Tyler Cowen on economists who have endorsed John McCain's economic plan:That's not a bad list of endorsements -- particularly for a guy who doesn't understand economics. But at least he admits it.Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, Vernon Smith, Michael Boskin, John Cogan, Steven Davis, Francis X. Diebold, Martin Eichenbaum, Martin Feldstein, Kevin Hassett, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Glenn Hubbard, Anne Krueger, Deepak Lal, Burton Malkiel, Paul W. McCracken, Allan Meltzer, Tim Muris, June O'Neill, Michael E. Porter, Kenneth Rogoff, Richard Roll, Harvey Rosen, George Shultz, Beryl Sprinkel, John Taylor, and Arnold Zellner.
I was sent that list in an email. The opening of the statement reads:
We enthusiastically support John McCain's economic plan. It is a comprehensive, pro-growth, reform agenda. The reform focuses on the real economic problems Americans face today and will face in the future. And it builds on the core economic principles that have made America great.
His plan would control government spending by vetoing every bill with earmarks, implementing a constitutionally valid line-item veto, pausing non-military discretionary government spending programs for one year to stop their explosive growth and place accountability on federal government agencies.
No, I don't do endorsements but if I were tempted to (and I'm not) I would this year be even more suspicious than usual. I feel that the candidates are trying to trick me and the one who isn't -- Hillary Clinton, whose negatives are too transparent to my eyes -- has been trying to trick everyone else.
I'll put the rest of the letter in the first comment, but in the meantime my advice -- at least for this year -- is to vote on the basis of foreign policy.
It's interesting to see both of GMU's Nobel Prize winners on the list. I wonder if they know something Cowen doesn't or maybe vice-versa?
3 comments:
Both candidates will have their cadre of experts to roll out.
The idea for the gas tax holiday was a litmus test for whether a candidate will go with sound economic principles or go with political pandering.
McCain and Hillary failed on that one, and Obama won.
McCain's stand on earmarks is honorable, but it is misleading to suggest that this is the way to balancing the budget. For all of the negative press, earmarks make up a tiny fraction of our federal budget.
And McCain has yet to really explain to the American people how he can afford to finance the Iraq war indefinitely, esp. without raising taxes.
As others have noted, the Iraq war is the first war where the American people have not been asked to pay for it. Eventually that will catch up to us.
In one sense, the Iraq war is probably the largest govt program around, and the single largest budget buster.
McCain acts as if defense spending is somehow not to be counted as an expenditure. Now it may very well be worthy in so many cases, but you have to be honest with the American people and ask them to pay for it.
I must say that as a Republican, unfortunately McCain does not measure up on economic issues. I cannot blame that all on him, for in so many areas, alas, the Republican party has run out of ideas. They remind me of the Democratic party in the late 70's, when Reagan cleaned their clock.
I do give McCain credit for breaking with Republican orthodoxy on climate change and the environment, though. However, even there his plans are not as comprehensive or sufficient as Obama's.
We do face a disturbing choice of one of three flavors of economic blather punctuated by a good idea here and there and, on the other hand, a more distinct variety of proposals how to dance the dance of history with Mr. Ambitious Ahmadinejad. What we really need is for Congress to take emergency action and pass the Mr. Potato Head amendment, permitting Americans to pick and choose from all three of our leading contenders. Absent that, it's good to know where a leading economist sits in the unlikely event (now that the idea has been launched, here, today) we will not be able to vote for Mr. Potato Head in November.
Actually, Obama is hardly a "disturbing choice".
While hardly perfect, as he admits, he represents a chance to redefine politics in a positive and historic fashion.
And his message of hope and unity are not only refreshing, but continue in the best traditions of this country.
Post a Comment