Matthew Yglesias (February 08, 2008) - Important Things We Haven't Talked About (Politics)

Re: the Fed, it's really not a good idea to make monetary policy any more political than it already is. Independent monetary policy is the main thing that separates 3rd-world countries from first-world ones.

Posted by too many steves | February 8, 2008 2:27 PM

How about the big one: The new forth branch of government (OVP), the Unitary Executive, the termination of Congressional oversight over the Executive Branch, and the general transformation of the presidency into an unaccountable dictatorship?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | February 8, 2008 2:27 PM

Cranky beat me to it. That is indeed the Big One.

Posted by Mike | February 8, 2008 2:29 PM

This is an EXCELLENT list.

Well, except for Israel/Palestine. Nothing useful is gonna get said there.

Re the Fed, TMS may be right or wrong. (I happen to think he's wrong.) But Matt's point is just that the candidates aren't saying anything either way.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | February 8, 2008 2:35 PM

good list - I would definitely like to hear ALL of the candidate (McCain too) put on record disavowing the unitary executive theory and explaining what powers the current President has asserted that they would NOT assert if they were elected.

Posted by yep | February 8, 2008 2:38 PM

I agree about the discussion of judicial philosophy, but that will probably be a nightmare in general. However, there are some other substantive issues I would like to hear more on:

1) Environmental policy beyond green jobs: Should we have a carbon tax, trading caps, new fuel standards?

2) Education: How will the candidates deal with NCLB, and also how much involvement dp they intend the federal government to have when dealing with education.

3) National service: It was an issue that came up early in the campaign, but has dropped out.

4) The rise of China: In general, foreign policy beyond the war itself has been lacking from the policy discussions.

5) Immigration: I know it is a touchy issue for the Dems, but I'd like to hear more things beyond bickering about driver's licenses. To what extent will the candidates create visiting worker programs and how do they intend to handle the current illegal immigrants living here.

Posted by Jonathan | February 8, 2008 2:40 PM

I would suggest that perhaps the reason the candidates feel the need to keep talking about the same issues is two-fold. One it works. They've both been successful enough so far with their strategies that they've tied (with in my opinion the tie favoring Obama since clearly he's the one moving up in the polls, name recognition and fundraising.) The second reason is that they keep moving through new states, where they haven't been campaigning where their audiences haven't been repeatedly exposed to the same stump speeches, policy positions and platforms.

The reason they sound repetitive to you a political reporter is because you've been following them both closely for a long time. I'm not sure voters in Nebraska, Washington State and Louisiana have been as much, and we haven't seen a primary process go on this long in very long time where the opportunity to sound repetitive sets in.

Posted by ken | February 8, 2008 2:45 PM

If you want to find out what Baracks view on the issues are, you can find them out on his webpage. Barack's very open about them.

Posted by TLM | February 8, 2008 2:52 PM

Check out Obama's policy paper at his website. Addresses each and every issue you outlined.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

That said, he's remarkably silent on the stump about the nitty-gritties. I've wondered why for awhile now... Part of me thinks that his campaign has convinced him American's eyes will roll into the back of their heads if he starts talking about section 179 deductions treasury bond buybacks. I agree, he's going to need to get a bit more substantive on the campaign trail, lest people begin to wonder what substance he really brings to the table. His cred as an impressive communicator will definitely be tested on this front.

Posted by Jake in Milwaukee | February 8, 2008 2:52 PM

Here are some other issues:

Reducing the inequality gap

Revamping the infrastructure as seen with the levees in New Orleans, the collapsed bridge in Minnesota and the pipe explosion in NYC it is obvious that something needs to be done. The republicans with their anti-gov't rhetoric and tax cut have seriously undercut our investment in infrastructure.

Getting rid of Abstinence only education

Posted by MGJ | February 8, 2008 2:54 PM

I concur with you Jake, I would prefer to hear Barack discuss and argue these issues on a substantial deep level. It's not something we've seen from him yet and it's a concern. Having issues on your website is different than personally owning and discussing the issues, it's just not enough for me.

Posted by Jonathan | February 8, 2008 3:00 PM

I concur with you Jake, I would prefer to hear Barack discuss and argue these issues on a substantial deep level. It's not something we've seen from him yet and it's a concern. Having issues on your website is different than personally owning and discussing the issues, it's just not enough for me.

Yep, agreed. It's worrisome (not concern-troll worrisome) that he's not doing so yet because he has that 64-page paper that's jam-packed full of policy. His more fervent supporters are printing this thing out and reading it, passing it around. Buddy of mine in WA is bringing it with her to the caucuses tomorrow. But he has to start talkin'. Spell it out. When people begin questioning your record, or whether you have any real policy proposals, bust this thing out. Give a shout-out to this paper in a debate. People will only buy into the rhetoric for so long.

Posted by Jake in Milwaukee | February 8, 2008 3:06 PM

I would be interested in hearing more from the candidates about Urban and Rural development, especially in relation to the dominance of the state and local tax base in the Suburban space between the two. I am very much in favor of universal health care coverage but as the candidates discuss government moving into a sphere traditionally dominated by private carriers, I have noticed a deafening silence regarding the private sector's movement into spheres traditionally undertaken by government entities, beginning with but not limited to infrastructure. There has been some discussion of the decay of the nation's infrastructure, most frequently stemming from discussions of the levies or the bridge collapse, though I have heard little detail. The candidates tend to talk about these issues in broad terms, if at all, and often the focus is on revitalization rather than innovation. Here too I am interested in the technological gulf visible between modern cities in other westernized countries and the US, parallel in some ways to the technological gulf between rural and non-rural America.

