Advertisement

Both Parties Should Lose in this Election

Both Parties Should Lose in this Election

By Robert Robb - October 23, 2008

The anchor of this election season has been a fairly fixed sentiment among the electorate that they have had enough of George Bush and Republican rule.

That, in and of itself, doesn't determine the outcome. Candidate races come down to: Compared with whom? John McCain, for example, has consistently outperformed the Republican brand in the presidential race.

Left largely unexamined, however, is the flip side of the sentiment to give the Republicans the boot. What would it mean if voters gave Democrats largely unchecked power at the national level, the presidency and large enough majorities in Congress to run over the Republican minority? Would the result be something the American people want?

If Democrats gain unchecked power, the one thing it is most clear they would do is to abolish the secret ballot for union elections. Even the so-called "conservative" Democrats running in swing districts are toeing the line on this one.

The House Democratic leadership forced a vote on the proposal last year, even though the issue could be used against its vulnerable members. Only two Democrats voted against it. All the Arizona Democrats running in swing districts - Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords, Ann Kirkpatrick and Bob Lord - support abolishing the secret ballot for union elections.

The second most likely thing Democrats would do is to make the tax system sharply more redistributionist.

Obama famously vows to increase taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year. But that is only the beginning. He says that he will cut taxes for 95 percent of American families, but only about 60 percent of such families pay income taxes now.

What Obama is proposing is a series of refundable tax credits for virtually everything people do: work, raise kids, save, buy a house, send children to college. The way a "refundable" tax credit works is that if the credit exceeds your income-tax liability, the government sends you a check for the difference.

Obama justifies this as a "tax cut" by saying that, for those who don't pay incomes taxes, it offsets their payroll tax. That, however, merely means that the redistribution is occurring in the way the country finances Social Security and Medicare and undermines their status as social insurance programs.

Regardless, these refundable tax credits are more properly seen as large increases in spending rather than as true tax cuts.

Unchecked Democrats are likely to enact fundamental reform in health care. Obama proposes allowing all Americans to buy into a system similar to the one federal employees currently have, in which private insurance companies compete. That is the heart of many reform proposals by both the right and the left.

However, Obama also proposes a Medicare-style fee-for-service alternative that might squeeze out the private insurance options. It may be intended to.

Democrats are clearly prepared to open the spending floodgates, using the economic downturn as an excuse.

Congress has already enacted a $168 billion stimulus package, a $300 billion housing-refinancing plan and a $700 billion bailout for the banking system. Now, Democrats want an additional $300 billion stimulus.

This from a government that has to borrow money to pay the light bill.

And brace yourself if Democrats reform financial regulation. They like to use corporations to implement their social policies off budget. Remember Fannie and Freddie?

In reciting this litany, however, it becomes clear how little grounds the Republicans have to criticize it, except for taxes.

Big government spending programs? Bush proposed the largest expansion of the federal role in education since Jimmy Carter with No Child Left Behind and the largest expansion of the entitlement state since Lyndon Johnson with his Medicare prescription-drug benefit. Most congressional Republicans supported them.

Racking up deficits? Bush is the champ.

Interfering in the private economy? The Bush administration just partially nationalized the banks, forcing healthy banks to accept public capital they didn't want.

John McCain once could have legitimately claimed to serve as a check on Democratic excesses, particularly on spending. And Americans seem to like divided government.

However, McCain supported the $700 billion bailout and proposes that the federal government spend an additional $300 billion buying up mortgages at face value. Vetoing earmarks isn't going to make up for that.

So, there you have it: An election Republicans deserve to lose but Democrats don't deserve to win.

More on the Election: Needing a Real Health Care Debate

Robert Robb is a columnist for the Arizona Republic and a RealClearPolitics contributor. Reach him at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com

Robert Robb

Author Archive

Follow Real Clear Politics

Latest On Twitter