Opinion > April 17, 2008

By James Griffin | Guest columnist

Joshua Binney, in his piece, “U.S. needs fiscal responsibility” (April 3), paints a bleak yet appropriate picture of today’s U.S. economy.

He is correct when he claims “we are confronted with a burgeoning national debt … and the threat of a major economic downturn.” With today’s rising gas prices, sub prime mortgage crisis and shaky Wall Street performances, times are tough for the American economy and Americans.

Nevertheless, his solution to the problem, 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain, leaves much to be desired as to experience in the economic field. Just a few months ago in a meeting with the editors of The Wall Street Journal, the presidential hopeful was cited admitting that he “doesn’t really understand economics.”

Arizona Senator McCain plans to instill fiscal responsibility from within by cutting back on pork barrel initiatives and earmarks. Yet to do so, Senator McCain needs to look no further than his own party. According to the annual report on government spending by Citizens Against Government Waste, Republicans in both the House and the Senate lead the field with frivolous special interest projects. In the House, Kingston of Georgia, Wamp of Tennessee and Wolf of Virginia spent the most on pork barrel appropriations. In the Senate, Cochran of Mississippi, Shelby of Alabama and Stevens of Alaska have garnered over $1.8 billion for state projects.

Furthermore, according to “U.S. needs fiscal responsibility,” the solution to the current economic crisis is not “maintenance of the status quo or the imposition of yet higher taxes.” By process of elimination then, the Republican Party must be suggesting tax cuts to stabilize and revitalize the economy. Still, if this is the case, then why did they mount such a counter against the Economic Stimulus Act, an act aimed at returning dollars to the American people. And, by American people, the Democrats mean more than just the top tax brackets.

Instead of returning money to the already wealthy, both Democratic presidential candidates, Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton, advocate a restructuring of the taxation process. This reform, however, would not be simple raises or cuts on taxes at a whim, or follow the Republican perception of Democrats policies as tax and spend. Instead, the tax reforms discussed and promoted by both Obama and Clinton involve a thoughtful redistribution of funding to most effectively benefit the common good.

Referring to it as the “Paris Hilton” tax break in 2006 by Senator Obama, the now infamous Bush post-9/11 tax cuts have become a central target for both Democratic candidates. Signed into action in 2003, these tax cuts seemed to widen economic inequality within America, as the top 1 percent received an after-tax income increase from 12.2 percent in 2003 to 14 percent in 2004. Heeding to the over 450 economists (including 10 Nobel laureates) who felt the tax cuts would “worsen the long-term budget outlook,” both Senators Obama and Clinton look to bolster the fledging U.S. Social Security and Medicare systems by repealing these cuts. Staples of the American government, these social programs could be supported for up to 75 additional years as a result of the reversal of these ill-thought, disproportionate tax cuts.

While reversing unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy, both Senators Obama and Clinton look to also create tax cuts for the lower and middle classes. Both candidates are looking to combat the household economic dilemma created since 2000, as college costs have gone up 40 percent, gas prices and health care premiums have doubled and the income for the bottom 90 percent has gone down on a whole. As for the ever ballooning national debt, Senator Obama promises to restore the PAYGO policy, a procedure that requires any increases in federal spending to be justified with sources of compensation for any lost revenue. Meanwhile, Senator Clinton plans to reinstate many of the economic efforts of her husband, who was the only president to experience a budget surplus during his tenure.

Having seen him speak and having read a number of his books, I like Senator John McCain as a person. Yet, when it comes to plotting the course of our economic future, John McCain is not our leader. Senators Obama and Clinton have the active economic plans to reverse our unbalanced taxation code, rejuvenate our national economy and return our nation and its citizens to fiscal prominence.

James Griffin is a freshman from Annapolis, Md. Seeking Middle Ground is a weekly face off between College Dems and Reps.