Let the Debating Begin

While this debate is supposed to be about foreign policy, in general I'd like to know more about how each candidate can navigate the political minefield to get government spending under control, reduce the deficit and national debt, make healthcare more affordable for retail employees and employers, and what can be done to make Social Security solvent. The overriding thing I'd like to know is whether either has a strategy for working with Congress for real economic and political progress - in other words, making reforms that are actually beneficial to citizens - or has politics deteriorated to the point that it's all about satisfying various large constituencies? I'm afraid I already know the answer.

Al McClain, CEO, Founder, RetailWire.com

There is a distinct lack of future vision on either side, owing mostly to the situation in Iraq. It's difficult to determine from the candidate's websites where they plan to take the country in the next five or ten years and beyond. That's the question I would ask: "Take Iraq out of the picture and provide a vision of where you see the country in 2010?"

Ron Margulis, Managing Director, RAM Communications

The question I would most like to hear the candidates discuss involves the long-term viability of our "social debt." Something like this.

"We have seen one European country after another's economy collapsing under the weight of social entitlements. These are quite popular to promise, since they involve future payment, but quite difficult to fund when the bill finally comes due. Our current population trend -- the boomers plus rising immigration -- and the current drive to extend these benefits to "guest workers" will push the bulge through the snake in less than 30 years now. How will you a) pay for all this, or b) put us on a "pay as you go" system now (and still get elected of course!), or c) convince us that we need to accept less?"

Ben Ball, Senior Vice President, Dechert-Hampe

If given a chance, I would ask the candidate, "What is a statesman, what would he do to benefit three million American citizens today, and why do you think you are one?"

Gene Hoffman, President/CEO, Corporate Strategies International

My guess is that the presidential election will make no difference at all for the state of the retail environment for the foreseeable future.

Despite the apparent difference between the candidates, it's unlikely that either one would make any meaningful policy changes that would affect consumers in the retail market.

It's all just a tempest in a teapot, but it should be entertaining to follow over the next few weeks.

Peter Fader, Professor of Marketing, The Wharton School of the Univ. of Pennsylvania

Have you ever noticed that, when asked a direct question by a commentator or opponent, politicians and their supporters find a way to deliver their official talking points without really answering the question? We seem to be doing a bit of that today on RetailWire.

On the topic of retail or business-related issues, I'd ask each candidate one question: For Senator Kerry, the question would be about eliminating tax cuts for the so-called "rich." Since most small business owners fall into Kerry's definition of "rich," and since they pay taxes based on the personal income tax tables, they would be among the hardest-hit by this policy. Specifically, how would Kerry offset the extra tax burden for these employers so they could continue to grow and create jobs, and avoid laying off employees and cutting re-investment into their businesses?

For President Bush, the question would address global trade and the administration's role in protecting jobs here while creating trading partners for our goods and services. Specifically, is there an integrated plan for maintaining a balanced approach to retaining jobs while opening up new markets, is there a scorekeeping mechanism to measure success, and are there mid-course correction tools in place to minimize negative developments?

M. Jericho Banks PhD, President, CEO, Forensic Marketing LLC

Minimum Wage gets too little attention and we want it to stay that way. Raising the minimum wage is one of the biggest threats to the weaker retailers. The open market should determine wages, not the government.

Health Care - everyone wants a free ride but someone has to pay for it. We need to put health care back in the control of the consumer. Insurance should be for catastrophic events, not routine maintenance and runny noses.

Overtime - overtime policies should be defined by individual companies and not the government.

Estate Taxes - these should be repealed permanently. Small business owners with just a few million dollars of equity are getting hurt and having difficulty in keeping their family owned business in the family.

David Livingston, Principal, DJL Research

If they're discussing foreign policy, let's hear them address the real issues of fair trade. I haven't heard much on this or anthing yet.

Len Lewis, President, Lewis Communications, Inc.

Question... when is a debate not a debate? Answer...Thursday evening and uh... two other evenings to come.

'TerryR'

I'd like to hear both of them articulate a solid position on eminent domain laws. It seems to me that both parties are self-conflicted on the issue. The democratic party claims to support "the little guy" but at the same time is cozy with labor unions that want businesses to be able to use eminent domain to get new real estate. The republican party, with its "ownership society" ideals seems to have strong property rights standing, but this comes into conflict with its "pro-business" stance.

The next president will probably choose multiple Supreme Court members, and it is nearly a certainty the Supremes will have to decide eminent domain issues.

'mfbenson'

If the job of a consumer is to consume, what are the candidates planning to do to help them fulfill their potential? Right now, it looks as if the bare necessities of life - including health care and education as well as the more tangible items purchased in retail outlets - are all that anyone can really afford. Conspicuous consumption doesn't appear to be an option for very many people.

Bernice Hurst, Contributing Editor, RetailWire

If the intention of this site is to be 'non-political' then the intent is broken today. Doc Banks clearly points that out. I'd really like to see each of the commentators take a second look at the question, give their political slant a rest, and answer the real questions posed.

I am disappointed. I am at times maybe a little (well more than a little) political myself. So I can't be too harsh here. But come on folks, you are "Braintrust." At least try to come close to the question. All I see today, for the most part is a political answer and a slant.

The issue least being discussed is the size of government and the imposition it is on the ability to start and sustain small, medium or large retail businesses. Neither side addresses this with a clear message. I would have at least expected one side to do so. But neither has.

Try again. I'd like to see more thoughtful responses.

