What do you want, someone who will help you or someone who will hurt you?
Brad DeLong, maybe the best of the economics bloggers and prof at UC Berkeley, presents a pie chart showing just how tiny a sliver of the budget deficit is taken up by the cornerstone of McCain’s budget balancing promises, “earmarks.” Those are the fire stations and bridges locals want that Congress people scratch each others' backs to fund – sometimes good, like the really needed fire station, and sometimes not so good, like the infamous “bridge to nowhere,” but almost always popular locally. And I do mean the earmarks sliver is teeny, tiny. Real viewer effort is actually required even to see it. Maybe an enterprising reporter will ask McCain how his plan will work when earmarks are only a tiny percentage of the Federal deficit.
In the meantime, DeLong, who says he was mostly an independent before George Bush I, puts the economic issue in a nutshell (emphasis added):
In the meantime, DeLong, who says he was mostly an independent before George Bush I, puts the economic issue in a nutshell (emphasis added):
What reason could there be not to vote against a candidate who says he doesn't know very much about economics? Not to vote against a candidate whose two chief economic advisors are Phil "What Problems with Deregulation, You Whiners?" Gramm and Carly "H-P Paid Me $21 Million to Go Away" Fiorina. All signs are that McCain economic policy is set to be much worse than even the George W. Bush policy . . . .
It is not just that economic policy under John McCain is likely to be very bad, it is that economic policy under Barack Obama is likely to be quite good. Barack Obama shows every sign of continuing the moderate Democrat tradition of economic policy--working to reduce income disparities, enhance opportunity, restore fiscal balance, speed up productivity growth, try to fix our health care system, invest in America's future, and engage with the global economy. He is a very smart man with, I think, a very good team of advisors.
On the one had, we have a candidate unengaged with the economy as opposed to a candidate who is. A candidate who gets on the phone with Phil Gramm and Carly Fiorina--and who doesn't appear to know that Ms. Fiorina received one of those golden parachutes he is denouncing--as opposed to a candidate who listens to Austan Goolsbee, Bob Rubin, Larry Summers, Gene Sperling, and Laura Tyson. The choice seems obvious to me. I'm interested in why it doesn't seem obvious to [everyone else].
2 Comments:
Look, I hate to be a niggler, but it's not good enough in the blog world to simply cite the source, the way it used to be done in dead-tree technology. You've gotta link! And it's not that hard! (At worst you can fall back on the klugy method I'm going to use below, since I don't know HTML. But if I were a blogger like you professionals at Scatablog -- which is why you guys bring in the big bucks -- I bet I'd learn real fast.)
What's more, KISSweb, I'd suggest you should have quoted (with link) an even more powerful passage in DeLong's post (http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/09/obama-vs-mccain.html):
"I have been trying to run the numbers. And what I get is that Barack Obama's health care plan, when phased in, is likely to:
* Boost minimum-wage and near minimum-wage employment by $100,000 or so by reducing the health costs of those employers that do offer employment-sponsored insurance.
* Shift 1 million workers who used to believe that they had to work 9-to-5 for a large bureaucratic entity in order to get health coverage for their families into jobs that they like more.
* Shift 1,500,000 workers into higher-wage high-benefit jobs in the expanding capital-intensive industrial sector.
* Boost wages by $1,500 a year for the average worker in the coverage-providing sector.
"What I get is that Barack Obama's fiscal policy is likely to, by 2017:
* Boost annual incomes by between $290 and $440 billion real 2009-value dollars.
* That's some $1,800 to $2,700 per worker.
* Boost sustainable employment by between 1,750,000 to 2,500,000 jobs."
There's the message you're always touting, Mr. KISS.
Um, dow, I did link and you just missed it. Try again.
I certainly liked to see someone connect health insurance reform to economic improvement -- i.e., not just a weepy liberal social justice issue -- but I got thrown off by the reference to "boosting minimum wage and near minimum wage employment by $100,000 or so . . .." That dollar sign made me try to shake the cobwebs out of my head to figure out exactly what he was saying. Also, I would have preferred to see some analysis of the mechanism for these results. I couldn't figure out what he meant by "the coverage-providing sector," either.
Bottom line: interesting, but violated the KISS principle.
Post a Comment
<< Home