Earlier today, GraniteGrok spoke with NH’s former 2nd District Congressman Charles Bass…
What are the key differences between John McCain and Barack Obama with regards to their solutions to the present economic woes that ordinary New Hampshire citizens– the "Joe the plumbers"– need to know?
There are 3 areas of concern with what Obama has in store:
And of course, there’s a difference in how Obama and McCain would spend the relief money itself. Obama offers an impressive list of benefits to almost everybody, with large amounts to go directly to "working people." While trying to help such people isn’t in and of itself bad, you have to ask whether or not it’s what’s best to actually achieve the goal of fixing the broken economy.
John McCain believes that the steps taken should be those that seek to shore up and actually rebuild the economy as a whole– one that strengthens businesses– especially small business, which, here in NH provide the majority of our jobs– for the long term and provides good, stable jobs. This is what is of the greatest benefit for ordinary people.
The only proposal made by Obama that appears helpful to small businesses is his proposal to cut capital gains taxes for some, including startups. That’s fine, but capital gains are not the norm during startup times, when there is generally little to no money made at that point.
Perhaps at some risk, Senator McCain talks about cutting corporate tax rates and other taxes. This truly helps small businesses and allows those dollars to instead be left in the economy.
These are complicated issues that require underlying experience if we are to find solutions. Ask yourself– Do we need someone with a good tongue and a good speechwriter to produce "happy talk", or do we need someone that is honest and has the experience and depth to truly fix the present situation? Senator McCain will balance the need for transparency and accountability while still maintaining America’s competitiveness. It’s a delicate thing, and the last thing we need is an Obama swinging a blunt bureacratic club on Wall Street, given today’s extremely complex and new economic conditions.
A recovering economy that brings along with it jobs means that business– especially small business– needs to thrive and prosper. In many cases today, American companies are competing in a globalized marketplace through both imports and exports. Tell us about the approach to trade taken by each of the candidates and which would be better for American businesses and their employees– especially right here in the Granite State…
The first thing people need to know, as I said earlier in this converstaion, is that NAFTA has been of great benefit to New Hampshire. Many jobs, especially in places like the Pease Tradeport, are related to the growing export market. Barack Obama wants to reopen NAFTA in order to protect the unions. This is completely out of step with NH, as only 5% of our workers here belong to unions. Re negotiating NAFTA will only hurt NH businesses, and with it, jobs.
Another important trade agreement difference between the two candidates is with Colombia. McCain supports free trade with that vital South American country, recognizing it as a thriving democracy that, more than almost anyone else, has been an important and successful ally in the war on drugs coming from that area. And let’s not forget they are a strong friend that happens to be right next door to be an ever-more troubling Venezuela. The trade with Colombia, as with many of these agreements, generally is of greater benefit to us than the other way around, as they often require those nations rising to OUR standards.
The labor unions oppose the Colombia deal, so, naturally, Mr. Obama follows suit. When you look at the benefits to our nation– and to Colombia, to hold a position against is just plain crazy. This is what you get when you’re a candidate like the Illinois Senator that is so beholden to the labor unions that he can’t wake up in the morning without asking their permission about what to think.
And don’t forget, when you raise taxes, it makes our companies less competitive in the global marketplace by raising prices. That 5% of taxpayers Senator Obama talks about taxing more will affect certain NH businesses due to the nature of corporate structure which, as I can’t say enough, is a bad idea in this economy.
Switching subjects, I’m very concerned about events happening in the world that have taken a backseat in peoples’ minds due to the economy. While things are still looking good in Iraq, Afghanistan is still unsettled. Additionally, the Russians are seemingly on the move in Eastern Europe, but more importantly here in our own hemisphere in Venezuela and Alaskan airspace incursions (something not seen in several years). Do you worry that potential aggressors might seek to take advantage of an antiwar President Obama, and seize some "opportunities"?
Of course there’s always that chance, but what I really think we’re seeing right now is that the Russians are demonstrating and using their newfound oil wealth, showing their own people that they are more comfortable and don’t need the West. You can never tell. But when you add in the element of Barack Obama’s naiveté in these areas given his public statements, it is quite troubling. One must be careful when discussing one’s known and potential enemies. Again, this comes down to experience, and Senator McCain has dealt in this area for many years.
When Barack states he will hold open and unilateral discussions with anyone willing to talk, it would include North Korea. This communist nation has wanted this since the end of the war many years ago. Every president from Eisenhower to Bush has recognized this sets a wedge between us and our allies, including Japan. This is why we have long insisted on the present form of multilateral diplomacy, which, slowly, seems to have the North Koreans moving in our direction. You cannot hurt the delicate balance in the region by holding one on one talks with no preconditions. Again, McCain knows this. When Obama’s speechline promises to reap some sort of magic like none of the others before, it only emboldens our enemies.
The same goes for Iran. Ahmadinejad is a bad actor who promises the destruction of the Israel. To sit down with him, president to president, gives the madman credibility where otherwise (hopefully) he would have none. Again, this demonstrates why Obama lacks the necessary skills to tackle the delicate and difficult diplomatic tasks required of a president as he performs the duty of defending our country against those who wish us and our friends harm.
For the last question, I’d like to bring us closer to home. The Union Leader’s Drew Cline wrote an excellent piece the other day entitled, "Hodes: My 98 percent solidarity with Nancy Pelosi shows that I’m independent". In it, he notes that the current 2nd District Congressman attacked you in the 2006 campaign for voting with Bush 85% of the time, calling you a "rubber stamp."
Doesn’t that make Hodes himself even more of a "rubber stamp," and do you think that New Hampshirites really feel such a high degree of common cause with the liberal speaker from San Francisco?
(Laughing) Wow, that’s a leading question! The answers are easy… Yes, and No. Obviously he ought to be ashamed of his record, but it’s to be expected, given his leadership ambitions. You must follow the leader if you are to ingratiate yourself to her, and that is what he is doing. For the record, I was with President Bush less than 85% oof the time. When I voted, I voted in the way I wanted to vote, not the way others told me or expected me to. Hodes is out of step with our independent ways here in the Granite State, and I can safely say that Ms. Pelosi couldn’t win in either of our state’s two districts.
And let’s hope the is the same for Obama come November 4th… Thanks for speaking with GraniteGrok today, sir.
You’re welcome. And I look forward to coming on your radio show sometime as well.