Posted by NJ Gates | February 8, 2008 3:08 PM

This is dumb. Maybe you are tired of the primary bk you havent been paying attention.
* Budget deficits: clinton has already answered this question--in fact every time she answers another question she answers this question.
* Federal Reserve: Greenspan and GHWB were sworn enemies. how would you actually take it in a new direction? make krugman fed chair.
* Judiciary: a return to liberal jurisprudence? what the hell are you talking about: who appointed stevens? who appointed blackmun? who appointed brennan? who appointed warren? marshall got on the court bk lbj forced clark off when he made his son the AG. besides the roberts vote already answered this question. they got this question in vegas and obama gave the best answer-
* Unilateral preventive war as a non-proliferation policy: never mind that the idea that a preemptive strike would actually lead to proliferation, Clinton wouldnt sign on to the Levin amendment bk she was worried about ceding us sovereignty to the un. that pretty much answers your question there.
* Israel: even when they ignore it it is the cornerstone of us mideast policy, its like asking the candidates if they plan to have a budget
* Root causes: why does us fp have to be so incredibly reductionist? you think yemeni radicalism is the same as the radicalism in the phillipines?
* War on terror: since when did a bush talking point become a substantive fp concern.

Posted by JC | February 8, 2008 3:10 PM

Budget deficits: Are Clinton or Obama committed to reducing them, or are they open to expanding them in order to establish new programs that they think are especially important? And what programs might qualify?

Since Obama and Clinton already have dumb, new programs (Clinton wants to nationalize pre-school) and don't discuss the deficit, I think you have your answer.

Federal Reserve: Are Clinton or Obama happy with the past 25 or so years of conservative Republican leadership at the Fed or would they like to take things in a new direction?

That would assume there are qualified left-wing economists. I'm not sure there are very many of those. Marxists don't count. Neither do liars like Krugman.

Judiciary: Assuming a Democratic Senate allows for relatively easy confirmations, do Clinton or Obama intend to continue appointing 1990s-style moderates, or would we see a return to the liberal jurisprudence of a Thurgood Marshall?

Talking about that can only hurt them in the general.

Unilateral preventive war as a non-proliferation policy: Should we disavow this aspect of the Bush National Security Strategy or are we going to stick with it and hope that more conciliatory rhetoric can make it work?

Ditto. It's not preventative war that disgusts the American people. It's Iraq.

Israel: Any number of things come to mind, but in the most general sense do Clinton or Obama see this as an important issue it's worth focusing on in 2009, or is it a headache the intend to ignore until a crisis breaks out or they're lame ducks?

If Obama or Clinton want to change policy toward Israel, it would be suicide to talk about it openly--even after winning the election.

Root causes: Does reducing the appeal of al-Qaeda really require the transformation of the Muslim world into a series of democracies, or are there aspects of US foreign policy that drive radicalism?

Neither. There are aspects of US foreign policy that put us in the crosshairs, but the "Islamic World's" radicalism is due to that culture's inability to progress beyond miedevalism (I should note that Muslim immigrants to the United States seem to be transcending this, though Muslim immigrants elsewhere aren't). When a woman is sentenced to gang-rape or slaughtered by a family member because of "honor" concerns--or when a filmmaker has a knife plunged through his heart for daring to criticize a belief structure--or when apostasy is punishable by death--there is no honest way of blaming the United States, Israel, or Britain. As far as Democracy, it will surely be symptomatic of Islam's rejection of miedevalism, but it is not, as the Neocons, what will cause Islam's modernization. Only Islam can take that step (I won't hold my breath).

But Clinton and Obama can't say any of this (if they even think it), since they know they will have to work with the leaders of miedeval countries--leaders whose populations won't countenance such diplomacy once the American Head of State has more-or-less called them barbarians.

War on terror: If, as both candidates affirm, we're in a "war on terror" when might that war end? What, if any, special war powers do Clinton and Obama think the state of war justifies? Or is this a pure metaphor that, like the "war on poverty," is simply supposed to signify a high level of commitment?

More political suicide.

These questions have no appeal to the "giant open plain," only to the fringes of discourse (which doesn't necessarily make all of them wrong things to ask).

Posted by Shinyk | February 8, 2008 3:19 PM

Matt: I wrote a piece on Obama on preventive war here. Short version: he's against it.

Posted by hilzoy | February 8, 2008 3:22 PM

I cut and paste this item that would help in comparing and contrastiing the candidate's positions on poverty.

Hillary Clinton - “Pragmatic Solutions for Reducing Poverty and Inequality”

1. Creating the Youth Opportunity Agenda
2. Invest in home visitation programs to help first time parents prepare and care for children.
3. Provide $10 billion in Universal pre-K (expanding Head Start and Early Headstart)
4. Over five years, double federal support for mentoring and early intervention programs - targeting 1 million students
5. Invest $100 million in a new public/private internship program for youth in high school and college
6. Create a $3,500 tuition tax credit
7. Increase the Pell Grant Maximum (and include an annual adjustment)
8. Provide $500 million to community colleges and $250 million to state colleges to strengthen retention programs
9. Expand the EITC
10. Create 5 million “green collar” jobs by investing in clean energy and efficiency
11. Tie increases in congressional salaries to increases for the minimum wage.
12. American Health Choices Plan - refundable tax credits for premiums, ensuring that insurance companies cannot deny individuals coverage for pre-existing conditions; expanding COBRA to make sure leaving a job or switching jobs will continue coverage1
13. Create a 1 billion dollar fund to provide federal support to housing trust funds established by state/county/municipal governments
14. Planned crackdowns on unscrupulous brokers, mortgage lending abuses; avoiding foreclosures
15. New America Retirement Account - dollar for dollar matching refundable tax credit for the first $1000 saved up to a family income of $60,000 and a 50% match for the 1st $1,000 saved by those making between $60K and $100K.

Barack Obama - “Tackling Poverty and Inequality in America”

1. Replicate the Harlem Children’s Zone model and create Promise Neighborhoods in 20 cities across the country. (Sites will be selected by the government - cities and private entities will be required to pay 50% of costs to ensure involvement)
2. Expand early childhood education, federal grants and school loans
3. Sponsor Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Legislation - providing financial support to fathers who pay their child support, cracking down on fathers who don’t; initiatives to stop the cycle of domestic violence that takes a toll on families
4. Expand the Nurse Family Partnership program which offers home visits to low income expectant mothers
5. Double funding for the Federal Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program that helps low income individuals get to their jobs and day care services
6. Add $1 billion in funding for innovative transitional jobs and career pathway programs over five years
7. Triple the EITC for full time workers who make minimum wage; increase EITC benefits for families with three or more children; expand EITC benefits for childless workers
8. Create a universal healthcare plan which mandates child coverage and provides adults with an optional, low cost high quality plan
9. Fund $250 million per year to create a national network of public-private business incubators (to assist with start up advice and costs)
10. Earmark more SBA funds to minority businesses; direct more venture capital funding to untapped communities
11. Closing the digital divide; increasing internet access in urban/rural areas
12. Affordable housing trust fund to add 112,000 new affordable units in mixed income neighborhoods.
13. Roll back cuts to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) which provides housing assistance to inner cities
14. Sponsor Stop Fraud Legislation to create a definition of mortgage fraud, strengthen lender penalties, and mandate mortgage companies to provide accurate info about options to reveal the true cost of the mortgage

Posted by MGJ | February 8, 2008 3:25 PM

1) A very BIG issue that's being largely ignored is how do we change the WAY information is disseminated (or not) to the voters in the news media, how can our national discourse be moderated to be more rational, and whether the Superrich still should run things while our Members of Congress merely perform various kubuki dances for our entertainment.

