Grant-Sali: Round 1 Redux

Not being able to drive 8 hours up to Northern Idaho, I’m forced to rely on media reports about the debate. Betsy Russell has a pretty good one. First, we’ve got this point from Larry Grant:

“If Mr. Sali goes to Congress, he moves his party to the right,” said Grant, a Democrat who called himself a “fiscal conservative and a social moderate.” “If I go to Congress, I move my party closer to the middle.”

To quote Garfield, “Big, fat hairy deal.” So why should Idaho care if the Democratic Caucus is more towards the Center. I was totally puzzled over this and read this quote to my wife. She said, “You know what that means? Bill Sali should have run as a Democrat!”

See, Bill Sali caucusing with the Democrats would have had a bigger net ideological effect in the Democratic Caucus room. Of course, the Democratic Party isn’t going to move to the Center, even if Larry Grant goes there. The Democrats have their strength in the House through urban seats in places like LA, New York, San Francisco, and Chicago. That’s always going to make up the bulk of their caucus and they’re not going to move to the Center if Larry Grant goes to Washington.

As for Sali, he may be a key player in getting someone in the house leadership who will cut government spending and reduce deficits.

Grant said national political pundits are now saying it’s a “foregone conclusion” that Democrats will retake the majority in the House. “If that’s the case, then it might be very important for Idaho to have at least one member in the majority party,” he said.

This is a dumb argument and inaccurate. I’ve yet to see anyone say, “It’s a foregone conclusion, Democrats will take the House.” I saw someone predict them gaining 15 seats, which would leave them with a 219-216 advantage. And if national media’s off and the GOP ends us in a 218-217 control or better then you’ve wasted your vote on an election analysis.

Student journalist Noah Buntain asked both candidates how they’d ensure every American can get a job and earn a living wage. Sali said, “I don’t think it’s government’s job to ensure that people have a job at all.” Instead, he said, government should ensure a healthy economy so businesses can thrive. “Businesses should be in the business of providing jobs,” Sali said. He asserted that the only reason people want higher wages is because the cost of government is rising. “That cost of government is getting built into everything – it’s built into this table,” he said. “We ought to keep the government out of the business of establishing what your wage should be.”

Grant said, “Businesses are not in the business of creating jobs – they’re in the business of making money.” Government, he said, can use tax policy and regulation to “shape corporate behavior.” “I disagree that wages are low because of the cost of government,” Grant said. “Wages are low because employers will pay you as little as they have to.”

Grant’s just wrong here. When the economy’s good, you get better wages because business is booming and they need people to help them make money. Businesses create jobs becuase they need people to help them make money.

Sali’s point about hidden taxes is poignant as well. What he means by the price of government being build into the table is this: the cost of the payroll tax at the company that manufactured the table, along with their corpporate income tax, and the cost of complying with federal regulations are included in the cost of the table, so you reduce that, you reduce cost to the consumer and increase cash flow, so the pay from a lower-paying job goes further and the definition of “good-paying” changes accordingly.

On the war on terror, Grant called the current strategy “flawed.” He said, “Here we are fighting a conventional war in Iraq under the guise of fighting terrorism.” That won’t work, he said, “unless you are prepared to put a lot of people on the ground and leave them there forever.” Sali said the war on terror won’t end until “there are no more Islamic fundamentalists who believe that they need to kill everyone who is a Christian or an infidel – it’s going to last that long.” Sali said he supported Otter’s initial vote against the Patriot Act, but said: “The question is, does our Constitution work for terrorists? I don’t believe it does.”

Grant warned against targeting people over beliefs. “People have the right to believe whatever they want,” he said. “The war on terror will end when those folks stop acting on those beliefs. That’s a very important distinction to make.” Sali responded by asking the audience how they liked having the Aryan Nations compound “right in your backyard.” “There’s danger with thoughts,” Sali said. “Ideas have consequences, and until those ideas change, we’ll have a war on terrorism.”

Simply put, Sali gets it, Grant doesn’t, and I think Idaho which will reach that conclusion as well this Fall.

—–