'Scanner'

While I'd love to see the candidates address issues of direct concern to the retail and product marketing industries, I don't expect they can or would ever get down to that granular a level.

As I see it, this election is about two things in this order: 1) Are we pursuing the "war on terror" in the best way possible for the betterment of America and the world? 2) The condition of our economy.

I'd like to ask the two candidates to state under what precise conditions they would commence a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I'd like to ask each to outline their most current doctrine regarding the U.S. pursuit of international terrorist groups. I want each candidate to tell us exactly who is the enemy? How many? Where? Are their ranks growing or shrinking? What is their best estimate of the threat over the next 1-5 years?

On the economic front, I'd request a clear statement of intent regarding reform of our healthcare delivery system. I'd like someone to tell me how a prescription drug bill will do more than relieve a bit of burden from medicare patients. I want to hear a clear plan from each regarding how they will reverse the present budget deficit. I want to hear how readjustment of the tax code will make the system more fair for more Americans.

James Tenser, Principal, VSN Strategies

OK. Here's one on the "business/economic front".

Who will you appoint as Chairman of the Federal Reserve and why?

And another:

Please give your views on the impact on our economic growth of the following taxation scenarios: the current "progressive income tax"; the "flat tax" and the "Value Added Tax (VAT). Which would you push for America and why?

Ben Ball, Senior Vice President, Dechert-Hampe

The debate held yesterday, declared by Fox News as a clear victory for the Democratic candidate, focused on Iraq to the detriment of other pressing issues that must be addressed urgently by whoever rules the White House next January. Among them, we must deal with a renewed sharp increase in the current account deficit leading to a crash of the dollar, a budget profile that is out of control and an outbreak of trade protectionism. A related one is that oil prices could rise to $60 to $70 per barrel even without a major political or terrorist disruption. The latter could bring those prices up much higher (note that oil firms design operations to be profitable at $20/barrel, and that oil in the Middle East frequently costs $0.10 at the tanker site).

These flash points discussed in business journals like Fortune, Business Week, or The Economist seem to be below the radar. When I ask my friends in both parties why these issues aren't discussed, they claim they don't resonate with the American voters. But if the above trends continue (i.e., projections set the current account deficit at $1 trillion per year by 2010) our retailers will suffer a major setback on their sales volume and margins. A deep dollar devaluation could trigger interest rates above the 10% barrier. Insurance premiums and energy cost increases far surpass tax cuts received by the middle class...the retailer will be hurt. And it is very difficult to discuss fair trade issues when our government owes $2.5 trillion, and our trade partners hold a significant share of that debt.

Shouldn't the retail industry make a stronger case for more rational budget management? I love tax cuts, but not when their impact, combined with poorly prioritized spending, will hit me with inflationary pressures and deep dollar devaluations. The retail industry may have to prepare for many lean years while we extricate our economy from this financial mess. The Clinton years are beginning to look very good.

Anonymous

I would love to see a realistic debate regarding our current healthcare situation. Healthcare costs are out of control with no relief in sight. Small business can't afford to provide coverage and individuals can't afford it either. I would like to know where each of the candidates stands in this area. Are we heading for socialized medicine? Will quality healthcare only be available to the wealthy?

Another area is the lack of regulation and apparently lack of concern over the mad cow issue. Japan is finding diseased cows by testing every one, yet we aren't finding any with testing 40,000. And did I understand correctly that the USDA is now backing off the restrictions on the feed ingredients? Why don't we institute the correct feed requirements and implement a total cow-testing program before we have to go through what England did? Protecting the American beef industry is fine as long as we first protect the American consumer and it sure doesn't look like that is the current priority.

Art Williams, Retail Marketing Consultant/Analyst, Independent

I think the economy will take a lot of the time in the next two debates and that any economic issue ultimately plays out at the retail level in the form of products and services sold and bought.

The question I would ask the candidates:

What will you do in the next four years (short term) to promote long-term economic growth in general and to shore up the middle class?

The answer I would want to hear is twofold:

1. Return the country to progressive tax policy. Tax relief for the middle and lower classes stimulates demand at the retail level, which then stimulates demand for goods and services all the way up the supply chain until it stimulates demand for capital. As with anything else, demand for capital will rise in value, sweetening portfolios throughout the investment community.

2. Support science and technology with money and publicity. The propensity of the current administration to marginalize scientists who contradict party ideology probably won't do us much harm in the short term -- but the long-term effects on the economy could be devastating. Our role in the global economy is to innovate -- to invent new technologies that spawn companies, industries and ultimately entire sectors of the global economy. It's been my observation that new industries follow a cycle: first, invention; second, adoption; third, penetration and fourth, consolidation. Once an industry has consolidated, the companies left standing can only please Wall Street by fighting over market share and cutting costs -- so the jobs go overseas.

The car business took 80 years to complete the cycle; the personal computer business took less than 30. Chances are, future industries will mature even faster, progressively shortening the period an industry can employ large numbers of American workers below middle management.

If I'm right, that means that the hydrogen industry, for example, though the technology might be ten or more years away, may only create significant numbers of good jobs in the American economy for a few years before it, too, consolidates and exports the jobs it can.

If we're going to survive as anything more than an old-industry oligarchy, we need to keep the pipeline of new technologies full. That means, at a minimum, continuing to fund basic research without regard to short-term returns. We also need to safeguard scientists' and entrepreneurs' freedom of inquiry from scrutiny on ideological grounds. The current system has proven a powerful engine for the creation of poverty; we need to return to policies that create wealth.

Mary Baum, Chairman, Mary Baum Creative Services