The US is entering an era of more active government. Can Washington deliver?
Thanks Allen, Ingrid, and Teresa. Your questions at Tuesday's presidential debate identified a central tension in the campaign. Two of you wanted to know how government can help in tough times – help seniors and help the environment. But Teresa, you wanted to know whether you could even trust either candidate with your money.
Trusting Washington to get the job done is the $700 billion question, especially as it moves toward a more active role in American life.
And it is clearly moving in that direction. If Democrat Barack Obama wins, he'll attempt a mini-New Deal. Like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who took office in the depths of the Depression, Mr. Obama would seek to stimulate the economy and create jobs through public investment in infrastructure, from roads to renewable energy.
And he promises to expand the social safety net. Obama wants to give the uninsured access to the same kind of health program that members of Congress enjoy (paid for by repealing Bush tax cuts for the wealthy) and mandate health insurance for children.
Republican John McCain would seek to invigorate a weak economy through tax cuts and incentives, and control government spending. He would improve access to healthcare by providing individuals a $2,500 tax credit to buy insurance.
But even he, like Obama, favors direct investment in energy and greater regulation of the financial sector. He also voted for last week's historic government rescue plan for Wall Street. He suggests that government buy the faltering mortgages of homeowners who can prove they were worthy borrowers.