Election 2014  
comments_image Comments

Five Big Issues You Won't Hear About in the Presidential Debates

Here’s a brief guide to what you won’t hear in the presidential and vice-presidential debates this month. Think of these as five hard truths that will determine the future of this country.
 
 
Share

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks at a rally at Holman Stadium on September 7, 2012 in Nashua, New Hampshire.

 

To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the  latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.

Five big things will decide what this country looks like next year and in the 20 years to follow, but here’s a guarantee for you: you’re not going to hear about them in the upcoming presidential debates. Yes, there will be questions and answers focused on deficits, taxes, Medicare, the Pentagon, and education, to which you already more or less know the responses each candidate will offer.  What you won’t get from either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama is a little genuine tough talk about the actual state of reality in these United States of ours.  And yet, on those five subjects, a little reality would go a long way, while too little reality (as in the debates to come) is a surefire recipe for American decline.

So here’s a brief guide to what you won’t hear this Wednesday or in the other presidential and vice-presidential debates later in the month.  Think of these as five hard truths that will determine the future of this country.

1. Immediate deficit reduction will wipe out any hope of economic recovery: These days, it’s fashionable for any candidate to talk about how quickly he’ll reduce the federal budget deficit, which will total around  $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2012.  And you’re going to hear talk about the  Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan and more like it on Wednesday.  But the hard truth of the matter is that deep deficit reduction anytime soon will be a genuine disaster.  Think of it this way: If you woke up tomorrow and learned that Washington had solved the deficit crisis and you’d lost your job, would you celebrate? Of course not. And yet, any move to immediately reduce the deficit does increase the likelihood that you will lose your job.

When the government cuts spending, it lays off workers and cancels orders for all sorts of goods and services that would generate income for companies in the private sector. Those companies, in turn, lay off workers, and the negative effects ripple through the economy. This isn’t atomic science.  It’s pretty basic stuff, even if it’s evidently not suitable material for a presidential debate.  The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service predicted in a September  report, for example, that any significant spending cuts in the near-term would contribute to an economic contraction. In other words, slashing deficits right now will send us ever deeper into the Great Recession from which, at best, we’ve scarcely emerged.

Champions of immediate deficit reduction are likely to point out that unsustainable deficits aren’t good for the economy. And that’s true -- in the long run. Washington must indeed plan for smaller deficits in the future. That will, however, be a lot easier to accomplish when the economy is healthier, since government spending declines when fewer people qualify for assistance, and tax revenues expand when the jobless go back to work. So it makes sense to fix the economy first. The necessity for near-term recovery spending paired with long-term deficit reduction gets drowned out when candidates pack punchy slogans into flashes of primetime TV.

2.  Taxes are at their  lowest point in more than half a century, preventing investment in and the maintenance of America’s most basic resources:  Hard to believe?  It’s nonetheless a fact. By now, it’s a tradition for candidates to compete on just how much further they’d lower taxes and whether they’ll lower them  for everyone or just  everyone but the richest of the rich. That’s a super debate to listen to, if you’re into fairy tales.  It’s not as thrilling if you consider that Americans now enjoy the  lightest tax burden in more than five decades, and it happens to come with a hefty price tag on an item labeled “the future.”  There is no way the U.S. can maintain a world-class  infrastructure -- we’re talking levees, highways, bridges, you name it -- and a public education system that used to be the envy of the world, plus many other key domestic priorities, on the taxes we’re now paying.

 
See more stories tagged with: