In a small town in Pennsylvania, where the liquor store is called “Beer World”, the mini-golf course has a Statue of Liberty hole and a sign boasts that this is the “21st best town in the US”, Barack Obama is making a speech. The latest unemployment statistics have just been released, and they are grim. It is the day after the vice-presidential debate, during which Sarah Palin accused the Democrats of wanting to impose job-killing tax hikes on business.
“Just since January, we’ve lost more than 750,000 jobs across America, 7,000 in Pennsylvania alone,” says Mr Obama. “So when Senator [John] McCain and his running-mate talk about job-killing, that’s something they know a thing or two about. Because the policies they’re supporting are killing jobs every single day.”
On the page, Mr Obama’s speeches can seem long-winded. But when he reels off each rhythmic sentence before an adoring crowd, the effect is almost musical. Did Mr McCain once mention that the fundamentals of the economy were sound? “Well, Abington,” says Mr Obama, “where I come from, there’s nothing more fundamental than having the sense of meaning and purpose that comes with showing up at work in the morning. There’s nothing more fundamental than being able to put your kids through college, or having health care when you get sick…There’s nothing more fundamental than a good-paying job.”
Bad news is good news when you are the challenger, and the news has been awful of late. Stockmarkets are tumbling, taking a big chunk of voters’ pensions with them. No one knows if the latest interest-rate cut or the $700 billion rescue package Congress approved recently will stop the panic. Unemployment is still only 6.1%, but everyone expects it to rise. The American economy is probably already in recession, and voters feel it is. House prices are slumping, and homeowners are losing their homes. A 90-year-old woman about to be evicted in Ohio shot herself last week. (She survived, and the mortgage firm forgave her debt.)
Few voters understand why the economy is ailing, but many blame President George Bush. Mr Obama, as the candidate whose party does not control the White House, is the default choice of the disgruntled. This gives him a hefty advantage in the polls, which show him leading Mr McCain by five points nationwide and by significant margins in most swing states. He has more money to press his message home, too. A cash-strapped Mr McCain gave up running ads in Michigan the day Mr Obama spoke there last week. Barring a sudden, unlikely, uplift in the national mood, Mr Obama’s prospects look peachy.
Voters anxious for change are warming to his message. And he has a gift for wrapping centre-left (by American standards) policies in language that has wide appeal. He often says, for example, that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. That is an attractive promise. The “cut taxes” bit appeals to conservatives, while the “95%” part appeals to liberals and moderates.
Fact-checkers quibble that, according to his written plans, he really means 95% of families with children, not 95% of Americans. But his real sleight-of-hand is to count handouts administered through the tax code as “tax cuts”. You might think that a tax cut means keeping more of what you earn. The way Mr Obama uses the phrase, however, it can also mean being given a chunk of money that someone else has earned. That is how he is able to offer “tax cuts” to “95% of Americans” when about a third of American households already pay no federal income tax.
Such re-packaging is effective. “I’m for McCain,” says Matthew Julian, a biology student who has just heard Mr Obama speak in Michigan. “But I liked [what Mr Obama said]. He’s not going to tax the middle class. I thought he would. You know, I might change my mind and vote for Obama.”
The way Mr Obama describes his opponent’s tax plans is also deft. Mr McCain plans to reduce the corporate tax rate. That sounds boring. So Mr Obama describes it as a “$4 billion tax break for big oil companies”. He is not lying. Big oil firms would indeed benefit from a lower corporate tax rate. But he makes it sound as if Mr McCain is doing special favours for an industry many Americans regard as villainous.
Mr Obama offers detailed and mostly sensible plans for dealing with problems from energy to health care. But it is not the details of his policies that voters recall after hearing him speak. It is the zingers.
Consider health care, which Americans get very worried about during economic downturns. Most working Americans are insured via their employer. If they lose their job, they may lose their cover. This makes them understandably nervous.
The two candidates’ health plans are quite different. Mr Obama wants to expand coverage with an infusion of public cash. Mr McCain wants to curb costs through greater competition and end the rule that says that only insurance provided by an employer enjoys a tax break. Both ideas make sense. But if you listen to either man’s description of the other’s plan, you might be alarmed.
Mr McCain says Mr Obama wants to socialise medicine, which is a stretch. Mr Obama tells a more plausible but equally deceptive story. He notes that Mr McCain offers families a $5,000 tax credit to buy health insurance. He then adds, ominously, that there is something Mr McCain is not telling you: a typical family’s health-insurance premium each year is about $12,000. Because Mr McCain is going to tax health benefits that you get through your employer, your employer may stop covering you. You may end up like Mr Obama’s mother, who died of cancer at 53 while battling insurance firms from her hospital bed.
Many people walk away from Mr Obama’s speeches convinced that, under Mr McCain’s plan, they will lose $7,000-worth of health insurance. In fact, since Mr McCain’s tax credit is substantially larger than the tax break on employer-provided insurance that it replaces (which is typically worth less than $3,000), the vast majority will be better off. But that is tough to explain to an electorate that has always struggled to make sense of America’s insanely complex health-care system. And Mr McCain is no great communicator.