2) How should the Constitution be modified? What laws should be passed?

3) After all, Hillary and Bill controlled both Houses of Congress and the WHite House in 1992-1994 -- yet squandered ALL opportunities to change the rules of the game to make things more equitable for the middle class.

4) Instead , they laid the groundwork for the Republicans to take over Congress for 12 years and the White House for the last 7. With catastrophic results for the national interest.

So now the winner of the election in Nov will inherit a Treasury with almost $10 Trillion in debt, a Social Security underfunded by $8 Trillion, and a Medicare system underfunded by over $40 Trillion.

Plus an economy in deep trouble due to globalization -- a trading system which works only so long as the American people bankrupt themselves with a $1 Trillion/year defense budget
to maintain global law and order.

5) The Democrats should take power next January with one SINGLE thought:
NEVER AGAIN

Posted by Don Williams | February 8, 2008 3:26 PM

Another issue: what we need to do to prepare for the aging of our population--not only w/ regard to Social Security and Medicare but a wide range of issues such as incentives to enter careers that have to do with care of the elderly, research funding for Alzheimer's and other diseases of old age, incentives for the development of more creative and humane care facilities, respite care for caregivers.

Many readers of this blog may be too young to be concerned about these issues on behalf of either themselves or their parents, but the day comes. With small families, geographical dispersion of families, and full-time employment of both men and women, family care for the elderly is just not a realistic alternative.

Posted by THS | February 8, 2008 3:27 PM

re: # Unilateral preventive war as a non-proliferation policy: Should we disavow this aspect of the Bush National Security Strategy or are we going to stick with it and hope that more conciliatory rhetoric can make it work?

There is no evidence that this has ever been a policy of the Bush Administration. They have claimed the right to invade sovereign nations but there is no evidence that they considered the nations in question to have anything to do with non-proliferation or national security issues.

Posted by rk | February 8, 2008 3:33 PM

1) There can be many issues addressed by the new administration.

But there must be one overriding goal: The destruction of the Republican Party.

Because it is truly evil. As we have all seen.

2) Not the destruction of Republican voters -- but of the Republican leadership. We should explain things in such a way that 4 years hence, not 100 people in this country will admit to ever having voted Republican. People like Delay and Lott should count themselves lucky if they are allowed to escape into obscurity -- instead of being hung from lampposts.

Posted by Don Williams | February 8, 2008 3:34 PM

I think that what cut and paste should answer question no. 1. Both will increase the budget deficit but it won't be extreme because they are both in favor of repealing the Bush tax cuts.

Posted by MGJ | February 8, 2008 3:42 PM

what we need to do to prepare for the aging of our population--not only w/ regard to Social Security and Medicare but a wide range of issues such as incentives to enter careers that have to do with care of the elderly, research funding for Alzheimer's and other diseases of old age, incentives for the development of more creative and humane care facilities, respite care for caregivers.

Incentives to enter careers dealing with the elderly? Democrats can't decry corporate well-fare and suggest it at the same time.

If more people are needed, salaries will rise to attract them.

Lack of progressive understanding for even basic economic concepts such as this one is a reason why qualified candidates for Fed Chairman skew heavily conservative or libertarian.

Furthermore, just what do you propose be done with extra funding for Alzheimer's research. What's lacking is a path, not funding. Money doesn't buy ideas. Wanting a solution doesn't make one appear.

Posted by Shinyk | February 8, 2008 3:47 PM

Perhaps too narrow a focus, but I would like some one to address the different needs of elementary and secondary school teacher training. I think a large part of the reason secondary teachers leave is that the training they get is in fact geared towards elementary school classroom management. My experience with formal classroom management education has all been focused on the elementary school level, even though I was training to be a high school teacher. The things that work with 4th graders do not work with 10th graders. Trying to reform this disparity might actually help retain teachers.

I'd also like to hear about:

a) expanding support for the military, the personnel and families, not the DOD's ability to wage war per se

b) reforming payroll taxes

c) more specifics on immigration reform, guest worker programs, and not building a fence through Big Bend National Park

d) more on the environment, carbon taxes and other innovations

e) transparency in government operations

Posted by LL | February 8, 2008 3:55 PM

We get the elections we deserve. The superficiality of our elections is due to a bipartisan conspiracy to endow candidates with a mysterious "right" to control their own messages, and to confine national media discussion to meta-meta-meta-analysis of trivialities. We even admire politicians for their surpassing skill in exercising this kind of Orwellian control over perceived political reality. We do little to assert our own right to know, or to force them to answer the questions we would really like answers to. In the bipolar, two-party dream realm of pseudo-democratic America, we are so anxious about the need to defeat the other guys that we are complicit in the failure to call bullshit on the nonsense, lies and fluff peddled by our own guys.

Here are a few of my own favorite omissions. They aren't that significant, other than the fact the they comprise some of the most profound global or national challenges facing us. Don't worry; we probably won't face them. We rarely do.

1. The global energy and resource economy, the security challenges it faces, the racing demand and strained supplies that characterize it, the increasingly dangerous and pitched competition for control over it, and the global resource wars that are almost sure to afflict the coming generation given our abject incapacity to address this problem and work cooperatively, and on a global scale, with others in the world who share this problem with us.

2. About a sixth of the world's population now lives in miserable slums in stagnant megacities, where they are seemingly locked out of the global economy. For the first time in human history, over half the world's population is urbanized. We may be seeing the growth of the sort of conditions that brought the French Revolution, but which will this time release their energies on a global scale.

3. Nuclear proliferation, further evidence of the depressing inability of humanity to grasp and come to grips with even the most obvious of historical lessons.

4. The increasingly evident realization that the Iraq war was not just a "blunder" but was, and is, an atrocity on a massive scale. Two independent organizations have pegged the excess deaths due to violence in Iraq at over a million. The war has produced four to five million refugees. The economic prospects of a generation of Iraqis have been blighted. Priceless historical artifacts have been barbarously destroyed. And the war has produced an anarchic devolution of Iraqi society that will take decades to reverse. So far, nobody has really been punished or held accountable for this atrocity. But for many years people all over the world will speak of it in tones similar to those reserved for Rwanda, and torment themselves with "never again" recriminations over their failure to avert it.

5. The fact that American culture appears to be in a condition of profound and accelerating decline; poisoned by hatred, torture, fear, illiberality, cruelty and ignorance; degenerating from religious fanaticism, social fragmentation and aimless atomization; and entertaining itself on the way to the grave with a popular cultural that is almost unbelievably cynical and debased, and infatuated with violence, sexual objectification, addiction, sadism and ruthless interpersonal competition.

6. The fact that my job sucks.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 8, 2008 4:00 PM

This is on the top of your agenda?:

Budget deficits: Are Clinton or Obama committed to reducing them, or are they open to expanding them in order to establish new programs that they think are especially important? And what programs might qualify?

After 7 years of hammering Bush (often rightly) on fiscal irresponsibility, how deficits don't matter? You mean those were all just partisan attacks? WTF?

Somehow, this relevant news item didn't get a lot of attention in the political press: FT: "Moody's Says Spending Threatens U.S. Sovereign Debt Rating".

Jim Cramer is right: Brazil and the U.S. are moving in opposite directions. Brazil is energy independent, runs a primary budget surplus, and is about to have its sovereign debt rating raised to investment grade; we refuse to make use of our domestic energy resources, run budget deficits, and are in danger of having our sovereign debt downgraded within the next decade. When Moody's warns us about entitlement spending, the Democrats' response is to propose new entitlements. If only our two leading Democratic candidates were as smart and pragmatic about economics as Brazil's 4th grade dropout president.

Posted by Fred | February 8, 2008 4:11 PM

LL, by contrast, has some pretty good points,

a) expanding support for the military, the personnel and families, not the DOD's ability to wage war per se

This won't be a presidential issue because it, thankfully, should be addressed by then. Rep. King (R) and Senator Kerry (D) are working on a bi-partisan bill that will be ready by the end of the month, expanding benefits to any reservists or national guard who become activated in a time of war. Bill O'Reilly, to his credit, has threatened to send that worm of his to the private home of any Congressman or Senator who obstructs its passage.

Perhaps too narrow a focus, but I would like some one to address the different needs of elementary and secondary school teacher training.

From what I remember of the one or two education-related courses I took in college, this is a very real problem. However, it's not a federal one (thank God). I can't think of anything worse than federal involvement in dictating Universite curriculae, which is what any national fix would require.

Posted by Shinyk | February 8, 2008 4:14 PM

Just downloaded BHO's policy paper -- it's size B5 paper. Good lord, he must be in a Euro-trash sleeper cell.

Posted by Matt B | February 8, 2008 4:14 PM

My take:

Budget deficits:
Federal Reserve:

They seem pretty similar and have similarly liberal records. Hillary's campaigning on her husband's record. Basically I think he got lucky with the economy (Tech bubble, housing bubble) just as Bush I was unlucky. There is a classic scene where Rubin and the economic conservatives at the beginning convinced Clinton to drop his campaign promises of spending for deficit reduction and he admitted he was basically an Eisenhower Republican. Then he ended welfare as we knew it, which will no doubt hurt some of those uninformed voters in the current recession.

Judiciary:
Here I don't find any of Bill Clinton's nominations inspiring. They are all centrists. I'd hope Obama could do better.

Obama has been much better on matters of democracy and transparent government and campaign finance/lobbying reform.
Hillary thinks things are fine, her husband in the 90s was horrible. This is why she is the insider/establishment candidate.

Unilateral preventive war as a non-proliferation policy:
Israel:
Root causes:
War on terror:
I think they both would be pretty good, even though as an Obamabot liberal hawk, I think Hillary would be better.

The tone/style/tactics of Billary's campaign have been appalling. Florida, Michigan, etc. There is good chance this would be their behavior in office.

Obama and Hillary may agree on alot of what needs to be done, but if Obama gets enough Obama Republicans and independents he will be better able to get things done and change the terms of debate on all of these issue and help create a long term sustainable movement which doens't end once he leaves office.

Hillary might even lose - thereby it doesn't matter what she thinks - if she and Bill galvanize the rightwing into supporting McCain.

Posted by Peter K. | February 8, 2008 4:17 PM

OK, I'll bite.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 8, 2008 4:24 PM

Even if "we" end up talking about those things, it will be at most a one-sided conversation as the candidates make statements that will go unchallenged. The only way around that is to have real debates. The Atlantic could put those on very easily - using proxies for the candidates if they won't show - but for some reason or other they won't.

Posted by TLB | February 8, 2008 4:47 PM

How about trade? They have used similar rhetoric, but is Obama opposed to the Colombia, Panama, and South Korea trade deals, as is Hillary?

We've written about this here:
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/01/obama-economic-policy-clinton-vs-obama.html

What do they think about the drug war in general? Specifically, do they support the pending Merida Initiative?

Posted by Economists for Obama | February 8, 2008 4:48 PM

TMS is right about the independence of the Fed. We don't need it to be more politicized. But he's wrong if he's suggesting (he may not be) that there aren't questions to be asked that could push the Fed in a more progressive direction without politicizing it.

Let's take as an example the inflationary pressure of wages. Inflation is responsive to both median and mean wages, though not equally so. However, if the mean wage remains relatively steady while the median wage rises, and if median wages are the only changing inflationary pressure around, the rising wages of the working class will outpace inflation. It's not an impossible argument for a Fed nominee to suggest that raising rates at the first sign of rising median wages would be jumping the gun, given the prevailing economic climate.

