This post is not about the horse race or who "won" the debate. This post is about the greatest problem facing America today, a greater problem than we have faced in many years. This post is about the economy. I'm sorry to say that neither of the candidates took the opportunity to address it in a serious manner.

Let's begin with McCain, the stupider of the two. What's McCain's solution to our economic travails? Reducing earmarks. As Jim Lehrer pressed him on how to address the current crisis, McCain responded with earmark reform and more earmark reform. Earmarks are certainly a problem. We waste a lot of money on local projects that serve not the nation's interest but the interest of reelecting certain congresspeople who have proven their worth by staying in office long enough to head choice committees. Great. Let's cut the earmarks. According to the O.M.B., we spent $16.5B on earmarks in 2008. That's a lot of money to you and me, but to the Federal Government, it's chump change. The total Federal Budget in 2008 was almost 3 trillion dollars, of which earmarks make up one half of one percent. Let's say McCain were to be elected President and, against all odds, succeed in banning earmarks completely. The Federal Budget would still be 3 trillion dollars. What does shaving 0.5% (at most) from the Federal budget have to do with stabilizing the economy?

But it's worse than that. Ever since Keynes, it's been widely accepted that governments should spend money during recessions in order to stimulate the economy. Whatever limited value earmarks have for the nation, they at least pump money into the economy. So McCain's solution to the recession is to cut Federal spending which would accomplish the exact opposite. 2009 is the worst moment in recent history to cut earmarks. McCain's solution not only offers minimal benefit to our economy; it's actually counterproductive. Did I say stupid?

Obama's turn. Obama, to his credit, spent a minute or two discussing the bailout plan, which is more than McCain was able to muster. But the bailout is a stopgap measure meant to stave off a massive collapse. It's the first step in what must be a comprehensive plan to rebuild the economy. So what else did Obama have to say about the economy? Tax cuts for the middle class. Everyone who makes less than $250K will receive some kind of tax cut. Rolling back the Bush tax cut for the rich will cover the cost. Income distribution and the shrinking middle class are major problems which need to be addressed, and I'm very glad that Obama intends to address them. But those plans do not address the economy in the near term. The tax cuts do not constitute a stimulus package. Obama's plan simply that shifts the current tax burden to wealthier Americans. It does not provide any solution to our immediate economic malaise.

The correct answer to Lehrer's question about what we need to cut would have been to say that now is not the time to reduce the deficit. What we need right now are stimulus packages for the top, the bottom, and the middle. We need to inject capital into the economy and restore confidence. We need a plan to protect the country from a long, deep, painful recession. Neither candidate has offered even the glimmer of such a plan.