Sat, Aug 25, 2012 - Page 9 News List

US presidential election unlikely to produce a real winner

By Thomas Friedman  /  NY Times News Service

There has been lots of talk that US Representative Paul Ryan being picked as US presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s running mate ensures that there will now be a “real” debate about the role of government. That is actually funny. The bar for this US campaign is so low that people celebrate the fact that it might include a serious debate about one of the four great issues of the day, though even that is not clear yet. And even if Ryan’s entry does spark a meaningful debate about one of the great issues facing the US — the nexus of debt, taxes and entitlements — there is little sign that Americans will seriously debate their other three major challenges: How to generate growth and upgrade the skills of every American in an age when the merger of globalization with the information technology revolution means every good job requires more education; how to meet our energy and climate challenges; and how to create an immigration policy that will treat those who are here illegally humanely, while opening the US to the world’s most talented immigrants, whom it needs to remain the world’s most innovative economy.

However, what is even more troubling is that the US needs more than debates. That is all it has been having. The US need deals on all four issues as soon as this election is over and I just do not see that happening unless “conservatives” retake the Republican Party (“Grand Old Party,” GOP) from the “radicals” — the Tea Party base. The US today desperately needs a serious, thoughtful, credible 21st-century “conservative” opposition to US President Barack Obama, and it does not have that, even though the voices are out there.

Imagine if the GOP’s position on debt was set by US Senator Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma Republican who has challenged the no-tax lunacy of Grover Norquist and served on the Simpson-Bowles commission and voted for its final plan (unlike Ryan). That plan included both increased tax revenues and spending cuts as the only way to fix the US’ long-term fiscal imbalances. Give me a Republican Party that says we have to put real tax revenues and spending cuts on the table to solve this problem, and you will get a deal with Obama, who has already offered both, although not at the scale we need. True conservatives know that both former US presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush used both tax revenue and spending cuts to fix budget shortfalls. Ryan-led GOP radicals say “no new taxes,” find all the savings through spending cuts. That is never going to happen — and should not.

Imagine if the GOP’s position on immigration followed the lead of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch. Bloomberg and Murdoch recently took to the road to make the economic case for immigration reform.

“I think we are in a crisis in this country,” the Times quoted Murdoch as saying last week. “Right now, if we get qualified people in, there should not be any nonsense about it.”

Regarding the “so-called illegal Mexicans,” Murdoch added, “give them a path to citizenship. They pay taxes; they are hard-working people. Why Mitt Romney does not do it, I have no idea, because they are natural Republicans.”

Imagine if the GOP position on energy and climate was set by Bob Inglis, a former South Carolina Republican congressman (who was defeated by the Tea Party in 2010). He now runs George Mason University’s Energy and Enterprise Initiative, which is based on the notion that climate change is real and that the best way to deal with it and the broader energy challenge is with conservative “market-based solutions” that say to the fossil fuel and wind, solar and nuclear industries: “Be accountable for all of your costs,” including the carbon and pollution you put in the air, and then we will “let the markets work” and see who wins.

This story has been viewed 1536 times.
TOP top