With a month to go, Americans may hear a dirge of glum economic news nearly every day between now and the election. The Democrats who control Congress are happy to supply a headline or two.
This week, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform grilled fat cats from failed financial firms. Henry Waxman, the committee chairman, waxed indignant at the ex-boss of Lehman Brothers’ $500m pay package (most of which he lost when his firm collapsed last month), and at a $440,000 spa trip taken by executives at AIG, a failed insurer, after the government bailed it out. “The Treasury should demand that money back and those executives should be fired,” said Mr Obama during a debate with Mr McCain on October 7th, doubtless pleased to be fed such a juicy line.
During the same debate Mr McCain offered a bail-out for troubled homeowners, offering to buy up their mortgages and replace them with more manageable loans. His campaign estimates this will cost $300 billion. Meanwhile, Mrs Palin is playing the traditional running-mate’s role of attacking Mr Obama’s character; but after his bare-knuckle primary battle with Hillary Clinton there are no new charges to fling.
At a rally in Florida, Mrs Palin reminded supporters that Mr Obama held one of his first political meetings at the home of William Ayers, an unrepentant advocate of bombing American government buildings during the 1960s, who is now an educational activist in Chicago. Mr Ayers, who has been photographed proudly stamping on an American flag, also worked with Mr Obama on various educational projects. Mrs Palin said she feared that Mr Obama “is not a man who sees America the way that you and I see America.”
Mr McCain’s campaign ads have turned sharply negative. A recent one highlights Mr Obama’s ties to Chicago machine politicians and a corrupt property developer, Tony Rezko. Another links him to congressional Democrats who encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage giants at the centre of the housing bust, to direct a torrent of credit to uncreditworthy borrowers. The campaign has mostly steered clear of reminding people that Mr Obama’s pastor of two decades thinks the American government created the AIDS virus to kill blacks, but Mrs Palin has hinted that she thinks this is fair game.
Mr Obama hit back with a long web ad detailing Mr McCain’s involvement in the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s. Mr McCain accepted campaign donations and trips on a jet from Charles Keating, a fraudster whose savings-and-loan later collapsed. The Senate ethics committee found Mr McCain guilty only of “misjudgment”. He has frequently expressed deep shame about the incident. Mr Obama’s ad suggests a direct link between it and the current financial crisis.
Mr Obama’s fans are jubilant. At his rally last week in Michigan, some sold posters mocking Mr McCain’s seven homes: “McCain, please buy my house too!” And Gerald Morgan, a man selling T-shirts showing a big Obama face next to a little Nelson Mandela and a little Martin Luther King, said he’d be “elated” if his hero wins. This week, it looks much likelier.
“Just since January, we’ve lost more than 750,000 jobs across America, 7,000 in Pennsylvania alone,” says Mr Obama. “So when Senator [John] McCain and his running-mate talk about job-killing, that’s something they know a thing or two about. Because the policies they’re supporting are killing jobs every single day.”
On the page, Mr Obama’s speeches can seem long-winded. But when he reels off each rhythmic sentence before an adoring crowd, the effect is almost musical. Did Mr McCain once mention that the fundamentals of the economy were sound? “Well, Abington,” says Mr Obama, “where I come from, there’s nothing more fundamental than having the sense of meaning and purpose that comes with showing up at work in the morning. There’s nothing more fundamental than being able to put your kids through college, or having health care when you get sick…There’s nothing more fundamental than a good-paying job.”
Bad news is good news when you are the challenger, and the news has been awful of late. Stockmarkets are tumbling, taking a big chunk of voters’ pensions with them. No one knows if the latest interest-rate cut or the $700 billion rescue package Congress approved recently will stop the panic. Unemployment is still only 6.1%, but everyone expects it to rise. The American economy is probably already in recession, and voters feel it is. House prices are slumping, and homeowners are losing their homes. A 90-year-old woman about to be evicted in Ohio shot herself last week. (She survived, and the mortgage firm forgave her debt.)
Few voters understand why the economy is ailing, but many blame President George Bush. Mr Obama, as the candidate whose party does not control the White House, is the default choice of the disgruntled. This gives him a hefty advantage in the polls, which show him leading Mr McCain by five points nationwide and by significant margins in most swing states. He has more money to press his message home, too. A cash-strapped Mr McCain gave up running ads in Michigan the day Mr Obama spoke there last week. Barring a sudden, unlikely, uplift in the national mood, Mr Obama’s prospects look peachy.
Voters anxious for change are warming to his message. And he has a gift for wrapping centre-left (by American standards) policies in language that has wide appeal. He often says, for example, that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. That is an attractive promise. The “cut taxes” bit appeals to conservatives, while the “95%” part appeals to liberals and moderates.
Fact-checkers quibble that, according to his written plans, he really means 95% of families with children, not 95% of Americans. But his real sleight-of-hand is to count handouts administered through the tax code as “tax cuts”. You might think that a tax cut means keeping more of what you earn. The way Mr Obama uses the phrase, however, it can also mean being given a chunk of money that someone else has earned. That is how he is able to offer “tax cuts” to “95% of Americans” when about a third of American households already pay no federal income tax.
