Lehrer’s Question to Obama, McCain: Learning from Arnold
If you watched the presidential debate Friday night or read the post-debate coverage, you probably recall both candidates’ refusal to straight-up answer Moderator Jim Lehrer’s question about how a $700 billion bailout of ailing financial institutions could crimp the candidates’ bold (and expensive) plans for the nation.
Granted, Lehrer’s is a tough question to answer, and frankly, it might not be answerable in the course of a four- or even eight-year presidency. But if either candidate is willing to take a longer view, he might learn a lesson from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Schwarzenegger was, of course, ushered into office as his predecessor, Gray Davis, was shown the door via recall election. Schwarzenegger boosted his election on promises to “fix” what Davis could not: California’s recurring inability to manage its budget. In boom times, state coffers swelled; legislators spent the largesse and made the spending repeatable, even if the boom eventually went bust, which it always did.
Despite his campaign promises, Schwarzenegger was unable to deliver a solution to this dilemma in his first term. And it now appears he won’t deliver a solution in his second term either — not with California’s economy again in bust mode, spiraling downward with the nation’s economy.
But according to the Sacramento Bee’s Daniel Weintraub, there’s a potential silver lining in this cloud: Schwarzenegger might secure the next best thing to a solution while he’s in office; namely, a solution that, years hence, could prove its worth and define his legacy. (Note: In addition to writing a column and blog for the Bee, Weintraub has authored an excellent book on Schwarzenegger, Party of One. TMV Chief Joe Gandelman was quoted in that book and offered a review of it this summer.)
In excerpted form, here’s how Weintraub (in his weekly column) summarizes Schwarzenegger’s long-term solution to the state’s budget woes, subject to voter approval:
• Require that the first 3 percent of tax revenues each year go into the new rainy-day fund …
• Require that unanticipated revenue windfalls be deposited into the reserve … All the transfers to the reserve would continue automatically until the reserve reached 12.5 percent of the general fund, or the equivalent of about $13 billion in today’s budget …
• Lock that money down … The final plan allows lawmakers to tap the reserve only when revenues grow less than required to maintain the previous year’s level of services while accommodating population growth and inflation …
• Allow the governor to make mid-year corrections … to suspend automatic cost-of-living increases for entitlement programs and cut spending on state operations in a fiscal emergency …
… if the plan had been law for the past 10 years and had worked as intended, spending would have grown more slowly, and the state would have had about $10 billion in reserve to cushion the blow of the economic slowdown.
OK. So how is this plan relevant to McCain and Obama? How might it help them answer Jim Lehrer’s question?
First, the presidential candidates might acknowledge (as I did earlier) that there are no easy or convenient answers to Lehrer’s question. Second, they might admit we will have to stop spending on ineffective programs (as Obama noted during the debate) and perhaps freeze spending on other programs (as McCain suggested). Third, they might recommend that, while we wrestle with near-term compromises, we also take a long-term approach to managing our spending, through both good times and bad — and here point to Schwarzenegger’s “rainy day fund” as a model for consideration.
This answer still might not include the level of detail some would prefer, but it strikes me as more realistic, more substantive, and more reassuring than what either candidate offered Friday night.
On the other hand, why would the candidates be willing to do this? Why, in particular, would Obama be willing to point to an opposite-party politician’s proposal? In short, because they already share common ground with the governor; all three are cut from similar political cloth.
I spoke with Daniel Weintraub Friday morning, eight-plus hours before the presidential debate. Going into that interview, I wanted to understand Weintraub’s thoughts on today’s Schwarzenegger versus the one portrayed in his book a year ago. Did Schwarzenegger’s latest victories and setbacks change, in any way, the conclusions about him that Weintraub reached in Party of One?
Of course, when Weintraub and I talked, neither of us knew Jim Lehrer would ask the bailout question he did — which is precisely why I was somewhat surprised how relevant Weintraub’s comments proved to be, as I read back over them this weekend.
Weintraub said he believes Schwarzenegger is as much a “party of one” today as he was when the book was published, if not more so. Case in point: Schwarzenegger’s threat to veto the budget the legislature sent him — a threat that eventually gave him his “rainy day fund.” In that dispute, legislators in both major parties were fighting Schwarzenegger, suggesting to Weintraub that the governor “remains in many ways a lone ranger in state government.” Weintraub added:
Sometimes he’s able to pull both sides together. Often, he stands alone. Governing for Schwarzenegger was always going to be difficult as a member of the minority party. In this capital, he’s a minority inside a minority.
Later, asked if he saw any similarities to Schwarzenegger in the major-party presidential candidates, Weintraub suggested McCain might be “the closer parallel” …
[McCain] is known as a maverick. He considers himself a Republican but seems comfortable crossing party lines or breaking with his party over platform or dogma. Obviously, there are differences between [McCain and Schwarzenegger] on certain issues. But in their approach, they’re quite similar.
Weintraub also acknowledged that, while lacking the same track record McCain has of bucking his own party, Obama has:
… built much of his campaign around the idea of reaching across party lines – and he has connected with many Independents and Republicans on that basis.
So why would either McCain or Obama take a page from Schwarzenegger? If you concur with Weintraub’s analysis, as I do, this shouldn’t even be a question for McCain. No, the McCain of 2008 is not the McCain of 2000, but he and Schwarzenegger are still, in many respects, “parties of one” in their respective jurisdictions. Regarding Obama, party loyalties might make the nod to Schwarzenegger more difficult, but doing so would be wholly consistent with the Senator’s perceived persona as (in the words of The Economist’s editors) “a consensus-seeking pragmatist,” with his repeated promises of bipartisanship, of pursuing strong ideas regardless of the letter (D or R) attached to them.
