Crusade To Nowhere...What does McCain actually plan to change about government?

[ProSense]

05.09.2008

Crusade To Nowhere

John McCain hit the "reform" theme hard in his speech last night, and I couldn't help but wonder: What does McCain actually plan to change about government? I get that Sarah Palin is a nice person and doesn't like sleaze—except when she's hitting up corporate donors on behalf of Ted Stevens or hiring earmark lobbyists for her hometown... No, but seriously: Back in 2000, McCain could reasonably claim to be a "reform" candidate by touting his campaign finance bill—he had a specific proposal to address a concrete problem. As it turns out, McCain-Feingold didn't alter the role of money in politics in any fundamental way, and the issue's still there for the taking, but the conservative base is intransigent on this subject, and McCain's not poking that bear again. So what does that leave? What's he going to reform?

Okay, he hates congressional earmarks, and he's promised to veto the first pork-laden bill that crosses his desk. Except that, as Jon Chait pointed out, whenever McCain's been challenged on specific earmarks in the past that are actually popular, he's backed off—as when he met an ovarian cancer patient in Pennsylvania being treated in an earmark-funded clinical trial program. And his campaign has suggested he wouldn't even object to that much-mocked $3 million bear DNA project in Montana, as long as the "process" is clean. So he'll make veto threats against a few earmarks, the "bad" ones, which might affect less than 1 percent of the federal budget. (And even getting rid of all earmarks wouldn't necessarily save taxpayers any money, since it would just mean that federal agencies, rather than Congress, decide how the funds are allocated.)

What about cleaning up the executive branch? One could look at all the ways in which the Bush administration has allowed hacks, cronies, and industry lobbyists to infiltrate every level of government. Would McCain chart a different course? How? Is he going to fire every single one of Bush's appointees? McCain doesn't seem to have trouble letting lobbyists run his campaign—he only started scuttling some of the more inconvenient aides when the press pointed out that he was being a tad hypocritical. More broadly, does McCain think it was inappropriate when Bush appointed drug-industry lobbyists to key positions at the FDA, HHS, and elsewhere (to take one example)? Would McCain stock key regulatory positions with people plucked from the very industries that are supposed to be overseen, too? His website is maddeningly vague about all this, except insofar as McCain doesn't like the "revolving door" whereby lawmakers leave their posts and join lobbying firms. Oh, and he wants an independent ethics office for Congress and more disclosure of travel receipts—noble, but minor.

<...>

Maybe he'll change the way government helps people. Yes, true, most of his policies are warmed-over Bush-ism, apart from that (problematic) health care proposal. But, in his speech last night, McCain also mentioned wage insurance as a way to cushion the blow for dislocated workers affected by globalization: "For workers in industries that have been hard-hit," he declared, "we'll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower paid one, while they receive re-training that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage." That's a solid, liberal idea. Except that McCain has never mentioned this before, the proposal doesn't appear on his website anywhere, as far as I can tell, and it's exactly the sort of thing that would require new government spending, not the budget cuts he's promising. Odds are this isn't even a real proposal at all. So what does that leave us?

P.S.: In comments, Rhubarbs reminds us of a similarly vague line in George W. Bush's 2000 convention speech: "Tonight, in this hall, we resolve to be, not the party of repose, but the party of reform."

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. His address of record? n/t

[whistle]

2. He will privatize social security 100% and stop all government SS payouts

[annabanana]

3. Maybe he'll get all those surpressed Abramoff documents released.

I'd sure like to see what was in them..

[ProSense]

7. Yeah,

I seriously doubt it.

[gateley]

4. The size (make it bigger) The transparency (make ANY opaque)

[Democrats_win]

5. mCcain's speech: "There's no there there." As Gertrude would say.

I read his speech in the newspaper and if you cut through the lies and half-truths, you realize that he doesn't say how he intends to change Washington. Of course he isn't going to change the real problem: corporate control of our government. That's imbedded.

[TheKentuckian]

6. He wants to push the same crap they've been doing

for 30 years and probably longer.

McCain could have skipped Dick Palin and just exhumed Reagan and toured the country with the casket.

Reform=a SURGE on the same

[WA98070]

8. He will shrink government by closing all existing departments and bring back one: The War Department

[OmahaBlueDog]

9. The immediate impact will be minimal;the 4 year impact will depend..

..on who gets elected to what in congress. Much of the Bush Cabinet will be retained, but there will be much playing of musical chairs. Lieberman will probably get a cabinet post or an ambassadorship to Israel. Don't be surprised to see Jeb's smiling face in the cabinet either.

Their first mission will be to begin the vetting of the next SCOTUS justice. My prediction is that they will attempt to replace Justice Stevens with Jay Sekulow from the ACLJ (American Center for Law & Justice -- the fundie answer to the ACLU). If they somehow get a Senate Majority (and I have a far fetched idea on how they do that), I think they might also pressure Scalia to step aside now so they can replace him with a younger conservative before a possible backlash in '12.

If elected in '08, their second mission will be to blunt a counter-revolution along the lines of '94 or '06. Their congressional campaign for '10 will be cornerstoned on the Democrats standing in the way of tax cuts and a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man & one woman.