Deblogging

Debate Blogging, that is. I figured I'd be a real blogger and be opinionated in real time for once.

During the Democratic debate tonight, both Obama and Clinton mentioned some things which I thought were worth bloggin' about.

First off, I'd like to point out that I've never, ever, seen a more civil and intelligent political debate on TV. I watched the Republican debate last night and was somewhat disappointed with my home-state senator and my favorite economics-oriented politician (running for president), John McCain, for talking like he's in a coma and arguing semantics with Mitt Romney. I was even more disappointed with Mike Huckabee for being useless, Ron Paul for only talking about the gold standard, and all four of the candidates for ignoring policy details and focusing only on cute, generic phrases and referencing Reagan too many times. Outcome from last night: I like John McCain less now, and Mitt Romney more. I'm sure that this will change again after next Tuesday.

Back to the Democrats. Here's some of the interesting stuff from the debate tonight:


1. Higher taxes on the rich, lower taxes on the poor [to pay for health care plans]:

Obama sells it like this: If you want to live in a country where everyone has health insurance, [the higher-income] people are going to have to pay more. This seems fair. Unless, that is, you make more than $75,000. If you do happen to make more than that, though, it seems very, very unfair. Why, exactly, should you be forced to pay for an inefficient system to get the lower classes free health insurance? Good question. Then again, if you rationalize the [rapidly rising] cost of health insurance as a form of market failure, one could argue the government could and should simply reroute some of those billions of dollars spent on other useless things to subsidize the poorest classes' health insurance. That's a bad fiscal policy argument, though, and a tough call for a politician. I do think Obama has a more of a clearer view on the matter.

Clinton agrees, except she calls it a reversal of the Bush tax cuts. This is the opposite of "clear view," I'd say. Rationalizing higher and/or more progressive taxes as "it would have been this way if someone else hadn't screwed it up" ignores the more important point - whether or not the level of progressivity is appropriate, fair or generally good policy.



2. Universal health care

Both candidates believe in mandated insurance for at least some of the populace.

Clinton wants to mandate health insurance coverage for everyone.

Obama wants to mandate coverage for children only, allowing adults to choose. His plan would not significantly reduce the free-rider problem at hospitals, but it seems like it would be cheaper

It took me about an hour of writing about health care until I realized that I should just do a separate post about it. The summary: If I had to choose, I'd take Clinton's plan over Obama's. I'll post the details later.



3. Freezing interest rates

This was Clinton's suggestion of a way to help people who might be facing foreclosure. It's a straightforwardly terrible idea.

Obama totally rocked it in his answer, replying that it would limit the supply of loans to those most in need of loans. He said it as if he actually believed it, too, which is just fantastic.



4. Question: What about the negative impacts of immigrant labor on African Americans?

Obama calls it scapegoating and denies it. I agree. He says, "We can be a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants." Though I can't help but think that some of his answers tonight were specifically pandering to Democratic voters in California, since it's got 441 delegates (about 40% of all Super Tuesday states' delegates.)

Clinton says we need a "comprehensive immigration package," which somehow includes the logic of making citizenship easier for immigrants in order to raise their wages, so American workers aren't displaced. Is she suggesting that immigrants are being paid less than Americans not because they are less skilled, but because they are here illegally? Sounds like Americans are screwed either way (unless U.S. employers have racial preference, of course...) If she were right, this means U.S. companies could get equally skilled labor in Mexico for lower cost. If her logic is correct, we ought to legalize all the immigrants in order to retain all those companies that hire them. My guess is that this is not the problem...

In short, immigration of unskilled laborers affects the wages of unskilled laborers already in this country. What this has to do, specifically, with African Americans escapes me. Yes, I realize the point - but how is this a problem with a specific race, or at least a problem with immigration from other countries, instead of a problem with all unskilled laborers in this country, regardless of race?



5. Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants

Clinton says it's not appropriate, it puts them at risk since it's "clear evidence that they're not here legally" and a diversion from the real issue of "comprehensive immigration reform." Sounds like a dodge to me.

Obama says it'd be safer if illegal immigrants don't hit & run for fear of getting arrested (due to not having a license.) That's just an example, I assume. He says it's a public safety concern.

Again, it sounds like Obama is looking for California's delegates. If he's not, though - if he actually believes all this - it's moderately impressive.


(Speaking of delegates...)


I know what you're thinking: Why use all this policy analysis and all this economic analysis and all these opinions and all these words when we all know that the real way to pick a candidate is to ask yourself this question:

Which candidate would you most like to have a beer with?

My answer:

In retrospect, I don't think I would have minded having a beer with Bush - as many other Americans supposedly said before the 2004 election. Now that I think about it, it probably would have been fun. Actually, I do vaguely recall thinking this in 2004 and thinking, "Yeah, cool, but what the fudge does having a beer with someone have to do with them being a good president?!" Of course I realize the validity of the question now that I'm older, more experienced and mature.

This time around I think I'd most like to have beer(s) with Obama or Clinton. They might take themselves a little too seriously, though, and I think they'd get drunk too quickly (lightweights). I should probably think this through. Let's go through the list:

I would not want to hang out and drink with McCain, but only because he would bore me to tears with hours and hours of talking extremely slowly and telling me stories about his military past. That would be acceptable, even enjoyable, if he only talked a little faster.

Mike Huckabee would be hilarious after a few beers, but only because he looks exactly like Kevin Spacey, and I wouldn't be able to not laugh due to this after drinking a lot.

Ron Paul would probably not shut up about inflation and the gold standard. Also, I think, since we'd probably be at a bar for this beer, he'd completely ruin my chances with the women at the bar. Can you picture it? I'd be trying to talk to some girl, and Ron Paul would get in the way, act flabbergasted that we're not talking about monetary policy and start blathering with that upward inflection of his about how the Federal Reserve is the devil and that the only thing that matters is preventing inflation at all costs. ...Actually, Come to think of it, this a variation of what I do to my friends at bars. Damn.

Giuliani [you expected this joke] would probably not shut up about 9/11. After a few hours of hearing about terrorist threats and crime, I wouldn't be able to resist telling him how he pretty much doesn't deserve any of the credit for the things he thought he accomplished as mayor.

John Edwards would not be understandable with his thick accent as the night progressed and he'd probably reveal his communistic side and scare the hell out of me (in terms of shaking my faith in the U.S. government, that is...) Actually, I'm exaggerating a little. He'd probably be OK to have a beer with, but I think we'd spend too much time arguing about Chairman Mao.

I'd say Mitt Romney would be my choice, but he probably doesn't drink beer. That doesn't jive.

So who would I most like to have a beer with?

I'll reconsider Clinton or Obama. Clinton would be alright, but she probably wouldn't like hanging out with me very much since I wouldn't be able to hold back my need to point out her economic logic problems. She seems very confident, and I don't think she'd listen to my suggestions.

Obama, though, might be more likely to agree with me on - or at least listen to - my economic and social policy stances. I like Austin Goolsbee, his top economic advisor, and hopefully Obama would invite him to join. It would be bitchin', actually, to have a beer and hang out with both of those guys. Also, I'd be able to say "Someone set up us the Obama" to Obama himself after I had drank enough. That alone would be worth it.

So there's the answer: Barack Obama - the 2008 presidential candidate that I'd most like to "have a beer with."

Whatever happened to that dumbass survey, anyway? Is it only around when one or more of the presidential candidates are mentally disabled, or are otherwise unable to convince people they are worthy of the presidency? I think maybe.