New York, Sept.26 : An editorial appearing in the New York Times has said that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama appears to be much clearer than his Republican rival John McCain on what ails the American economy, and what solutions are needed.
It says that the McCain proposed capping of executives' pay at firms that get bailout money, is at best a "punitive idea, but one that does nothing to mitigate the crisis."
"What is most important is that Mr. McCain hasn't said a word about strengthening regulation or budged one inch from his insistence on maintaining Mr. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. That trickle-down notion has done nothing to improve the lives of most Americans and, even without a 700 billion dollar bailout, saddled generations to come with crippling deficits," it adds.
On the other hand, the editorial says that Obama has been clearer "on the magnitude and causes of the financial crisis. He has long called for robust regulation of the financial industry, and he said early on that a bailout must protect taxpayers."
The editorial further says that Obama also recognizes that the wealthy must pay more taxes or this country will never dig out of its deep financial hole.
But it adds that "Obama walked up to the edge of offering full prescriptions and stopped there", suggesting that there is a clear absence of leadership in dealing with America's worst economic crisis.
"We don't know if Mr. McCain or Mr. Obama will do any good back in Washington. But Mr. McCain's idea of postponing the Friday night debate was another wild gesture from a candidate entirely too prone to them. The nation needs to hear Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain debate this crisis and demonstrate who is ready to lead," said the NYT. t also castigates President George W Bush for not offering "a great deal more than an eerily dispassionate primer on the credit markets in which he took no responsibility at all for the financial debacle."
"He promised to protect taxpayers with his proposed bailout, but he did not explain how he would do that other than a superficial assurance that in sweeping up troubled assets, government would buy low and sell high," says the editorial.
"In the end, Mr. Bush's appearance was just another reminder of something that has been worrying us throughout this crisis: the absence of any real national leadership, including on the campaign trail."