A G K Y R A

Obama and McCain both did well last night.

The first question Jim Lehrer asked was sharp: as a result of the $700 billion financial aid package being worked out right now, what programs that you’ve been promising voters will have to be scrapped?

Weave, dodge, distract, grunt, mumble, smile.

To his credit, McCain proposed an across-the-board freeze on spending increases except on essential services and entitlements. I don’t know how realistic a proposal that was, but it was a real answer. And he said he’d review every single federal agency to determine what we needed to keep and what could go, who were doing their jobs well and should stay, and who weren’t and would be fired.

Obama’s response to McCain: that’s using a chainsaw where we need a scalpel (or something like that). There are some areas that are underfunded now that Obama wants to increase no matter what, like early childhood education.

Isn’t that nice. Who wouldn’t want better early childhood education resources in this country!

The problem is, he’s apparently proposing $800 billion in new spending — and not just one-time capital expenditures, but additional spending of nearly $1 trillion year after year. What about the $10 trillion national debt? What about the $700 billion bailout? And Obama won’t say what he doesn’t want to do, only that he wants to increase funding for early childhood education! Lord have mercy.

This is where Obama’s spending record comes into play. His record of signing onto pork-barrel projects is a clue to his mindset. He can’t say no! He wants more money for senior centers. Don’t we all! He wants more money for ECE. Don’t we all!

Obama sees government as a lifestyle enhancer. He wants to fund every good hearted, noble minded human service project conceivable. And he can’t say no to any of them. Especially since his appeal has been based on his personality and promises, not the principles of a coherent philosophy of government.

Obama’s vision for the federal government is exactly analogous to the homebuyers who contributed to this mess. Who cares if we don’t have the income, let’s grab the lifestyle on easy credit!

The President is the head of the household of our federal government. We need to elect a President whose first priority will be to get the government’s financial house in order. When government is living within its own budget and has a surplus, then maybe we can talk about new programs.

(As an aside, I hope people noticed Obama’s considerably watered down promise that under his administration, everyone will have access to “basic health care.” News flash: everyone already does have access to basic health care, but I won’t dwell on that. I don’t point this out to criticize Obama. If he is beginning to realize that his health care proposal is unfeasible or won’t produce the Edenic results he’s been promising people on his website, he’s to be commended for coming clean. I just hope people pay enough attention to notice.)

Washington Mutual collapsed last night, the largest bank failure in U.S. history. Who would want to see McCain and Obama debate foreign affairs?

Fine, you say, they should have debated economic policy. You think that would be helpful, to bring campaign politics into the limelight in Mississippi at a time when the real work is being done in committee meetings in Washington?

You think McCain and Obama don’t have a stake in what’s being decided? Think again: one of them is going to be President in January and have to administer the plan being decided right now. If they’re both present, neither of them can blame Bush or Congress and claim “I had nothing to do with the lousy bailout plan that hamstrung my presidency.”

They ought to be there, both of them, even if just to monitor how the process unfolds.

What kind of person, applying to us for the job of President, wouldn’t want to be involved!