To Inform the Voters

By Andre Jackson
September 2, 2008

Blah, blah, blah!

To much of the American public, that’s what presidential campaigns usually sound like.  But this year, what’s livened things up is something that’s not very lively at all right now – the U.S. economy.

Pocketbook issues are top of mind as we fill our cars with gasoline that costs 3 cents an ounce and shop for milk and other staple foods that’ve gotten a lot more costly in recent months. No doubt about it -- neither political party stands to benefit from a humming economy this election season.

Readers are hungry for news about the economy, whether they know it or not. Even people who studiously avoid the business pages of newspapers or Web sites have groused about the economy while fueling a thirsty SUV or wondered about the true merit of opening new oil fields off the American coastline. Makes sense, given that economics is as much about the study of human behavior as it is a quantitative science.

The interest is there. So how can we better tell this story, now that Labor Day is behind us and people worldwide are paying more attention to the presidential race as it enters the home stretch? We must dig deeper into the candidates’ fiscal policies.

One question that begs an answer is just how much politicians of any stripe can do to boost the U.S. economy, especially in the short-term? Ask a variety of economists about this and their answers won’t all mesh, that’s for sure. The diversity of opinions on this issue will be news to many readers. That’s because the political rhetoric machines have led us to believe otherwise. After all, isn’t the United States the undisputed leader of the Free World and the greatest player in the global economy? Despite what many readers may think, the greatest these days does not equal the only influential player. The U.S. is no longer playing a global game of economic solitaire. And readers need to know the game’s changing.

The Asian tiger economies have been roaring loudly in recent years. The recent Beijing Olympics drew worldwide attention to China, although not necessarily to its juggernaut economy that, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, will match our economy in size by 2035 and “double it by mid-century.” That’s a provocative thesis and a solid building block for stories that can help readers make up their minds about which presidential candidate they believe will better serve the U.S. economy.

Energy prices are another sexy topic worth exploring at a deeper level, given that oil prices have helped hobble economic growth. Many politicians have sought this year to look like they’re doing something by calling for expanded drilling for crude oil on U.S. soil and in seabeds within our territorial boundaries. The premise seems simple: more crude pumped up here equals fewer barrels arriving from price-gouging nations that don’t have our best interest at heart. Grow our own oil supplies and the price will drop dramatically, right? Makes sense in a way.

Many economists (at least those without a strong ideological bent to their work) say this theory is seriously flawed. Oil is bought and sold on international markets and crude produced here would sell at the global price, not at a domestic discount.

True, producing more oil in this country would further satisfy demand a bit and, assuming demand was static, more supply should cause prices to drop. The little-understood story here, though, is that prices might not drop by nearly as much as some politicians have led us to believe. That’s because the supply increase wouldn’t amount to much when measured against global supply and demand. It’s worth telling readers that boosting oil production here – while an admirable goal in some respects – likely won’t cause gas stations to rapidly roll back pump prices.

Lastly, it might surprise many to know that, for all the finger-pointing, both Sens. McCain and Obama have offered up tax plans that would “substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years,” according to an analysis by The Tax Policy Center. The center goes on to state that “neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases …” That similarity of trillion-dollar shortfalls might shock many readers.

That said, the candidates’ plans do predictably differ widely in how they would collect taxes. McCain would reduce levies for the wealthiest among us; Obama would cut taxes for lower-income groups and raise them for wealthier folks.

Which strategy would best serve the country and the economy? Those are serious questions to pursue in explanatory stories. Another question: What income levels comprise the so-called well-to-do that Obama wants to hammer and McCain wants to aid in the name of spurring economic growth? The answers might surprise many readers who hadn’t thought of themselves as being in the country club set.

As always, journalists can make a difference by doing their homework, asking tough, incisive questions and laying out the real deal for the electorate in plain, concise language. The stakes are high for America in this election year and journalism must do its part to inform voters. That’s our duty to the Republic and the First Amendment.

Copyright © 2008 Donald W. Reynolds National Center for Business Journalism