Both presidential candidates should at least consider what Schwarzenegger hath wrought. There are two debates remaining between them, and another moderator could reasonably take up Lehrer’s question, pressing the candidates to try again on their answers.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
14 Responses to “Lehrer’s Question to Obama, McCain: Learning from Arnold”
As those of us who have grown up and lived in, and those of us who are living, in California can and will remind you, California has long been ruled by Democrats with strong liberal political and policy practices, and they usually get their way or prevail in a conflict. (Many public employees there are in unions and willing to engage in various “industrial actions” to support the legislature in Sacramento when opportunities happen.)
As those of us who have lived through many years of observing Washington will tell you, people will go to Washington expecting things to be the same as in their home states, and they will soon be taught some harsh lessons. It happened to Governors Clinton and Bush; McCain knows all about this; Obama may or may not already know but if not, will soon be taught if he enters the White House next year.
[...] post by WP-AutoBlog Import var AdBrite_Title_Color = ’0000FF’; var AdBrite_Text_Color = ’000000′; var [...]
It's a good start, bipartisan squabbling aside. But we need more than just a backup plan right now. We need open heart surgery…we'll get the pacemaker in after we clean the mess up.
We need, as I've said repeatedly, to build our economy back from the foundation up. It's the only way. Universal health care MUST be provided to relieve the burden of industry who really want to hire American workers but simply cannot afford to. We legislate tough penalties for exporting jobs and golden rewards for hiring American and you just watch the economy take off again. Plus, we can be proud and rally behind those stickers “Made In America”. I remember a time when things were made in America and we could always tell because they lasted and were of high quality. Stuff made overseas was almost always short-lived and inferior products. American workers and innovators produced good products. I'd like to see a return to that.
I think McCain didn't comment on his plans for the economy, like I said, because his plans are so short-sided and so ignorant of a larger scope that his handlers told him to be tight-lipped about it. Obama's plans are better and will work, but they're so unfamiliar to many voters that his handlers warned him not to talk about them for fear they'd scare voters away.
If Team-Obama announced the bringing-on of the Clintons as cabinet members, with the four year term leapfrog promise with Hillary as part of the package, Team-Obama would see a tidal wave surge in the polls and at the Polls that poor McCain would be a soggy Tsunami washup. Then they wouldn't have to fear laying out the specifics of how we would regain world standing and financial strength.
Would you really trust a Congress, never mind an executive branch, with a reserve or so-called “rainy day” fund? (“Every day's a rainy day, ha-ha-ha-ha-ha” goes the refrain from K Street.) Won't this be treated as a mere extension of a general fund? How often have we seen the “need” for “stimulative” deficit spending during booms as well as busts?
I wonder how McCain will be able to cross political lines to compromise with the Dems at this point. His slash and burn campaign is turning old friends to enemies. Don't forget he can't he manage to look Obama in the eye…
The question was/is unanswerable. The final nature of the agreement wasn't clear that night and with taxpayer “holdings” in the assets of any firm that buys into the plan it will depend on too many other factors.
I thought McCain answered it 3 different times, offering various ways to cut spending. Is that not a good answer? Spending Freeze? Obama was the one avoiding an answer. Did I miss something?
“MCCAIN: Look, we, no matter what, we've got to cut spending. We have — as I said, we've let government get completely out of control.”
“The point — the point is — the point is, we need to examine every agency of government.”
“How about a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs”
Unfortunately, Doug, I hear those three answers as:
1) We'll do something vague with spending that I either won't tell you because I might lose votes if I tell you I'm cutting some program you like or because I have no actual idea.
2) To solve a government spending problem, we'll, um, look at the government.
3) An actually somewhat substantive answer. But am I making this up right now, or have I always had this in mind? We don't know because I've never said what I'd cut other than earmarks.
Obama's answers remained closer to McCain's 1 and 2, but there was some substance. He basically said he'd cut a few, but probably small, things and that he'd delay everything except for about 4 priorities, such as alt. energy and early childhood education.
doug1117:
Right, because McCain's been fighting so much to cut spending in the current administration these last 8 years and voting against every single one of Bush's budgets due to spending concerns…oh wait, my mistake…he has voted for every Bush budget that has let spending get out of control, wants to make Bush's tax cuts primarily benefiting the top 1% permanent and keep the Iraq war chugging right along to the tune of $10B a month. To paraphrase our current president…”Heck of a maverick there, Johnny!”
/snark
We are not going to be able to afford any special programs and the last thing we want is Universal Health Care. My God did any of you ever take Econ 101. Look there is no extra spending, no raising taxes, no nothing. It will be decreased spending to the bare minimum. This means we are all the Captains of our Destiny and if you can't pull yourself up by the bootstraps and take of yourself and your family then move to Canada.
Everything will have to be downsized thank the Good Lord! Less government will mean more prosperity.
Trust me when I tell you that we will get a bail out anyway. I am just hoping it is a streamlined bill with no Democratic earmarks on it like ACORN or bailing out the Union pension plans.
No you didn't miss anything. Obama's whole platform is on spending and income redistribution like the good little Socialist that he is. If he starts talking about raising taxes on corporations during a recession then he perfectly stupid instead of just stupid.
You want Obama who will take every dime that you make and give it to someone poorer. No way….I want work redistribution. Some of you need to get up off your fat arses and do something with your life. Work two jobs to make end meets, pay your bills off, no credit.
The only way Pelosi would get the rest of the Dems with her is if she adds a stimulus package and pork onto the bill. If she does that the American people will rise up in a way no one has ever seen.