HOME / politics: Who's winning, who's losing, and why.

Give Us Something To Talk AboutThe presidential candidates aren't serious about the budget.

By John DickersonPosted Wednesday, June 11, 2008, at 6:37 PM ET

(Continued from page 1)

RSS

If conscience doesn't move McCain and Obama to acknowledge all of this, then the policy realities should. The sooner decisions are made about national spending priorities, the more time the public will have to adjust, and the easier it will be to spread the sacrifices broadly. If the winning candidate waits to face these issues once he's in office, he'll have missed the chance to build a national mandate for the tough choices he's going to be forced to make. There's also a crass political reason to start talking about the budget now: When the arithmetic forces a future president to disappoint constituencies, it won't come as a surprise. The president can make denial look virtuous. He can't spend the money because he's keeping his campaign promise to restore fiscal responsibility.

And yet, of course, when you're trying to feel the voters' pain, it's politically dangerous to tell them more is on the way. Obama, who still suffers from his remarks about the bitterness of small-town people, is engaged in a two-week tour on which he's trying to woo white working-class voters who live in swing states. On Monday in North Carolina, he offered tax cuts for middle-income families and retirees, a $50 billion economic stimulus package, expansion of unemployment benefits, and relief for homeowners facing foreclosure. McCain, for his part, is trying to live down his admission that he doesn't know as much about the economy as he does about, say, the Iraq war. On Tuesday, he doled out tax cuts and found a new passion for opposing the estate tax and contradicted a previous position on Social Security tax hikes.

Both candidates also face pressures from within their parties. Barack Obama isn't going to be brave about the trade-offs needed to fix Social Security when many Democrats don't believe there's a problem at all (or if there is, it can be fixed with economic growth). While John McCain is having trouble with evangelicals, he's not going to risk offending his party's other devout wing, the tax-cutters.

So far, Barack Obama has not given a speech on the topic of fiscal restraint or budget balancing. He did give one on Social Security, but it was mostly designed to show that Hillary Clinton hadn't told the truth about what she would consider doing to fix it. And in that speech, Obama retreated from his fiscally honest position of considering a wider number of options for fixing the system.

McCain has said he would balance the budget by the end of his first term, but he's wobbling on that pledge, saying it's now just a goal. Overall, McCain talks more about fiscal responsibility than Obama. He has also done far more to tell voters uncomfortable truths. He's done that on immigration, job losses, and the war. But straighter talk only gets you so far: McCain talks regularly about cutting special earmark programs in the federal budget—as he did this Tuesday—but earmarks are just one sliver of the problem. McCain supports tax cuts that are poised to make the fiscal situation far worse than Obama's spending plans. McCain's team says they can pay for these tax cuts and balance the budget, but budget experts of all ideological persuasions are highly dubious. You can even imagine that the McCain of old, who spoke out against the Bush tax cuts, would call B.S. on his own plan.

To defend themselves, both campaigns point to the relative shortcomings of the other. McCain says Obama's spending plans will bloat the budget, and Obama says McCain's tax cuts will do the same. They're both right, but saying the-other-guy-is-worse-than–I-am is probably not the kind of stirring leadership that brings all those people to those Obama rallies. Nor is it why John McCain has gotten credit for political courage over the years. If the promises of truth-telling keep coming but the serious discussion doesn't, then I'm going to expect some kind of honesty to make up the candor deficit. Ladies and gentlemen, what I'm about to promise you has little bearing in reality.

Page: 1 | 2SINGLE PAGE

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. He can be reached at . Follow him on Twitter.

Photograph of Barack Obama by Sara D. Davis/Getty Images; photograph of John McCain by Mario Tama/Getty Images.

COMMENTS

Remarks from the Fray:

Here is the budget, rounded off for dummies: 30% Social Security; 30% Defense; 10% Medicare; 10% Medicaid; 10% Interest on the debt; 10% Everything else

Every year, we are short by about 20%.

How do we solve the problem? One thing is obvious...whining about "earmarks" and "pork", which are some little fraction of a percent in the "Everything else" category, is meaningless. That would be like trying to pull yourself out of forEclosure and tens of thousands in credit card debt by clipping a few coupons on Sunday morning. In reality, you have to tackle the big ticket items, such as your mortgage and car payments. Likewise, there is no serious way to address the budget without tackling entitlements and defense.

My personal solution? Split the difference: a 10% across-the-board increase in all taxes, and a 10% cut in spending on every program. Any change from that new baseline would have to be revenue neutral. That would be equally hated by both parties and more or less equally spread the pain across all Americans....but at least we would quit screwing our kids over.

--Sakura

(To reply, click here.)

(6/11)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES