On Lack of Candidates

Here we are, left with three presidential candidates that have any chance to be elected: Hillary Clinton, John McCain and Barack Obama. And no one to vote for.

The Democratic Party candidates try to appear dissimilar, but in fact they are pretty much the same. Their voting record (as I pointed in "Obama's I didn't do it") is essentially identical, especially with respect to the Iraq war and economy. Both are determined to increase entitlement programs as much as they can, increase the role of the central government in our lives, and legalize the illegal immigrants. All these will be paid by tax increases: either direct tax rate increase across the board, or selective tax increases (e.g., as promised in one TV ad spot "closing tax loopholes on corporations"). Of course that will cause the corporations to raise prices, which ultimately will make us pay these taxes.

John McCain, on the other hand, promises to stay in Iraq for another 100 years. Since increasing taxes is not that great idea for a Republican, he will either finance it by borrowing money, or by printing money. Printing money is bad. Very bad, close to economical suicide for a country: it entails deeper inflation, further devaluation of the currency, and deeper recession. Borrowing is not that much better, and it will not be easy anymore. Dollar is losing its safe currency status as fast as it is losing its value. The interest rates on Treasury notes are not attractive for foreign investors, and increasing the interest rates will push US deeper into recession. And, of course, the debt servicing will make a hole in the US budget only bigger. If he understands that, he will have no choice but increase the taxes, which would have its own negative impact on economy - just like the tax increases brought by the democrats.

Thus we are left with such a dreadful choice: pick the one that promises to tax and spend, or the one that promises to borrow and spend. Which one is the lesser evil?