Obama? Really? The Economist's Free Exchange sums up the discomfort that my commenters, and indeed I myself, have with Obama:
As Mr Crook observes, Mr Obama is far from a centrist. His voting record suggests that, if elected, Mr Obama would be the most economically left-wing American president since ... well, it's hard to say. Richard Nixon? In any case, that the junior senator from Illinois is such a skilled negotiator and conciliator bodes rather ill for those who wish to see less rather than more government involvement in the economy, I conjecture.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, Mr Obama will not inspire venomous, high-spirited obstruction from the Republican congressional minority. On the contrary, an Obama victory will be cast as such a triumphant watershed moment (and quite reasonably so) that we should expect an especially drawn out and sunny honeymoon. Republicans will be anxious to take off the kid gloves, but will be much constrained by the prevailing spirit of celebration and hope, which may leave the charasmatic young president seeming untouchable, at least for a time. Add to this Mr Obama's much-touted skill for diplomatically forging consensus, and it seems we could end up with an American economic policy rather further to the left than seemed politically possible even a few month's ago.
How, then, can I support him? Allow me to channel my former Economist colleague, and now co-worker at The Atlantic, Clive Crook:
My perspective as a pro-market egalitarian condemns me to be perpetually disappointed by politicians. Mr Obama may prove no exception. Last week, in a speech at a General Motors plant in Wisconsin, he unveiled an economic plan. It mainly gathered previously announced ideas, spun to appeal to the “working Americans” in Mrs Clinton’s base. Indeed, the Clinton campaign accused him of plagiarism. Costed (conservatively) at more than $140bn a year, it includes comprehensive reform of healthcare, subsidies for alternative energy, investment in infrastructure and tax cuts aimed at the low paid. Unwinding some of the Bush tax cuts, together with unspecified increases in other taxes on companies and the higher-paid, would pay for it all, he said.
The goals are worthy. The US healthcare system is long overdue for reform. The country’s infrastructure has suffered years of increasingly apparent neglect. The Bush administration’s tax cuts worsened inequality at a time when economic forces were already pushing strongly in that direction.
But American corporate taxes are already high. Post-Bush, top marginal rates of tax on personal income are not low, when you take state and local taxes into account. Mr Obama’s proposal to restore top rates to the levels of the 1990s, and then lift the cap on social security taxes as well, constitutes a swingeing rise in the highest rates. Very high rates applied to a narrow base is bad tax policy. A more broadly based and (above all) far simpler tax system with a moderately progressive structure of rates is the way to combine increased revenues, a more equal distribution of post-tax incomes, and tolerably efficient incentives. No sign of this in Mr Obama’s proposals. It is also a great shame that Mr Obama, like Mrs Clinton, has adopted a populist stance on trade. He attacks her for having once supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, which he blames for “exporting jobs”.
Perhaps, for a Democrat, this position is a political necessity. It is a badge of economic ignorance, nonetheless.
Elsewhere, though, one sees flashes of an independent intelligence in Mr Obama’s economic pronouncements. He is no knee-jerk anti-capitalist: he lauds the “free market that has been the engine of America’s great progress”. He is cautious about mandates and other forms of dirigisme – which is why some party liberals still view him with suspicion.
Mr Obama is a paradox, as yet unresolved. His plan and his votes in the Senate show that he is a liberal, not a centrist. And he is no wavering or accidental liberal. His ideas are of a piece. He sees – or convinces people that he sees – a bigger picture. And yet this leftist visionary is pragmatic, non-ideological and accommodating of dissent. More than that, in fact, he seems keen to listen to and learn from those who disagree with him. What a strange and beguiling combination this is.
So how can I support the man? Well, I wouldn't, if there were better alternatives. But my choices are Hillary Clinton and John McCain, whose goals may be slightly more moderate, but whose instincts are for regulating the hell out of any market outcome they don't like. McCain is not a classical liberal; he's the product of an intensely hierarchical honor culture that he seems to think would substantially improve the rest of us if we adopted more of its values. I have no shortage of respect for the military, and their willingness to place their own lives between the rest of us and war's desolation. But that doesn't mean I think America would be a better place if we had a more martial state. His record bespeaks little respect for spontaneous order and individual freedom. What free-market instincts he evinces seem to have come as part of the conservative ideas combo-pack he bought because it was cheaper than buying the parts individually--all he really wanted was the national greatness and the moderately conservative social structure.
As libertarians go, I'm not a tax nut; I think deadweight loss is relatively low, and taxation is among the least intrusive actions the state can take. I'm far more concerned about regulation. The economic cost tends to be higher; it lacks the natural limits imposed by citizen resistance; and it doesn't so extensively accustom the citizenry to taking orders from the state.
I have the terrible feeling that for both Hillary and McCain, that last is a feature of regulation, not a bug.
Faced with that, I'm betting on the advisors. Obama's economic advisors are some of the smartest economists working in the field today, and they're people I deeply respect. I rest on the hope that they say something about the man who would choose them.
