Un-Debated Issues

Not long ago I wrote an article where I laid out the presidential candidate’s stands on 14 keys issues. We also have had all the presidential and vice presidential debates. But it seems to me that there were several keys issues that just plain were ignored by one or both candidates. On Bill Moyer’s broadcast Sunday Kathleen Hall Jamieson (of Factcheck.org) and Marty Kaplan brought up several of these issues.

Jamison wisely pointed out that neither candidate talked about what sacrifices the citizens are going to have to make in order to get the economy running again. Romney plan is economically impossible in the same way Ronald Reagan’s plan was; both lack the sacrifices  needed now and in the future that need to be made. Obama does not seem to push hard enough and talk through sacrifices needed to get a better society.

Kaplan bemoaned the fact that the issue of Plutocracy (or Oligarchy) vs. Democracy needs to be addressed. Or, in other words, how can we get the wealth of the country distributed on a more equitable basis? I would add to this the whole issue of election reform so that citizens have equal voice in the political debate.

There was also little discussion about the Wall Street and Bankers ethics and downright illegality and the needed regulations needed to control these industries. Again, money talks and influences both parties.

Likely the biggest issue that was and is ignored was climate change. Both seem to take the popular ostrich head in the sand approach and just ignore the issue. I suppose since we are recently back from Alaska and have seen up close and personal the effects of our current policy or lack of policies we have on the environment. Obama talks about the need for alternative and clean energy but does not seem strong enough on this issue. Romney on the other hand seems to be a drill baby drill dude, and use coal (dirty or clean if there is such a thing) without any regard for environmental impact.

All politicians like to talk about cutting taxes – Romney for everyone including the rich so trickledown economics gets another chance and Obama asking for a little bit from the rich. It will take more than a little bit. Romney wants to spend more on defense for some unknown reason and Obama has concern for social programs but neither talk enough of how we can get this done.

And both candidates go on about the national debt as a great evil. Sure, debt has an impact on future generations and the accusers of Obama said he has generated more debt than anyone which is misleading. Realistic numbers should come from the percentage of national debt to Gross Domestic Product and that changes the picture. I have written on this before with charts showing debt was much higher in the past when we recovered from the Great Depression and During WWII than now percentage wise. And the way we fought through those economic dilemmas was increase debt to get the economy going rather than reducing the debt which depresses an economy. Or, the accusation of the failed stimulus plan is bogus, it did not fail, but it did not go far enough to have a greater impact on society. Why are all the Keynesian economists not attacking this false argument? Likely because the average voter cannot distinguish between government spending influence on the economy and individuals business or home budgets which have to balance; or there is a big difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics.

Kaplan is more partisan of the two who is clearly disenchanted with Romney and points out Romney shifts his point of view constantly depending on where he is and who he is talking to. I agree and see many Romneys: The religious Romney who seems good hearted and kind and caring for others; there is the capitalist Romney with his hedge fund Cain Capital who was all about making money with the ethic of a bottom line; there was the primary candidate Romney catering to the extreme right wing Republicans (Tea Partiers etc.) that have become the radical center of that party; and then there is the Presidential candidate Romney who is much more centrist just agrees with Obama on foreign policy and seems more presidential and moderate. He can claim to be able to create 12 million jobs, but that will happen if we elect Felix the Cat as president according to almost all economists. Romney appears to be a chameleon pragmatically changing his color whenever is works. It is pragmatic but lacks integrity.

Obama just has not come on strong enough; he has done a lot in an almost impossible presidential setting. Who could possibly follow following the Bush administration and the unprecedented damage he did to the economy, society programs and in international relations and the over 3 decades of short sighted supply side economics that drove the nation to its knees with a congress who Republican contingent openly admitted their prime directive was to get rid of him rather than look after the best interest of the nation and its citizens.

The next president will have a hard job, but it will be a piece of cake in comparison to the last four years.

Finally, there is the rampant misdirection, spin and downright lying that been in this election. Here in Wisconsin 100 people from outside the state have spent millions of dollars trying to smear and defeat democratic congressional candidates. The only good that has come from this is the general disgust over negative politicking (though it remains effective) and more folk going to fact checking sites on the internet and some newspapers have been better at calling out this falsehoods.

Bill Moyers twosome pointed out the power of presidential debates and how they make all such races tighter than those in the past. But they also point out that our voters have very limited attention spans and memories. Do we get the politicians we deserve and then condemn them all and do little about righting the system?