This is not an overtly political question. Moreover, because inflationary pressures almost never occur in isolation, it's not something that would tie the chairman down in the real world. But it would offer some idea of how the nominee prioritized relative competing concerns. Understand, this kind of priority wont' always square with what the president, even a very liberal one, wants to see. It's the Fed's job to hold its ground sometimes. But to change the Fed's governing philosophy, isn't to turn it into an arm of the White House political apparatus.

Posted by jhupp | February 8, 2008 4:54 PM

I agree that this is a good list to start with. One good way to start answering some of these questions that will also let you answer the question of who to interview for your new podcast would be to interview Clinton and Obama advisors about these topics.

As you've noted, the candidates (and probably the MSM) are loathe to have detailed discussions (reporting) about these topics, but I'm sure you could get some of their advisors to talk at length. The role of current advisors in potential presidencies is one of the questions that I would like to see discussed more...especially with regard to their specific policy opinions.

Posted by Matt | February 8, 2008 5:00 PM

The war on drugs. They are putting young men in jail for selling drugs to willing buyers and you are worried about the Budget deficits!

Posted by Floccina | February 8, 2008 5:04 PM

Ironically, the trench warfare happened because the "leaders" could not figure out how to flank the German-Austrian lines, either in the Balkans at the south end or the Baltic at the north.

And it may take a third party to flank today's political trench warfare. Polly Toynbee points out in today's Guardian that the insurgent war in Afghanistan is self-financing as long as drug prohibition remains in place. Besides costing us $50 billion a year in enforcement, it costs us domestically extra billions to pay for drug company substitutes for morphine and cannabis- not to mention the creation of a police state, with the temptation to cops to take bribes.

Eventually something's gotta give- our economy and freedoms, or the drug wars. I doubt either Hillary or Obama will be part of the solution here.

Posted by serial catowner | February 8, 2008 5:47 PM

Jake in Milwaukee, I haven't read the full "Blueprint for Change" yet, but running a couple searches for the first of Matt's questions I was interested in (judiciary) found no results.

Posted by washerdreyer | February 8, 2008 5:49 PM

There's a reason why the candidates aren't doing as Matt suggests. It's like when a TV commercial comes on that you just don't get. It's not because the commercial is bad; it's because the pitch is aimed at someone who doesnt think like you.

Even though Matt wants public discussion of a longer list of policy issues, the campaigns know this is a minority opinion, and probably a small minority at that.

The candidates are trying to appeal to voters on the points that most powerfully influence voting behavior. A candidate's view on the Federal Reserve may be interesting but is unlikely to influence voting behavior. Voting behavior often comes down to intangibles -- a sense of who the person really is, why they're running for office, and whether you can trust their skills, their ideas and their motives. The general impression is more important than the specifics.

The truly gifted candidates can discuss seemingly wonky policy questions in a way that also hits people on a gut level. They use the issue to illuminate the candidate's values and way of thinking. When done skilfully this is the best kind of politics. And I feel like Hillary and Obama are both pretty good at this compared to most politicians -- Obama better than HRC but they're both good.

So give our candidates some credit -- they know their business better than we do.

Posted by yorkist | February 8, 2008 6:00 PM

One fact will dominate politics for the next generation: Uncle Sam is going broke at an accelerating rate.

Our republicratic "leadership" hasn't even got the vocabulary to talk about this let alone the honesty and courage to deal with it. But no matter. Harsh reality is going to change this county's politics beyond recognition and sober people up big time.

Posted by kafka | February 8, 2008 6:32 PM

Stoller blogged about this a few weeks ago in a post title "The Five Untouchable Symptoms." These are the issues that no one is really talking about.

Subject: End the War on Drugs Factoid: There are 1 million people put in jail for doing what Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George Bush have done.
Marijuana is America's largest cash crop, and it is responsible for around 225,000 arrests a year. Overall, the war on drugs incarcerates around 1 million people a year. Direct spending on the war on drugs this year is $50 billion dollars, about $600 a second. Around half of high school seniors have consumed marijuana (pdf). Simply put, why do some people go to jail for marijuana and cocaine, and others run for President?

Subject: End corporate media ownership:
Factoid: General Electric, a major defense contractor and conglomerate, owns NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC.

Our media is owned and controlled by a few major companies. One of them, GE, has major defense contracts, and strong incentives for war. It also has huge interests in the financial industry. Why is this company controlling our news content again, while we are in two wars? And why did the FCC just relax ownership requirements in local areas, again?

Subject: End American empire
Factoid: As of 1998, America had troops stationed in 144 countries around the world.

There are any number of ways to talk about this issue, from disparities of foreign aid to complaints about the IMF to the war in Iraq to the CIA and blowback. The bottom line is that America has troops everywhere in the world, it's expensive, the way it is done now is a bad idea, and we need to bring them home and return to being a republic. That or we need to figure out how to be a responsible international power again and get rid of the Blackwater-style military we are building and the gunrunning vigilante CIA-style Cold War and post-Cold War nonsense.

Subject: End the war economy:
Factoid: Money for Iraq keeps passing in 'emergency' legislation to avoid being subject to budget rules.

For some reason, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans argue that they are fiscally responsible while ignoring their votes to spend 700-800B a year on war. Libertarian charlatans like energy expert Amory Lovins think that the corporate sector and the military sector are legitimate parts of the state, but that other spending is wasteful. The whole notion of the military not being a part of the overall government is crazy, and reflective of a huge, corrupt, and Soviet-style misallocation of capital through secret budgets and fear.

Subject: End the cradle-to-prison superhighway
Factoid: 2 million people are in prison in America, by far the highest total of any other country in the world.

Think slavery has ended? Think torture is 'new'? Think again. With two million people in prison, and tens of thousands of sexual assaults every year, prison is a huge industry and a horrendous abridgment of the idea that is America.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2924

While the candidates are likely to at least address a lot of what Matt is talking about, no one will be addressing Stoller's "five untouchable symptoms" this cycle. That's a shame, because they go to the root of the problems and challenges facing the country.

Posted by Fox | February 8, 2008 6:42 PM

I envy everyone who wants more detail from the candidates. I don't have time to absorb the detail that's already available. So I'll provide a "low information" person's opinions so far.

* Budget deficits: Thanks to Reagan/Bush/Bush, no one cares about budget deficits anymore. But remembering Bill Clinton (see below), I'll give Obama the advantage.

* Federal Reserve: I suppose the Clintons have been happy with the Fed, since it gave them absolutely everything they could possibly want for more than eight years. But governing as "one of the best recent Republican presidents" was too high a price. I don't think Hillary Clinton would repeat that, but I'm holding it against her anyway.

* Judiciary: Both will appoint the most liberal judges they think they can get away with. I expect Obama's taste in judges to be a little closer to my own, ie a little more aclu elitist.

* Unilateral preventive war: This might be a deal breaker for me with Clinton. I'm still thinking about it. She's lucky that McCain is even worse. Anyway, huge advantage Obama.

* Israel: Wouldn't it be the coolest Clinton betrayal ever if a second term Hillary sold out Israel? I have no idea what Clinton or Obama will actually do about Israel, but I'm positive that I wouldn't hate Obama's policy nearly as much.

* Root causes: Huge advantage Obama. Clinton is way too Bush Lite on this.

* War on terror: Same as the last. Huge advantage Obama.

Posted by Gary Sugar | February 8, 2008 6:59 PM

Jake in Milwaukee, I haven't read the full "Blueprint for Change" yet, but running a couple searches for the first of Matt's questions I was interested in (judiciary) found no results.

Posted by washerdreyer | February 8, 2008 5:49 PM

Page 48, his proposal to strengthen civil rights, take action on hate crimes, end voter suppression, address disparities in our criminal justice system....

End employment discrimination:

"Obama will work to overturn the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that curtails racial minorities’ and women’s ability to challenge pay discrimination. Obama will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work."

Eliminate Sentencing Disparities:

"Obama believes the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated."

Expand Use of Drug Courts:

"Obama will give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior."

One can assume that a significant shift from current Democratic Party strategy in choosing SCOTUS appointees would be necessary to address any of these proposals.

Posted by Jake in Milwaukee | February 8, 2008 7:04 PM

Let me add several more:

1. Vouchers as part of the national healthcare policy. That would cover Obama's "people can't afford a mandate" and Clinton's push for a mandate.

2. Peak Oil. Good doorknob, nobody's discussing this.

3. American exceptionalism and imperialsm-lite as part of foreign policy.

Posted by SocraticGadfly | February 8, 2008 9:33 PM

Posted by SocraticGadfly | February 8, 2008 9:33 PM

Good points. Also noted in Barack's policy paper, pertaining to point (1):

Subsidies: Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.

As well as,

(2) National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating
insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend on how healthy you are. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.

Peak oil is somewhat of a third-rail issue because the science is still inconclusive. Everyone agrees there's a finite supply out there, Barack's plan (and Hillary's, for that matter) includes reducing our dependence on oil through energy efficiency programs, domestic production investments, and a doubling of fuel standards within 18 years.

As for American exceptionalism, I'm not sure what you're referring to. If, by imperialism-lite, you refer to our imposition of values and economic standards on others, I don't see anything changing too drastically on that front, either from the presidential candidates or the Congress. Afterall, we are the biggest player in the field and it would be impossible for our influence to wane in that respect, barring any decline in our position in the world as a whole. As for military misadventure, that's certainly a huge problem. Both Hillary and Barack have vowed to end the war. My personal belief is that Obama has considerably more credibility to end the war and reassess our military priorities, but decent people can and will disagree.

Posted by Jake in Milwaukee | February 8, 2008 10:11 PM

Matt: "That said, one reason the campaign often feels so tedious is that both campaigns keep talking about the same very narrow set of things over and over again."

And so do some bloggers, dude.

How many times are you going to rehash "I like Obama over Hillary, even though they're both the same"?

"and for the record, I don't take the left-most side on all of these questions)"

Getting you "on the record" is, however, is like explaining sex to a Terminator. You STILL haven't answered my two questions on Iran - and you never will.

The list of questions was pretty good, however. The problem is that I've been discussing some of the foreign policy ones here repeatedly over the last couple weeks, and nobody cares. And none of your posts have addressed the substantial problems both of the Dem candidates notions of foreign policy have that I have pointed out.

In fact, it's questionable whether any of your questions will ever be addressed by either of the candidates, since there's no upside to them doing so.

If they come down on the wrong side of the Israel-Palestinian situation, in particular, they risk losing the nomination (not that Hillary has any chance of coming down on the wrong side, in any event.)

Answering any of the other foreign policy questions risks revealing how little they understand anything about the foreign policy situation, and about the countries involved, compared to experts like Juan Cole, Barnett Rubin, and others.

Answering any of the "War on Terror" questions: ditto.

And even if they answered those questions, ninety nine percent of the electorate couldn't parse the issues well enough to make a decision based on the answers anyway. So what do the candidates gain by addressing anything other than "personality" and "big-ticket" issues like the economy and the Iraq war? Too much risk of demonstrating how unfit they are to hold office.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 8, 2008 10:43 PM

"'The Five Untouchable Symptoms.' These are the issues that no one is really talking about."

Good post.

Unfortunately, none of it is going to happen - not under either Democratic candidate.

Under McCain, all of them will get critically worse. Under the Dems, all of them will get seriously worse.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 8, 2008 10:55 PM

I want to know which president is going to use his or her John Yoo-engorged Article II power to win the war on poverty. Surely if the executive can unilaterally decide to violate all norms of human decency and both domestic and international law in order to fight a criminal conspiracy, it could, say, unilaterally enforce a highly confiscatory inheritance tax and use it to pay for college tuition. Because if there are too many poor people, that will lead to insurrection, and, since protecting the country from insurrection is within the core Article II power of the president (under the CIC of the militia clause), all that needs to happen is to write the memo.

Posted by mr.m | February 8, 2008 11:10 PM

Matt, you are being a coward - along with many bloggers. Take a fucking stand! Endorse someone or stop the stupid criticism of why no candidate is talking about the nonsense you care about. Your issues are very real, but will not help anyone get elected. So make up myour mind and go for it! Mind you, if you don't go for Obama, I'll lose all respect for you and never read your blog again. But every decision in life has consequences.

