The lesser of two evils

How will I vote on Tuesday? Which candidate would be a better President? Intrade currently favors Obama with roughly 6:1 odds, and it a small wonder. Obama is younger, more charismatic, more eloquent, and more attractive than McCain. Though Palin's experience is roughly on par with that of Obama -- indeed, one could make the argument that she is the most qualified of the four, having the most executive experience -- she seems intellectually unqualified to be Vice-President, let alone President, as she has demonstrated in interview after interview. Despite all this, McCain is still the better choice, for one simple reason: we cannot afford to have another New Deal of Great Society.


The Democratic Congress would likely have sufficient power to overcome all Republican veto efforts, meaning that the Democrats could pass whatever they wanted. As 3/4 of Bush's Presidency, along with history, have proven, the government that governs best governs least. When one party controls all of government, there is no strenuous debate, no moderate policy-outcomes. In the times of both the New Deal and the Great Society, government was controlled by Democrats. It was thus easier to pass policies targeted to one extreme end of the political spectrum than it would have been had there been bipartiate control of Congress. Obama has proposed a cornucopia of new governmental interventions in the free market, and with such a small Republican minority as is probable, there would be literally no limit to the amount of new reuglation that could be imposed on the American people.


Another issue that the American people fail to grasp is that increased taxes on corporations nearly always are passed on to the consumer in varying degree. Excpect in the case of monopoly, which never really happens in real life due to the vigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws, corporations generally deal with increased taxes by hiring less labor, moving production functions away from labor towards capital, and increasing prices. The result? If you are a bad worker, you lose your job. If you consume goods and services, those goods and services become more expensive. Meanwhile, the host of new Federal spending programs incents people to work less, and provides a disincentive for the accumulation of wealth. You can probably figure the rest out. All other things being equal, The Beast eats its own tail until there is nothing left.


All other things, luckily, are not equal. Our system of government works slowly, and does not pass laws that it cannot undo, eventually. With the financial panic sweeping the globe, capital is fleeing to its safehaven -- US bonds -- so there is not as much need to balance the budget. Nevertheless, I am strongly against any new government programs, especially asl we cannot really afford them at the moment. Obama's new regulations would shrink the economy relative to its performance in their abscence, so he''d have to tax more to get the same amount of government income. If McCain can follow through on his promise to cut unnecessary government spending, people could be taxed at the same rate, and more money would be contributed to paying down the deficit.


Ultimately, both candidates are far from perfect. Many of McCain's proposals are absurd, and I have grave reservations about the fear of failure, whether it be on the part of "too-big-to-fail" corporations or "innocent" homeowners who were "tricked" into buying a home mortgage they couldn't afford. I will be voting for McCain because I predict he will be able to pass fewer bills in office, making him the lesser of two evils.