Why a tax rebate?

With the economy tanking, our government is doing what it does best to solve the problem (and what got us into this mess in the first place): write a check. To everybody. Your check may already be in the mail.

I’m disappointed by both the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Why didn’t one of them seize upon this crisis to strongly recommend a public works program that puts money in people’s pockets and into our economy while rebuilding and repairing our deteriorating infrastructure? Was such an idea even debated in the Congress or among the candidates in the primaries and caucuses? If so, I missed it.

Both Democratic presidential campaigns have staffs of extraordinary smarts. That’s why I can’t imagine how they missed the boat on an issue that so energizes the Democratic base: rebuilding our economy while rebuilding America.

All across the country, our infrastructure is collapsing due to insufficient funding. Our bridges, roads, tunnels and waste treatment systems are old and in disrepair. Crumbling infrastructure jeopardizes our prosperity and the quality of our daily lives.

I’m particularly surprised that the Clinton people have been remiss in recognizing this is a campaign-turning issue. She chairs a National Commission on Infrastructure aimed at finding comprehensive answers to our nation’s current and future infrastructure needs.

Hillary’s new slogan is “Solutions for America” and what better solution for America’s economic woes than a federal program that helps relieve our infrastructure crisis at the same time it re-enforces our middle class?

Hillary has based her campaign on the importance of experience over rhetoric. But for this one, she needs to go beyond husband Bill, beyond JFK, for a tested solution to today’s problem. She has to go all the way back to FDR.

I recommend to Hillary and her staff a new book on FDR’s Works Progress Administration. Author Nick Taylor opines that a jobs program would give more bang for the buck than a tax rebate.

Taylor observes that the WPA was created “both to repair a broken infrastructure and to relieve the suffering that came with widespread joblessness.” He noted that from an economic standpoint, the WPA was a model of Keynesian thought. “The people who had these jobs put their money back into the economy immediately, buying food and badly needed clothing.”

Taylor suggests that the already-enacted tax rebates is “found money” for most people. “It may go back into the economy, but it is just as likely to be used to pay off back debts, since the whole reason for the economy sinking is that people are over-extended.”
Not only may the tax rebate fail to revive the economy, but what are the consequences of ignoring our infrastructure crisis? We know the answer to that: falling bridges, exploding steam pipes, crumbling levees, traffic jams and power outages.

If not an “amen” can I at least have a “yes, we can”?

Right (far right) on the Issues

The Presidential debates have served us well, I think. Voters know pretty much where the candidates and parties stand on issues important to them. Democrats, their impressive field now winnowed to two, aren’t that far apart but have argued vociferously on the two biggest domestic and foreign policy issues that worry the American people: how to provide affordable health care for all, and how to end the Iraq war.

By contrast, the Republican presidential debates have given short-shrift to voter concern over how to survive the world’s most costly and dysfunctional health care system. The response has been “let the market work” which translates: “you’re on your own—don’t expect any help from us”. As for the misguided, unnecessary, unwanted war in Iraq, leading candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney quarrel endlessly over who would keep our troops there longer. (Mike Huckabee chimes in that he still believes if we stay there long enough we may find those weapons of mass destruction).

While it is true that presidential candidates in both parties appeal to their base in primary elections, it is obvious to almost everyone that the Democrats can take their primary fight straight to the general election and not change a note. Over at the RNC, they know it’s a far different story. Almost every week there is a Republican incumbent in Congress who gauges public reaction to the debates and opts not to run for re-election.

Leave it up to Karl Rove to get it all wrong. He says Republicans are carrying out a “serious debate about serious ideas” and chides Democrats for “running a nasty race that has as its subtext race and gender.”

Hey Karl—what you call a “race and gender” subtext is the Democratic party making history. Either an African-American or a woman will be their Presidential nominee and the prospect has voters bubbling with anticipation. (Even the Republican Weekly Standard concedes: “Democratic primary turnout has doubled from 2004, reflecting a level of enthusiasm among Democrats that hasn’t been seen for decades.”)

Just for the heck of it, let’s examine those issues GOP candidates have been wrangling about and see how they might make sense to the majority of voters this fall. The two “biggies” have been supporters of the war in Iraq and making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Every poll tells us where most voters are on the Iraq war—they want it over. As for the treasury-draining Bush tax cuts, the idea of making them permanent is almost as big a loser as being pro-war. McCain voted against it twice because it “unduly benefits the wealthy.” Now that he’s a Republican presidential candidate, he’s for it
While McCain and Romney squabble over who supports the war more and the tax cuts not to pay for the war, they do agree on how to pick up the $15 billion monthly tab the war is costing us: cut spending for entitlements. That’s the fraying safety net for the sick, retired and disabled: make tax cuts permanent for the rich while forcing grandma out of her nursing home. Sure, that will play well in November.