Tornado Central

I need to get some stuff off my chest after following the President campaigning and tonight's VP debate. Simply stated, I'll just be happy when the election is over. Every single election, it's always the same crap, with the same result. Where's the immigration policy overhaul and border security issues that were soooooo important in the last election? What about Medicare and Social Security? Does the public really have an attention span of only a few months to let the gov't (Congress and President) off the hook for these important areas of necessary reform?

Back to the campaign side... Both sides give misleading "facts" and only stick to talking points. Fox News always cheerleads the Republican candidate (at least one of their "post-debate analysis" commentators prefaced his "analysis" by saying he's biased from the beginning before declaring, shockingly, that Palin won the debate hands-down, no doubt); MSNBC typically cheer leads the Democrat candidate (Olberman's show proceeds the debate?). How many questions in this evening's VP debate did Palin actually answer? Geez, it seemed like Palin would very briefly mention something pertaining to the question, then shoot back off into whatever she wanted to talk about (usually energy-related, but other times something about Mavericks or "Nukular"). It just drives me nuts. Again, at least TV "analysts" aren't spouting about on frivolous garbage like lipstick on pigs, so it's some improvement over the past 3-4 weeks. The vocal people almost always have their minds made up, so watching media interviews or reading online "discussions" are usually quite unsubstantial. Why can't these debates be set up such that candidates MUST answer the question and can't revert to overused talking points? Why not allow candidates to talk to each other, ask questions of each other?

Candidate 1: "Actually, you didn't answer MY question... What do you think of *this or that*?
Candidate 2: [blah blah blah talking points blah blah]
Candidate 1: "Seriously, stop with the talking points. answer my question!"
Candidate 2: [blah blah blah I'll tlak about what I want to talk about]
Candidate 1: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAH"

If nothing else, the moderator(s) should be more forceful in demanding answers from the candidates. Both sides do this (particularly the Pres. candidates -- I thought Biden stuck to the topics pretty well tonight), and it almost defeats the purpose of a debate if the moderator lets the candidates talk about whatever they want.
One interesting comment from tonight was keeping the whole "the VP office isn't in the Executive nor Legistlative branch" mentality that Cheney has invoked as an excuse to avoid investigative matters continues with Palin. *shrug*

And since when is cutting taxes the be all and end all? Every Republican candidate for many years has vowed to cut taxes and reduce spending, yet spending is never reduced despite the tax cuts. The result? Incredible, record deficits from politicians who hark on about "fiscal responsibility". Sure, use tax cuts to get you elected, since few people want higher taxes. However, is functioning on so much credit really in the best interest of the USA? We already pay $450,000,000,000 (that's $450 billion) each year on interest on the debt, so hey, let's reduce gov't revenue even more so we pay more interest. Sure, there is SOME evidence that tax cuts can spur an economy. However, if gov't spending is not cut similiarly, all we end up doing is pushing taxes to future generations. I have ZERO faith that McCain will actually reduce spending (certainly not military spending, which is a massive part of his campaign and an equally massive part of the budget). In addition, there is a lot of spending that he CAN'T reduce much, such as many entitlements that will give us severe pain down the road. And McCain keeps using the "Earmarks" buzzword as if earmark spending is the reason why we aren't running anywhere near a balance budget. However, given the size of the deficits of the past 8 years (and the estimated 2009 deficit that will likely run >$500 billion), the "earmarks" are a very small piece of the pie. In addition, there are lots of beneficial "earmarks". Sure, lots of frivolous spending, but don't act like it's the reason why we're running unprecedented deficits.

* Despite some liberal social views, I consider myself more fiscally conservative than not. Actually, I don't care if our leaders want to increase gov't spending (i.e. fight wars abroad, fund national social programs, etc) as long as they can find a way to pay for it. Reducing taxes MAY yield more gov't revenue IF you assume we're on the correct side of the so-called Laffer curve. However, some politicians speak of tax cuts like they will ALWAYS yield more revenue. If that's the case, then let's just cut taxes to 0%, and I'm sure the gov't will bring in QUADRILLIONS of dollars, right? That's the impression I get when listening to some folks such as Larry Kudlow and some of the other conservative business analysis -- let's just completely get rid of the capital gains tax, and let's just get rid of every other tax while we're at it. It's apparently a great campaign tactic, but does everyone actually think that we can continue down the "don't tax but still spend" road of the last 8 years? Why wouldn't the Presidential candidates answer the question about which SPECIFIC programs they'd cut to reign in spending? UGH.

I don't really like paying taxes either, but I certainly realize that it's something that I must do if I want to drive on public roads, have some protection against crazy folks (i.e support police, fire, and other emergency personnel), fund consumer protection acts and have my food inspected (FDA, etc), and so forth. Heck, I know that I can't go and spend a lot of money on my Visa card without being to pay it off, so who would think the Gov't can?

The direction of the tax debate is frustrating deficit hawks in Washington, who worry that none of the candidates is charting a course toward a balanced budget. Meanwhile, Bush and other politicians are telling voters alarmed by a sagging economy that keeping the cuts past their 2010 expiration date can help revive the nation's fortunes, a claim many economists say is nonsense. ....
Far from acting as an economic tonic, the tax cuts "are neither sustainable nor beneficial" without massive cuts in government spending far beyond what Bush or any candidate to succeed him has proposed, said Alan D. Viard, a former economist in the Bush White House who is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. The most popular cuts -- those known as "middle-class" tax cuts -- are more likely to slow economic growth than promote it, Viard and others said.
....
"If tax cuts aren't paid for, the extra debt hurts the economy more than any direct benefit from the tax cuts," said Jason Furman, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now at the Brookings Institution. "If you cut taxes without cutting spending, you're just shifting taxes to the future."
....
There is little disagreement among most economists on that point. Even the Bush Treasury Department found that failing to cut government spending commensurate with the tax cuts would leave the cuts with a "negligible effect" on the economy, Carroll said.

--> As Candidates Warm to Bush Tax Cuts, Economists Warn of Long-Term Effect (Washington Post - 3/28/08)