Ummm, if Obama is such a left wing liberal economically why is Austin Goolsbee his top economic advisor?
"Well, I wouldn't, if there were better alternatives."
There was a better alternative, but you didn't support him: Mitt Romney.
Obamatons should hope Americans don't find out about the chip on Michelle Obama's shoulder until it's too late. As Steve Sailer writes:
"Ummm, if Obama is such a left wing liberal economically why is Austin Goolsbee his top economic advisor?"
Uh, because Obama wants to get elected? And Austan (that's how he spells it) can go on CNBC with a smile on his face and deflect questions about Obama's proposals being anti-business.
It's all very well having smart advisors, but if he goes around saying free trade is bad because it "exports jobs" then clearly their "wisdom" isn't preventing him from campaigning (and presumably governing) as an economically ignorant populist.
There was a better alternative, but you didn't support him: Mitt Romney.
Um, yes she did.
It's all very well having smart advisors, but if he goes around saying free trade is bad because it "exports jobs" then clearly their "wisdom" isn't preventing him from campaigning (and presumably governing) as an economically ignorant populist.
And Bush has been econmically smart these past 7 years(6 in which his party controlled Congress)?
Uh, because Obama wants to get elected? And Austan (that's how he spells it) can go on CNBC with a smile on his face and deflect questions about Obama's proposals being anti-business.
You don't think Obama is getting all that cash from the little people are you? How are his proposals anti-business? Then again, we've had an MBA president these past seven years and the economy is now a mess. You confuse wanting some more regulations(or enforcing ones that are already on the books in the case of the Federal Reserve and the mortgage mess) with being anti-business. Do you understand what responsible stewardship is?
A politician who fills out a questionnaire saying he would like to 100% ban all pistols is someone who in your words who "regulates the hell" out of anything they don't like. It would have me believe he'd behave the same way with markets.
Going even farther, a person who claims someone else filled out the questionnaire and misrepresented his views is someone who is either a lying politician or so completely inept as to allow someone to be responsible for him that would not have a clue about such an important policy issue. It's not like we're talking about his thoughts on some obscure Section 128, paragraph 12 of the tax code. It's only the second amendment afterall...
That he doesn't even have the nerve to take a stand one way or another and attributes his past issues to mistakes -- not personal or judgemental ones but clerical (!) mistakes shows me exactly the kind of integrity this person has.
Obama is strongly egalitarian, which is why he wants to make the tax code more progressive and provide universal access to hearth care. At the same time, he's instinctively skeptical of coercive regulation, which is why he's against things like a health care mandate or a freeze on mortgage rates and forclosures. It's a fairly unique combination, and promising one.
I think you're wrong on Obama. I think the only reason why an economic liberal supports him is because of the strong fad and "group-think" that he has going. He's "in" for some reason.
McCain may not be exciting and has his faults, but he most likely will keep the status quo where it is, which is a lot better than "renegotiating" nafta.
An economic policy rather further to the left than seemed possible just a few months ago, at least on the key points of healthcare, enforcement of antitrust regulations, and equitable tax policy and enforcement (how the hell did that get to be a fiscally liberal notion??) is abosolutely necessary if the US doesn't want to have a permanent and very large lower class within the next 10 years.
I really do think Obama's anti-corruption/anti-lobbyist streak can eliminate a lot of waste and kickbacks in government, and that's one of the two biggest reasons I support him. The other is his ability to work constructively with all sorts of people.
If you're really for free markets, you have to be for transparency, and both Obama and McCain seem to stand for that. But I fear McCain would have more cow-towing to do once in office, namely to the defense and drug industries, two of our biggest sources of waste, or as they would prefer to call it, sustained and high economic profits.
And Bush has been econmically smart these past 7 years(6 in which his party controlled Congress)?
Well, I didn't mention Bush and you could argue that having smart economists like Greg Mankiw didn't prevent him from economic folly either.
However, at least Bush has (mostly) supported free trade and his tax reforms have improved efficiency, boosted growth, and increased the progressivity of the tax code (e.g. see http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/12/progressivity-of-income-tax.html)
All the points about Bush are relevant. And McCain wanting interest rates to be zero? Jeebus.
This has got to be one of the most thigh-slappingly funny things I've ever read.
Obama's Congressional "honeymoon" period will last in direct proportion to the Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress he enjoys. If the majority is narrow as it is now (nonexistent in the Senate), the honeymoon will last approximately 1 femtosecond after he takes the oath of office. If his majority exceeds the numbers of Bush Dog Dems we currently have in Congress who are all too happy to vote with Republicans against their own party's interests, it will last far longer.
Just as the era of big government was over in 1994, the era of bipartisanship was over in 2001. Just as they are doing now, Congressional Republicans will unite to stymie any Democratic proposals put before them. The only "bipartisanship" they recognize is going along with their wishes.
