Andanh.com

' The McCain campaign obviously plans to run hard against Barack Obama's inexperience, and for good reason. Obama's resume is startling thin for arguably the world's most important job.

The McCain camp has challenged Obama to appear in a series of joint town halls prior to the Democratic convention. The thinking presumably is to expose Obama's inexperience through early and frequent unscripted moments.

I suspect this will prove to be a failed strategy. In fact, my guess is that joint appearances with McCain will serve to reassure voters rather than alarm them about Obama.

Democrats make too much of the analogy with John Kennedy. When Kennedy was nominated for president, he had served in Congress for 12 years. He had been seriously considered for the vice presidential slot in 1956.

So, Kennedy was a known national figure. Obama is a shooting star, coming out of political obscurity -- with a mediocre record as a state legislator, college lecturer and lawyer -- to presidential nominee in a scant four years.

Nevertheless, the analogy may fit when it comes to debates and joint appearances.

Despite Kennedy's background, he was regarded as much less experienced than Richard Nixon, the sitting vice president, which the Nixon camp and pundits thought would be exposed in the televised debates.

Instead, Kennedy was in command of the issues. He also exuded more confidence and command of himself than did Nixon. Any experience gap problem for Kennedy disappeared.

Although Obama is disturbingly inexperienced, he's no empty suit. He knows his stuff. And he's already proven himself able to project a sense of cool and command in the Democratic debates.

The bet here is that joint appearances with McCain will shrink rather than enlarge Obama's experience gap problem.

' The hospitals and other health care institutions are complaining about a shortage of nurses.

In a free market, this wouldn't be a problem, nor something the health care institutions would be bothering the public about. If they required more nurses, they would have to recruit and train some more, offering enough in wages to attract the numbers they need.

However, as a society, we have made the training of nurses primarily a public function, done principally through universities. This has some advantage for the health care institutions, since the taxpayers pick up some of their training costs. But universities are lumbering enterprises, largely immune from market signals and discipline.

The public interest in ensuring the competency of health care professionals, such as nurses, can be done through testing. The training and credentialing function, in health care and elsewhere, should be radically decentralized and privatized.

' Blaming Senate President Tim Bee's congressional campaign activities for the slowness in developing a state budget for next year is misplaced.

Bee doesn't drive the substance of the budget discussions the way his predecessor Ken Bennett, who was a budget policy wonk, did. Bee instead is a consensus builder. His presence isn't as essential to progress as was Bennett's. Moreover, he's not been absent that much.

The problem isn't time on task, or the attempt by Republicans to reach a consensus among themselves before negotiating with Gov. Janet Napolitano and the Democrats. The problem is that the problem is just too big.

There are no easy ways to bridge a $2.2 billion budget deficit. It requires fiscal conservatives to accept financing mechanisms they find abhorrent. It requires spenders to accept deep cuts that will hurt programs.

It is simply an iron rule that politicians don't give in on big stuff to compromise until they have to. In this case, the "have to" is July 1, when the state will not be authorized to spend money without a new budget. And even that date can be finessed with a continuing resolution of some sort.

Chances are all 90 legislators could have been meeting with Gov. Napolitano 24/7 since the start of session and the state of the budget negotiations wouldn't be much farther along than they are now.

' Last week, Rep. Harry Mitchell sent out a proud press release about amending a bill that might result in federal funding to help repair Corona del Sol High School in Tempe. The school reportedly has serious ventilation problems that affect the health of students and faculty.

Nevertheless, the state agency responsible for school construction says that the situation doesn't qualify for emergency funding. So, Mitchell wants the feds to gallop to the rescue.

This is all so ridiculous. If school construction were still a local school district responsibility, the Corona repairs would already have been made. Instead, the district has to petition the state and now perhaps the federal government.

I was struck by how much McCain felt compelled to concede Obama's framing of the election.

Yes, the election is about change, McCain admitted. However, the choice isn't between change and no change. It's between the right change and the wrong change.

Obama, McCain asserted, isn't really offering anything new. For Obama, the answer to every problem is more government. Been there, done that, was McCain's pitch. Doesn't work.

And McCain is right about that.

According to Obama, the change the American people want is something different from the Bush administration. And he's certainly right about that. Dissatisfaction with Bush is the driving force in this election.

However, it's worth remembering that Bush was reelected in 2004 with policies indistinguishable from those his administration is pursuing today. So, the American people do not, per se, reject those policies.

So, what's changed?

In 2004, the Iraq war was largely considered a success. Saddam's regime had been routed and he had been captured.

By 2006, it was clear that the Iraq war was not going well. Moreover, the American people didn't accept that the continuing fight there was central to protecting this country against future terrorist attacks. That was the story of the 2006 election, in which the American people returned the Democrats to power in Congress.

Today, a stagnant economy has intensified feelings of economic vulnerability. However, the economic conditions that are more worrisome today than in 2004 – the housing bubble burst and consequent credit crunch, rising prices – are the result of loose monetary policy by the Fed, not the fiscal policies of the Bush administration.

That, however, is a level of detail beyond the attention of the electorate. People are feeling more economically insecure. They blame the guys in charge, whom they perceive to be the Bush administration, for that. And they want government to do something to give them a greater sense of economic security and well-being.

According to Obama, McCain represents the "third term" of the Bush administration. He's more than half right about that.

McCain highlights the areas in which he has disagreed with Bush – troop levels in Iraq, interrogation practices, climate change, campaign finance reform.

However, on the big ticket items in this election – the economy and the use of military force as an instrument of American foreign policy – McCain doesn't differ much from Bush.

Since 9/11, fears of additional terrorist attacks have subsided while economic anxieties have risen. As a result, this election is likely to turn on domestic affairs.

There are considerable and important differences between the candidates about domestic policy. The candidates will offer voters a very distinctive choice about the size of government and its reach in domestic matters.

However, the more consequential choice is probably in foreign policy.

Iraq will dominate the foreign policy debate. McCain is right that the surge is working. Obama is right that the war was a mistake and that the billions that are still being spent on it aren't purchasing commensurate increments of additional security for the American people.

However, the more important foreign policy choice involves Iran.

The question of whether the American president should meet directly with the leaders of Iran is a side show. The real question is whether the U.S. should take military action to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Both candidates purport to want to avoid the question by more effective diplomacy – McCain by talking and acting tough; Obama by treating Iran less as a pariah state.

Both approaches are highly likely to fail.

Iran seems committed to developing a nuclear weapon, or at least a ready capability to create one. That appears to be a principal strategic objective of the ruling regime.

Inducements will not cause it to abandon the quest. The West doesn't have anything Iranian rulers want more than the bomb. And it is highly doubtful that painful enough sanctions will be agreed to by Russia and China, or complied with by Western Europe, to alter its course.

McCain has pretty much committed to using military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, saying frequently that the only thing worse than taking such action is Iran with a nuclear weapon.

Obama has not directly answered the question, and probably won't. But you get the impression that he would be more inclined to try to cope with Iran with a nuke than take military action to prevent it.

There is no more consequential question than war. And while it is likely to be discussed obliquely at best, that question, with respect to Iran, may very well be on the ballot this November.

(column for 6.6.08)

I'm not sure when putting on a fireworks display became a government function to begin with. Nevertheless, although this is a small matter, it well illustrates a larger point: Government involvement often preempts and stifles private initiatives that would otherwise occur.