Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama are nearly indistinguishable in their miscalculation of the American voters' appetite for bigger and more expensive government and their misunderstanding of human nature.

Both weaknesses were obvious Tuesday night as the presidential candidates faced off in their second debate.

Let's start with McCain's Homeownership Resurgence Plan, a $300 million bailout package that dropped out of the blue during the town hall in Nashville. As described on his Web site, McCain's plan would "purchase mortgages directly from homeowners and mortgage servicers, and replace them with manageable, fixed-rate mortgages that will keep families in their homes."

In other words, the government would offer foreclosure insurance to guarantee no one loses a home. McCain is reading surveys that show Americans overwhelmingly oppose the $700 billion bailout package Congress approved for the financial markets last week and assuming that their objection is that it was targeted toward Wall Street. We assume, as should McCain, that a good many Americans don't want their tax dollars spent to bail out anybody, and that it is as much the spending as the beneficiaries that taxpayers find distasteful.

The Republican nominee's plan removes much of the incentive for homeowners who are struggling with mortgage payments — or simply aren't happy with a high interest rate — to keep making their house payment. If they stop writing the monthly checks, the government will take over their mortgage, renegotiate the rate and save them a bundle of money. It's not at all hard to imagine how this $300 billion homeowner bailout could quickly balloon to twice that cost or more.

Expect the same thing to happen with Obama's health care proposal, which he is touting as a menu of public and private options that allow individuals to choose the plan that best suits their needs. Obama promises that individuals who currently have employer-paid health insurance can keep that coverage, and those who don't can get a policy offered by the government.

But that assumes private employers won't off-load their insurance costs to the government. That's what happened after President George W. Bush crafted the Medicare drug benefit, which offered government prescription medicine coverage for those not under private insurance. Even though companies were given incentives to continue offering the benefit, many chose instead to end the coverage and transfer the cost to the government.

Obama proposes to prevent that by forcing "large and middle-sized" employers by law to offer health insurance. The wisdom of adding costs to an employer's bottom line without increasing productivity is questionable.

In the fine print of Obama's plan is a provision that would attack the problem of costly malpractice insurance for medical professionals by forcing insurers to cut rates. The only foreseeable outcome is that insurers, who base rates on risk, will simply stop offering malpractice policies. Most state-level efforts to cut malpractice insurance costs have focused on limiting lawsuits and awards, but that would affect the trial lawyers who bankroll the Senate's Democratic caucus, and that is far too much change for Obama to endorse.

For the record, McCain's health care plan, much derided and distorted by the latest round of Obama campaign ads, does a better job of providing access to health insurance without blowing up the private system. But he chose to talk about nationalizing the home mortgage industry instead of defending his health insurance proposal.

Both candidates on Wednesday gave a nod to fiscal discipline and a need for belt-tightening. And both then ignored their own admonitions and ticked off a long list of new spending programs and tax cuts.

Voters deserve more responsible policies than those offered Tuesday night by these two candidates.

REPRINTED FROM THE DETROIT NEWS.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.