problems. His promise to “focus like a laser beam” on the recession won him big points throughout the campaign. His 10-year record as a governor and his chairmanship of the National Governors Association bolstered his credentials.
But we first met Barack Obama as an advocate of racial and partisan healing, and then as an Iraq war opponent. When he tried to morph into an economic expert for the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries, voters didn’t buy it and opted for Hillary.
So the question that hangs over the election is: Are we prepared to trust a new candidate with almost no experience and no claim to economic expertise in the middle of one of the most threatening economic situations we have ever faced?
Add to this backdrop Obama’s pledge to raise taxes and you have a combustible situation that could frighten American voters en masse. When, amid relative prosperity, Obama said he’d restore fairness by raising taxes on the rich, it was well-received, especially in the Democratic primary.
Raising the top bracket to 40 percent seemed a no-brainer. Applying the Social Security tax to more earned income, not just to the first $100,000, seemed like elemental fairness and a good way to save the pension system. Restoring the capital gains tax to 28 percent appeared to comport with the notion that those whose income derives from investment should pay a tax closer to that paid on earned income (despite the argument that it is after-tax money that they invested in the first place).
But now, with massive capital outflows crippling the public and private sectors, doubling the tax on capital seems like a very, very bad idea. And a sharp increase in taxes on the entrepreneurial class seems like a risky proposition.
Besides, when a candidate starts raising taxes, who knows where he will stop once he is in office?
McCain can put economist after economist on the air to prophesy depression if Obama’s plan for taxes is enacted. And the public will not be reassured by the Democrat’s claims that his tax hikes are only on the rich.
It almost doesn’t matter that McCain is not an economist and avows ignorance of what Thomas Carlyle called the “dismal science.” We know McCain. We know he will surround himself with some pretty capable people. And, above all, we know that he won’t raise taxes.
Were these calmer times, with less of a threat from abroad and less economic danger, we might indulge our penchant for change and elect a neophyte in the hope that he will offer something different. We might be more easily captivated by his charisma. But, in these times, we may want to stay with the safer candidate.
 |
Comments
Only subscribers to Dick Morris' '08 Play-By-Play may post comments. You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Russian military complex is focused on quelling the separist movement in Georgia and for the next 2 weeks China/the world is focused on the Olympic Games moving ahead under the weight of terrorist attacks. The next 2 weeks is a perfect window of opportunity for the long-anticipated Israeli attack on Iran. The resulting uproar, just ahead of the Democratic convention, will work perfectly for the Clintonistas to the detriment of Barry Obama. It also should douse any hope that Barry O. had for grabbing anything but the Kerry/Gore left of the middle crowd.
With this combination of foreign crises, Bush ‘43 doesn’t need to produce Osama Bin Laden. GW can continue to milk the high-level human intelligence that has been keeping us safe for 7 years and leave the ulimate POW/KIA status of OBL for McCain.
Taking Osama Bin Laden alive while a tremendous political publicity maneuver would come at an unacceptable cost to the United States already engaged in a Jihad with fanatical Muslims. OBL needs to be KIA with unquestionable authenticity preferably by his own people. Even then we may have to deal with a martyr. But better a martyr than a cunning, well-networked, well-funded terrorist.
In light of the recent arrest of a would-be Obama assassin, one post-script that unfortunately keeps the Clintonistas in the mix. As Keith Olbermann shrieked in his verbal assault following her ill-chosen assassination comments, Sen. Hillary Clinton is only a heartbeat away from being the Democratic Presidential nominee.
When Congress returns in a month, the Democrats will likely reinforce Obama’s weaknesses on taxes and the economy. They will likely only allow a vote on oil drilling if it is linked to higher gas-mileage requirements. The Big 3 automakers are already on life-support. To limit them to high-mileage vehicles, which they are inexperienced producing, would probably put them all over the edge. Senator McCain can win Michigan easily if he hammers the jobs angle.
[…] Also see Dick Morris and Eileen McGann’s BAD TIMES CAN BOGGLE BAM […]
[…] DickMorris.com Share […]
We know McCain. We know he will surround himself with some pretty capable people. And, above all, we know that he won’t raise taxes. Just because everything’s different doesn’t mean anything’s changed. That’s the risk you take if you change: that people you’ve been involved with won’t like the new you. But other people who do will come along. You are so driven for McCain to win and Obama to loose. The media fire blips of unrelated information at us. Experts bury us under mountains of narrowly specialized monographs. Popular forecasters present lists of unrelated trends, without any to show us their interconnections or the forces likely to reverse them. As a result, when change presents itself it is preceived to be seen as anarchic, even lunatic. Historically, strong characters are brought out by change, weak ones by permanence. Do you actually believe that McCain is going to make a difference? America cannot continue to do today’s job with yesterday’s methods and be in business tomorrow……and that is what McCain represnets.