Such re-packaging is effective. “I’m for McCain,” says Matthew Julian, a biology student who has just heard Mr Obama speak in Michigan. “But I liked [what Mr Obama said]. He’s not going to tax the middle class. I thought he would. You know, I might change my mind and vote for Obama.”
The way Mr Obama describes his opponent’s tax plans is also deft. Mr McCain plans to reduce the corporate tax rate. That sounds boring. So Mr Obama describes it as a “$4 billion tax break for big oil companies”. He is not lying. Big oil firms would indeed benefit from a lower corporate tax rate. But he makes it sound as if Mr McCain is doing special favours for an industry many Americans regard as villainous.
Mr Obama offers detailed and mostly sensible plans for dealing with problems from energy to health care. But it is not the details of his policies that voters recall after hearing him speak. It is the zingers.
Consider health care, which Americans get very worried about during economic downturns. Most working Americans are insured via their employer. If they lose their job, they may lose their cover. This makes them understandably nervous.
The two candidates’ health plans are quite different. Mr Obama wants to expand coverage with an infusion of public cash. Mr McCain wants to curb costs through greater competition and end the rule that says that only insurance provided by an employer enjoys a tax break. Both ideas make sense. But if you listen to either man’s description of the other’s plan, you might be alarmed.
Mr McCain says Mr Obama wants to socialise medicine, which is a stretch. Mr Obama tells a more plausible but equally deceptive story. He notes that Mr McCain offers families a $5,000 tax credit to buy health insurance. He then adds, ominously, that there is something Mr McCain is not telling you: a typical family’s health-insurance premium each year is about $12,000. Because Mr McCain is going to tax health benefits that you get through your employer, your employer may stop covering you. You may end up like Mr Obama’s mother, who died of cancer at 53 while battling insurance firms from her hospital bed.
Many people walk away from Mr Obama’s speeches convinced that, under Mr McCain’s plan, they will lose $7,000-worth of health insurance. In fact, since Mr McCain’s tax credit is substantially larger than the tax break on employer-provided insurance that it replaces (which is typically worth less than $3,000), the vast majority will be better off. But that is tough to explain to an electorate that has always struggled to make sense of America’s insanely complex health-care system. And Mr McCain is no great communicator.
With a month to go, Americans may hear a dirge of glum economic news nearly every day between now and the election. The Democrats who control Congress are happy to supply a headline or two.
This week, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform grilled fat cats from failed financial firms. Henry Waxman, the committee chairman, waxed indignant at the ex-boss of Lehman Brothers’ $500m pay package (most of which he lost when his firm collapsed last month), and at a $440,000 spa trip taken by executives at AIG, a failed insurer, after the government bailed it out. “The Treasury should demand that money back and those executives should be fired,” said Mr Obama during a debate with Mr McCain on October 7th, doubtless pleased to be fed such a juicy line.
During the same debate Mr McCain offered a bail-out for troubled homeowners, offering to buy up their mortgages and replace them with more manageable loans. His campaign estimates this will cost $300 billion. Meanwhile, Mrs Palin is playing the traditional running-mate’s role of attacking Mr Obama’s character; but after his bare-knuckle primary battle with Hillary Clinton there are no new charges to fling.
At a rally in Florida, Mrs Palin reminded supporters that Mr Obama held one of his first political meetings at the home of William Ayers, an unrepentant advocate of bombing American government buildings during the 1960s, who is now an educational activist in Chicago. Mr Ayers, who has been photographed proudly stamping on an American flag, also worked with Mr Obama on various educational projects. Mrs Palin said she feared that Mr Obama “is not a man who sees America the way that you and I see America.”
Mr McCain’s campaign ads have turned sharply negative. A recent one highlights Mr Obama’s ties to Chicago machine politicians and a corrupt property developer, Tony Rezko. Another links him to congressional Democrats who encouraged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed mortgage giants at the centre of the housing bust, to direct a torrent of credit to uncreditworthy borrowers. The campaign has mostly steered clear of reminding people that Mr Obama’s pastor of two decades thinks the American government created the AIDS virus to kill blacks, but Mrs Palin has hinted that she thinks this is fair game.
Mr Obama hit back with a long web ad detailing Mr McCain’s involvement in the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s. Mr McCain accepted campaign donations and trips on a jet from Charles Keating, a fraudster whose savings-and-loan later collapsed. The Senate ethics committee found Mr McCain guilty only of “misjudgment”. He has frequently expressed deep shame about the incident. Mr Obama’s ad suggests a direct link between it and the current financial crisis.
Mr Obama’s fans are jubilant. At his rally last week in Michigan, some sold posters mocking Mr McCain’s seven homes: “McCain, please buy my house too!” And Gerald Morgan, a man selling T-shirts showing a big Obama face next to a little Nelson Mandela and a little Martin Luther King, said he’d be “elated” if his hero wins. This week, it looks much likelier.
0 comentarios:
Publicar un comentario