McCain vs McCain

Suddenly, the campaign has shifted. Partly due to the diminishing Palin infatuation, but mostly it is the sudden explosion of major financial institutions, a whilrwind at least equal to the force of the Palin phenomenon. And Obama seems to have the political advantage here, by a long shot.

Informed people can have different economic policies, but a long list of major economists and former officials in governmental positions in economic and monetary policy are supporting Obama's positions. The list includes Paul Volkner, chairman of the Federal Reserve during the Reagen years, three of the last five chairmen of the Securities and Exchange Commission, three Nobel Laureates in Economics, plus Warren Buffet -- as well as major names more identified with Democrats. (see http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-economic-advisors-and-economic.html).

Rather than simply rely on experts' endorsements, or on the logic of Obama's positions, we need go no further than McCain's own confused statements and contradicting positions to make the case against him as a steward of the economy.

From a New York Times article today: "As recently as January, Mr. McCain argued at a Republican debate that Americans were better off than they were eight years ago; by this summer he had released an advertisement that said “we’re worse off than we were four years ago." His first big speech on the mortgage crisis warned against excessive government intervention; a month later he released his plan for government action to help people keep their homes."

And the Washington Post today reports that in 1999, McCain helped push through the landmark legislation, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which removed "the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies . . . [that] helped pave the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments." (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/16/AR2008091603732.html?hpid=topnews)

The article continues: "McCain now condemns the executives at those companies for pursuing the ambitions that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act made possible." That is, at one time McCain apparently thought deregulation was a great idea, and helped bring it about. Now he's blaming those who took advantage of the deregulation, as though it's only some "bad actors" who are responsible, not the policies that encouraged it. (Remember Abu Ghraib where it was only some bad actors who caused all the problems, not the Bush administration's policies?)

So now, after pushing deregulation as a fundamental policy of governing, McCain is now "scrambling to recast himself as a champion of regulation to end 'reckless conduct, corruption and unbridled greed' on Wall Street" (WashPost).

Let's understand this: deregulation is a good idea, but when greedy people make a mess and bring our economic world to the brink of collapse, then we have to have regulation to fix things?

But isn't that the whole purpose of regulation -- to prevent exactly that from happening, and not just as a bandaid after the damage has been done?

Wow, I'm reserving a front row seat at the Obama-McCain debate on domestic issues nine days hence.

Ralph