Posted by Tim | February 8, 2008 11:51 PM

I think your list is an excellent beginning, to which I would add:

1.) Campaign finance reform-What are they going to do about it? Is public financing going to remain a pipe dream?

2.) Election reform, uniform voting throughout all the states and territories with paper receipts - What are they going to do to make it happen?

3.) Reinstating the 'Fairness Doctrine'; where do the candidates intend to take the FCC, re-regulating, ownership, etc. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was a disaster for the people of the U.S. I don't hear Senator Clinton talking about that and what she would do to fix it.

4.) Corporate personhood - I'd like to hear the candidates on that subject and if they would be open to directing the Solicitor General to make ending it a priority.

[Everything up to this point is, in my opinion, the fastest, surest means by which the nation can become a government of, by and for the people. Thus, it is unlikely they will ever be answered or tackled by any candidate. Beyond this I've included issues that
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5.) NAFTA, and other trade deals. Hillary Clinton talks about "fixing" NAFTA, how? What about it doesn't she think is working? I don't think it's what I think isn't working about it. The deregulation and privatization path that we've been on these last 30 years has led to trade agreements like NAFTA that have put Americans out of work and allowed dangerous life-threatening products to enter an unregulated world market. These are agreements in which the U.S. has had no choice but to take poisoned, toxic goods. At the same time in the U.S., inspections have been slowed down, cut down, or eliminated altogether, while tort reform has left consumers sick, dead, harmed and up a creek without a legal paddle to navigate by.

6.) Repealing the Bush reforms. All of them. Everything from the last 8 years: Medicare reform, bankruptcy reform, etc. The gravy train needs to end. I want to hear how the biggest recipient in Congress (Hillary Clinton) of insurance and pharmaceutical companies' money responds on this.

7.) 'Faith-based' programs - Bush expanded on Bill Clinton's punching a hole in the wall between church and state with these so-called 'faith-based' programs. I'd like to hear the candidates justify taking taxpayer money and funding religious groups' activities.

8.) Abortion in the U.S. The anti-choice activists have successfully intimidated doctors and hospitals into shutting down clinics, so that women have to travel great distances (sometimes leaving their state) to get legal services that they are entitled to. This hits poor women especially hard. What are the candidates going to do about this?

9.) The industry that is the war on drugs. Where are these candidates on continuing the war on drugs? Obama has changed his position recently on marijuana. Why?

10.) As head of the Democratic party (if elected), what are the candidates' positions on super delegates within the nominating process? Because this bites my butt, and everyone else's who believes in "free, fair and equal democracy for all". Or it should.

11.) The Clinton administration opened the door to many of the abuses of citizens' privacy rights by this Bush administration with legislation that led to the Patriot Act(s). A 1200-page document doesn't just happen overnight (as the Patriot Act did) after an event like 9/11. It was around long before, just waiting for a moment when very few would be thinking clearly.

As we all know, legislation is very resistant to overturning, but if ever there was legislation that carved out the heart and soul of the Constitution and changed everything about who we are as a people, the Patriot Act is that legislation.

12.) The Big One. The one that is really at the top of most of our lists and minds (I'd bet the split-level suburban ranch house on it): What are these candidates going to do about the last eight years of graft, corruption, war crimes? Will they convene "no holds barred" hearings and investigations into the Bush-Cheney administration? Or are we in for another 1992 Clinton-Bush/Iran-Contra investigation deal?

I know it's too much to hope for a legitimate 9/11 commission to investigate what really happened. But are the citizens of the U.S. really going to allow this crew to walk away with impunity from the greatest crimes, with the greatest rewards, by the worst administration in the history of our nation? If we do, we shall never recover our democracy, nor our humanity.

That's my list. For now.

Posted by Maeven | February 9, 2008 12:12 AM

Tim,

I happen to like Obama but your statement's a huge turn off. Matt can support whoever he wants.

Posted by MGJ | February 9, 2008 12:40 AM

No Obama Mama!

It's great to date men who have no issues!

It's not great to vote for men who have no issues!

Shallow does not equal depth. Think about it.

Posted by Youie | February 9, 2008 3:59 AM

WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW
WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW

This is the first post ever that I can recall at a left leaning blog (including talkingpoints, washingtonmonthly, dailykos, openleft) that actually asks about important policy issues. The right talks about 1,3,4,6,7 on your list many times and still mentions the others every now and then.

How did healthcare and green get on the top two list of priorities for the left?? these might be important but these are not the most important issues and are more like entitlements (nice to haves) than necessities. (look at the obama paper, first two topics are these, and last topic briefly mentions terror).

war on terror and the overall policy of it is such an important issue, yet hillary and obama's websites barely mention it (other than leaving iraq and nonspecific tough diplomacy). i don't know how anyone can logically vote for a candidate for commander in chief with so little to say about the topic. (saying the right would be worse is not a good answer and avoiding the issue).

Posted by Mark | February 9, 2008 7:29 AM

WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW
WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW

This is the first post ever that I can recall at a left leaning blog (including talkingpoints, washingtonmonthly, dailykos, openleft) that actually asks about important policy issues. The right talks about 1,3,4,6,7 on your list many times and still mentions the others every now and then.

How did healthcare and green get on the top two list of priorities for the left?? these might be important but these are not the most important issues and are more like entitlements (nice to haves) than necessities. (look at the obama paper, first two topics are these, and last topic briefly mentions terror).

war on terror and the overall policy of it is such an important issue, yet hillary and obama's websites barely mention it (other than leaving iraq and nonspecific tough diplomacy). i don't know how anyone can logically vote for a candidate for commander in chief with so little to say about the topic. (saying the right would be worse is not a good answer and avoiding the issue).

Posted by Mark | February 9, 2008 7:30 AM

I think this is an excellent topic. Too bad we can't have 10 more debates to get into some of these things deeper.

What I, a non-voter, find very interesting are the number of posters in this very enlightened group who say.. I don't know where Obama stands on this but I am sure I agree with him on this.. more than Clinton.. In fact Clinton's policies will be close to a evil replication of Bill's evil policies.

