Now Virginia, Maryland and the District get to have their say. Republicans will have to decide whether John McCain’s perceived heresies are so awful that it would be better to continue their tantrum rather than reunite the party behind the only candidate who stands a chance of snatching the keys to the White House from Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.
When it comes to foreign policy, the lines are clearly drawn. Republicans can go with McCain, who would continue waging a long war against terrorism and see it through to victory. And he knows how to do it.
Or they can go with his opponent, untutored in military affairs. Democrats have a choice between candidates, both of whom would pull our troops out of Iraq almost immediately upon taking office, and hope that soft power and the United Nations will produce peace for our time. For the anti-war set, Obama is the more attractive candidate since he never thought it a good idea to unseat Saddam Hussein.
The fiscal and domestic policy consequences of the differences between the parties can’t be overestimated, and have to be kept in mind by those free to choose in which primary they will vote. The war in Iraq is now costing $10 billion per month. McCain would hold down domestic spending to fund the war. Both Democrats would divert these funds to increasing the scope and size of domestic programs.
One thing is certain: The new president won’t have to pay much attention to George W. Bush’s final budget, which projects a near-record deficit for the coming fiscal year, and a surplus in 2012. But the president has included only enough money to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from the start of the fiscal year on Oct. 1 until after the next president is inaugurated.
He has assumed that Congress will eliminate 151 domestic programs — which it won’t. He ducks the question of reforming entitlement programs; fails to cope with the impending crisis created by the alternative minimum tax designed to nab tax-avoiding millionaires, but now ensnaring middle-income families; and assumes his tax cuts will be made permanent when they expire in 2010, which they won’t if a Democratic Congress has its way. A realistic guide to America’s future priorities the Bush budget is not.
But the reaction to it provides an indication of just how important the 2008 elections are. McCain supports extension of the Bush tax cuts and the president’s plan to rein in the growth of domestic spending rather than shortchange the military. He also hopes to find billions by cutting wasteful earmarks. It will be difficult for conservatives voting today to find something to dislike in those positions.
By contrast, Clinton and Obama want to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, raise taxes on the “rich” by increasing rates on capital gains, dividends and higher incomes. Both would cut defense spending to fund increased domestic spending on benefits programs and infrastructure.
But there is a difference between them; two, in fact. Clinton has bigger plans for our money than Obama: increased subsidies for college tuition, universal preschool, more money for New Orleans, doubled spending on research, and $1 million for a Woodstock museum for those who were at the 1969 festival but can’t remember being there.
Then there is health care. Obama has a plan to make insurance more affordable for those who want it, details to follow. We do know that his plan will try to make markets work better. Clinton prefers compulsion and bureaucracy. She would make insurance coverage compulsory, even for youngsters who neither need nor want it, and deduct the cost from their paychecks if necessary.
Enough detail to make the broader point: This is one of the few elections that create for Americans what Ronald Reagan once called a “time for choosing.” In 1932 we elected Franklin Roosevelt and put paid to the notion that that government is best which governs least. In 1980 we elected Ronald Reagan and put paid to the conservative war against FDR’s New Deal.
This year we will have to choose between a man who is confident that America can — indeed, must — play a leading role in maintaining world order, even at the expense of domestic spending, and a man or woman who believes that America must concentrate its resources on the home front while relying more on international institutions to keep the world’s democracies safe from its enemies.
A time for choosing, indeed.
Examiner columnist Irwin Stelzer is a senior fellow and director of The Hudson’s Institute’s Center for Economic Policy.
