Letting them down

It would be much easier if, during election years, we simply abandoned the boring process of legislation. Instead, candidates could send elaborately decorated cards to sections of the American public, punctuated with construction-paper hearts and glued-on elbow macaroni. It might be pandering, but at least it would be honest – they would spare their poor economic advisors who have more reason than usual to cringe at what arrives at Congress. Last time it was the commotion over the gas tax, noteworthy because it was so impotent, its only salient feature the ability to split Clinton and Obama. \nIn the interest of balanced coverage, journalists have been racking their brains trying to find economists who actually support a moratorium. Clinton was asked point blank on ABC News’ “This week” if she could name a single economist who thought the gas-tax bill was a good idea. She responded, “I’m not going to put my lot in with economists.” \nClearly. \nThis week’s commotion is over the Farm Bill, a piece of legislation so awful that it managed to get canned by the editorial boards of both the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times who never agree on anything. Supporting it on the basis of policy is almost indefensible – it contains wasteful price supports and gives subsidies to farmers who make up to $750,000 a year. It essentially pays farmers twice for selling the same good, and its modest strengths don’t come close to offsetting its weaknesses. Unfortunately, there are many new Democratic congressmen from rural areas, and this bill may well be House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s expensive welcoming gift. \nHowever, the American farmer is doing just fine. This year, income paid to farmers is expected to be the highest ever, partly the result of high demand for biofuels which also raises the selling price of food. Despite all this, people can’t stop seeing farmers as charity cases, even though the fact that the government has been unwaveringly good to them. So when McCain refuses to give them additional benefits, Clinton takes the opportunity to lambast him for it. Apparently it is more important for her to be seen protecting pretend victims than actually stand for what’s right. Forget about charisma, education or experience. What sets the candidates apart is the capacity for doing what’s right, even when people disagree. That’s what leadership is all about. \nNo candidate is perfect in this regard. John McCain may be more pro-trade, he may be more realistic about the future of uncompetitive American industries, but his support of the gas-tax moratorium was disappointing. Obama may have scored points by opposing it, but he supports the farm bill. Hillary strikes out by supporting both, and it was she who, when she came to IU, described herself as “a policy wonk.” She’s anything but. \nAt the end of the day, it’s these small things that really make the difference. You may be impressed by rhetoric, you may be swayed by experience, but the president is first and foremost a leader. Leadership requires difficult decisions, and if a candidate isn’t up to it, they don’t deserve the office.