Loans and Leadership, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times:
[...]
Mr. McCain is often referred to as a maverick and a moderate... But his speech on the economy was that of an orthodox, hard-line right-winger. It... was more about what Mr. McCain wouldnt do than about what he would. His main action proposal, as far as I can tell, was a call for a national summit of accountants...
Mr. McCain more or less came out against aid for troubled homeowners: government assistance should be based solely on preventing systemic risk, which means that big investment banks qualify but ordinary citizens dont.
But I was even more struck by Mr. McCains declaration that our financial market approach should include ... removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital. ... Mr. McCain is selling the same old snake oil, claiming that deregulation and tax cuts cure all ills.
Hillary Clintons speech could not have been more different.
True, Mrs. Clinton ...[has] echoes of the excessively comfortable relationship her husbands administration developed with the investment industry. But the substance of her policy proposals..., like that of her health care plan, suggests a strong progressive sensibility.
Maybe the most notable contrast between Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton involves ... restructuring mortgages. Mr. McCain called for voluntary action on the part of lenders that is, he proposed doing nothing. Mrs. Clinton wants a modern version of the Home Owners Loan Corporation, the New Deal institution that acquired ... mortgages..., then reduced payments to a level ... homeowners could afford.
Finally, Barack Obamas speech ... followed the cautious pattern of his earlier statements on economic issues.
I was pleased that Mr. Obama came out strongly for broader financial regulation... But his proposals for aid..., though significant, are less sweeping than Mrs. Clintons: he wants to nudge private lenders into restructuring mortgages rather than having the government simply step in and get the job done.
Mr. Obama also continues to make permanent tax cuts ... a centerpiece of his economic plan. Its not clear how he would pay both for these tax cuts and for initiatives like health care reform, so his tax-cut promises raise questions about how determined he really is to pursue a strongly progressive agenda.
All in all, the candidates positions on the mortgage crisis tell the same tale as their positions on health care: a tale that is seriously at odds with the way theyre often portrayed.
[...]
Do these policy comparisons really tell us what each candidate would be like as president? Not necessarily but theyre the best guide we have.