I do think we need a better electoral process and a better press but I think we need a better electorate. This mixing religious thinking and politics is quit useless.

Posted by My Comments | February 9, 2008 8:34 AM

"Repealing the Bush reforms. All of them. Everything from the last 8 years: Medicare reform..."

You want a Democrat to repeal Medicare Part D, which provides seniors the prescription drug coverage Democrats had sought, unsuccessfully, to add to Medicare for thirty years? This is the height of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Even when Bush implemented a liberal policy priority Democrats were unable to implement themselves -- and the resulting program has become popular with its beneficiaries -- you can't take "yes" for an answer.

Posted by Fred | February 9, 2008 11:15 AM

"Federal Reserve: Are Clinton or Obama happy with the past 25 or so years of conservative Republican leadership at the Fed or would they like to take things in a new direction?"

What does this one even mean? Paul Volcker, who was chairman of the Federal Reserve less than 25 years ago, is Democrat. He endorsed Obama. The Federal Reserve's mandate is stipulated by Congress: to pursue the dual goals of price stability and full employment. Within those constraints, of what relevance are the Fed board members' political affiliations? What "new direction" would you have in mind? Would you like the Fed to be more accommodative than the Greenspan/Bernanke Feds have been? If so, how low would you be willing to see the dollar fall, and how high would you be willing to see inflation rise?

Would you like the Fed to be less accommodative, like the Volcker Fed was? Since you are too young to remember, ask your father what the early-80's recession was like -- the one that was a side effect of Volcker's campaign to squeeze the Carter-era inflation out of the U.S. economy.

Posted by Fred | February 9, 2008 11:30 AM

Fred,

Bush's Medicare scheme made drugs more expensive for senior citizens, so this "reform" should be scrapped. And another direction for the Fed would be to forget about prices and get unemployment down to 1% or zero first, then worry about prices later. For that, we need to get rid of the conservative republican mentality there.

Posted by Emily | February 9, 2008 12:00 PM

Hegemony.

I think Clinton believes the U.S. can continue our post WWII hegemonic control. I think Obama is willing to embrace the notion that the facts belie this, and is willing to take a more conciliatory approach.

Am I right?

Posted by mike | February 9, 2008 1:20 PM

Matt,

Do you consider posting information on a website a "serious public expression"? There is information about some of these issues on the websites of both candidates (look up their past speeches as well).

For example, Obama highlights the following in his discussion of diplomacy:

"Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security."

There's also a separate section dedicated entirely to his positions on Israel.

I recall a few of these issues being discussed in the many Democratic debates:

http://www.youdecide2008.com/2007/06/13/full-2008-debate-schedule-from-dnc-and-gop/

You might also try emailing the campaigns directly with your questions -- there's a good chance they'll send you whitepapers on their positions. A lot of this information is out there, if you're willing to do a little work.

If you'd like to hear the two compare and contrast their positions, perhaps you should send your list (and a post to this page) to whomever will be hosting the next two debates.

Posted by Indy | February 9, 2008 2:33 PM

You might add their stance on executive power to the list of unanswered, undebated questions.

This presidency has done a great deal to destroy the checks and balances of our constitutional system under the banner of a seemingly unlimited and incontestable "executive privilege." Of course the Congress, which is supposed to supply the "check," is also to blame. At any rate, I would like to know what the candidates have to say about this critical issue.

Posted by Joseph | February 9, 2008 3:20 PM

I'll second Jonathan on the rise of China.

Do the candidates think China will have an economy twice the size of the US economy by 2040? And, when they do, what would that mean for the US? What should be the conditions of trade with China? What limits should we put on investment in the US or in US companies by China? What threat does China's growth in military spending create for us? How can we influence China to deal with energy and global warming issues? How do we influence China to settle the conflict in the Sudan? Should more of our next generations learn Mandarin and study abroad in China? Should we seek Chinese troops to help us in Iraq? In Afganistan? How can China help us in the war against terror?

Posted by Dave Porter | February 9, 2008 4:23 PM

"I think Clinton believes the U.S. can continue our post WWII hegemonic control. I think Obama is willing to embrace the notion that the facts belie this, and is willing to take a more conciliatory approach."

In other words, will Obama be Carter?

Posted by Juan | February 9, 2008 5:21 PM

No Jimmy Carter redux. Rather, Obama will borrow a little from what the Japanese, the Chinese and the French have been doing over the past two decades. In other words, he'll pick battles he can win, and not battles that he'll lose. I think it could be quite good for this country's ability to win friends and influence people around the world.

Posted by DBX | February 9, 2008 10:36 PM

DBX,

What the Japanese have been doing over the last two decades has been sticking with us. What the French and the Chinese have been doing (up until the election of Sarkozy in France) is putting their nations' economic interests above human rights and other moral concerns around the world. France has made a decisive break with that tradition -- (for example, by appointing Kouchner as foreign minister) -- and has moved closer to America under Sarkozy.

Posted by Juan | February 9, 2008 11:51 PM

I'm waiting for one of the candidates to come out a take a ballsy stance on this biofuels bullshit. I'm for Obama, but he's dead wrong on ethanol as far as I can tell. And I can see no reason except that he's Midwestern, and thus feels it his duty to keep bringing home the bacon. But there's an article in the Times today that reaffirms what we all know about biofuels--that they're worse than gas, particularly because of land use issues. Clinton is also wrong on biofuels, I think, but less stridently so. I admire Obama for his ability to speak candidly about the cost of climate change mitigation. (If you doubt that, remember his smackdown of Bill Richardson, former Energy Secretary, who claimed that cap and trade wouldn't impose a cost on the economy whereas a carbon tax would. Obama said, "Of course it imposes a cost--that's the point--and then gave the only logical defense of cap'n'trade, that you can mandate specific reductions and auction off the permits to distribute costs efficiently. I still think a carbon tax is better, but at least he's honest).

But--and now I'm back on track--I think the biofuels issue is more or less cut and dry. There are better ways to achieve sustainable energy solutions.

Also, unrelatedly, election and campaign finance reform.

Posted by Owen | February 10, 2008 12:56 PM

Important Things We Haven't Talked About

Comments (65)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories