Much has been made about the state of the economy by Senators John McCain and Barack Obama in recent months, and for good reason. Whoever takes the oath of office this January will have the most impact on the American market of any president in recent memory.
Moreover, our next president will have to contend with the economic challenges presented by an expanding China, the European Union, and the increasing technical prowess of India.
Today, America’s GDP is approximately equal to the combined GDP of Japan, Germany, China, and the United Kingdom (the four next most productive countries after America), so any threat is certainly not pressing. However, in the world market, action today is magnified tenfold in the future, which makes the president’s role as a steward for the long-term economic health of the country immensely important during times of financial turmoil.
John McCain best understands how to promote sustainable economic growth over the long run and keep America’s place firmly as the world’s leader in production. For all of his earlier campaign speeches blaming the current slump on “greed” among the chiefs of Wall Street, McCain has always supported prudent pro-growth policies.
From his past support of more regulation for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to his current proposal to cut our punishingly high corporate tax rate, John McCain has obviously looked at a basic supply vs. demand graph before. He realizes that increasing supply is the best way to grow the economy and pull the country out of a potential recession. He understands that raising taxes and spending on a weakened economy only prolongs the downturn.
Senator McCain realizes that our punitively high business taxes put U.S.-based companies at a competitive disadvantage to their foreign peers. I don’t care how much Barack Obama tries to “spread the wealth around,” but no one is better off when businesses, their owners, and their jobs are forced overseas.
Speaking of Obama’s now infamous gaffe, small businesses like the one brought up by Joe the Plumber represent the bulk of America’s jobs, and any president’s economic policy needs to help them. While some proclaim that anyone who has saved enough to buy a business with annual revenue of $250,000 doesn’t deserve a tax break, consider the alternative.
McCain understands that if small business owners don’t consider the risk of their personal time, effort, and money worthwhile, the employees of that business will be out of work. Senator Obama ignores this logical argument by appealing to the uninformed.
Fundamentally then, while John McCain realizes how encouraging the most productive members of our society ensures economic prosperity for the nation as a whole, Barack Obama is running on a platform of income “equality.” I support McCain because like any good MIT student, I understand the value of incentives.
How many of us would be willing to endure the workload and stress of MIT unless we could genuinely make a dent in the world? Without the incentive of future success, MIT students go from being future innovators to a group of sleep-deprived and stressed maniacs. Incentives drive us to give up some things for the hope of a better future, like Bill Gates leaving Harvard to pursue work on the fledgling startup called Microsoft.
Regardless of one’s desire to earn money in the future, higher taxes will drive innovation overseas. No business venture, no matter how noble its cause, will ever get off the ground if it is choked by taxes.
John McCain understands these simple realities, and he has the policies to support them. McCain realizes that the businessman supports American industry and that industry supports America. His pro-growth plans span from healthcare to free trade; they will help ensure that the next generation of American capitalists are able to create jobs for the country as a whole by rewarding those who have done the hard work.
Senator John McCain supports America’s economy, and for that reason, I support John McCain for president.
Joseph Maurer is a member of the Class of 2012.