The Democratic Stalemate Is Bad for the Economy

Hilary Clinton’s Pennsylvania win keeps the contest for the Democratic nomination alive. As the pre-presidential race continues, the two candidates’ populist and economically counterproductive promises get more frantic. The sooner the contest is over, the better things will be for the U.S. economy.

View the article from breakingviews here.

Comments

[deaverb]

What is missing from the analysis is that Obama is the focus for traditional Democrats with a positive, sometimes refreshingly hopeful, outlook as when I voted Democratic--for McCarthy, HHH, and McGovern. He may be getting dragged into promises, but his base want positive progress. What does that mean? Not the punitive Hillary approach of the 1994 health reform, when she had the muzzle off, with docs being punished if they go outside the proposed fed system; expropriating Exxon $; beating up companies in general. Obama may improve the fairness of health reform (such as in MA where everyone pays something, state supports those who can't pay; and docs don't get beaten up--and are noticeably happy), put a tax on oil/gas, and get tougher on business regs. But he won't intentionally "hurt" or "attack"--I believe as do many other Republicans I know. So, this fight is good for business. It virtually guarantees a Republican landslide in 2008; if Obama prevails in the nomination, the debates will be helpful--and I believe Obama will "push" McCain into some positive action. If Obama wins, he'll be positive, have an open mind, and not be into punishment. His contituents want positive change--nice for everyone, and at least not negative.

[Donald E. L. Johnson]

I think the continuing primary is educating the public. It's showing that politicians promise what they can't deliver, undermining their credibility, which is nil to begin with.

But that brings up the question: Are we so elitist that we think voters are so naive that they believe all the promises being made by the presidential candidates? Will the talk shows and bloggers ever get around to highlighting the limited powers of presidents, given the powers of Congress and the courts to slow their drives toward whatever?

Yes, if a Democrat is elected, a lot of liberal programs will be enacted, but will an Obama or Clinton be politically inclined or able to enact legislation that's as extreme as their promises? Neither will win with a landslide comparable to LBJ's 1964 stomping of Goldwater. There will be no new Medicare/Medicaid fiasco.

[iThinkBig]

Continued Socialism will only delay the unwinding of the financial system. Drastic action is needed now and all Congress can do is focus on how much they hate Bush and investigae baseball players using steroids. This is the worst government I have seen the last four years in my entire life. Selfish, corrupt, confused.

[von Murgenthal]

Hey Deaver, since you voted for all the stalwart socialist-democrats,
how did you like Jimmy Carters rule ?
21 % prime rate !
17 - 19 % mortgage rates !
12 % unemployment !
etc. etc.
etc.
etc.
If you liked the four years of the incompetent Carter,
You ' ll love Obama ( and Michelle and Wright and etc. etc. )

[Jimbo]

I predict an Obama presidency will be Jimmy Carter with a sun tan.