Well of course the economic cost "tends to be higher;" if it wasn't, the execs should be fired for incompetence and breach of fiduciary duty for not maximizing profits. The point of regulation is to force behavior that is not economically attractive but has other benefits demanded by society. "The natural limits imposed by citizen resistance" (another knee-slapper) are rarely sufficient cause for corporate behavior to change. Usually all citizen resistance will do is divert law enforcement resources from chasing criminals to arresting protesters. And I'm surprised to see a libertarian advocate "accustom[ing] the citizenry to taking orders from the state." I thought you guys hated that. Perhaps you meant to say the opposite and misspoke.
This really is a hideous assortment to choose from. Every time I say to myself "I can't possibly vote for X, since he has said Y or proposed Z", I remember that A has said B or proposed C, and that E has done the same with F and G, I begin to think that this may be the election I finally sit out, after having toyed with the idea through many cycles now. Truly, once one gets to the point that all the candidates are not just imperfect, but bordering on despicable, what's the point?
Well, there is sill a war being waged, so I guess I'll vote for whomever seems best suited to handle that matter.
Actually one of the few positive likely attributes of McCain as President is that he will be better suited to stand up to military industrial complex, being very familiar with it's ways. It's harder for them to Mau-Mau a guy who got the crap kicked out of him by the enemy for years on end, refusing early release, in the manner that Clinton or Obama could be. Eisenhower was the best post war President we have had with dealing with the defense industry and it's Pentagon allies, largely because he couldn't be outflanked by them. I've seen McCain excoriate enough defense industry types and Pentagon brass to know that he won't be led around by the nose like some Presidents without a military background are.
Untrue, Obama’s a huge fan of coercive regulation and health care mandates as evidenced by what’s actually in his health care reform proposal.
Well...I guess I am a "tax nut." Regardless of the (debatable) economics around tax policy, any increase in income tax rates from their current (Bush reduced) level is, in my opinion, simply morally unjust. I was raised in a working class household and took out massive amounts of debt to fund my education (including grad school). Now I'm a non-finance professional in NY making just under $200k, struggling to save for a down payment on a home and while paying rent and student loans (and supporting my fiancee who is in grad school). My effective tax rate last year, including NY state and city and social security taxes, was nearly 40%. But I am judged "rich" by mister "yes we can." Sorry Barak, but no you can't. I will not vote for him, no matter how appealing he is personally, so long as he intends to increase my tax burden. Spending over one-third of my year working for the good of the state is plenty, thank you very much.
OK, I hate people who nitpick on spelling matters, too. But "cow-towing" for "kowtowing" was just SO funny (and, quite possibly, intended) that I absolutely MUST share my image of Tom Petty and Stevie Nicks performing their classic duet, "Stop Dragging My Heifer Around."
Add to this Mr Obama's much-touted skill for diplomatically forging consensus
It may be much-touted, but is there any evidence outside his supporters' fever dreams that this skill exists?
As I recall it, all the recent high-profile bipartistan comprimises in the Senate bore the fingerprints of John McCain, not Barack Obama.
That's a thoughtful post by Megan, and it makes her support for Obama at least comprehensible. But consider how many of the first term Bush advisers stuck around four four years, let alone eight? On the Council of Economic Advisers, we've seen five chairmen so far under Bush. We're on our third Treasury Secretary. And so on.
Advisers come and go. When they clash with the deepest instincts of the President, they go faster. Sadly, there's no indication that Obama's instincts are anything but hard left. That's why I don't accept that he would be the least destructive of the remaining alternatives.
Given the choices, the next president will prove a fertile target for libertarians who won't kow-tow to anyone's alleged skills at crafting bi-partisan (more statist) solutions. If Ron Paul accomplished anything, he showed there is a nice minority of citizens out there that have had enough big government. It remains to be seen if libertarians build on Ron Paul's support to finally have an effective grassroots movement that will fight increasingly intrusive local, state and federal governments.
"My effective tax rate last year, including NY state and city and social security taxes, was nearly 40%"
That is about the effective tax rate for nearly all Americans.
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/Advice/YourRealTaxRate40.aspx
It's not that the rich pay alot higher percentage in taxes, they pay a lot more because they make more money. Secondly, any way you slice it 200K is rich. I live in an expensive community as well (San Diego) and making that much would enable me to buy a house, and have my wife stay at home. Being able to afford a home in NYC while putting somebody through grad school qualifies you in the top 10% of earners in this country. I'm sorry you took a massive amount of debt to fund your education, but you certainly got the big reward at the end for it.
The one thing that's making me take Obama seriously as a possible choice (I voted for Ron Paul, so you can guess my politics) is his stance on space policy. He originally said he wanted to delay NASA's Space Shuttle replacement program by 5 years to pay for his education program...and there was an uproar over the stupidity of the tactic, given that NASA is the one government agency that inspires kids to pursue science and engineering education, which his education policy said was a priority. After this outcry, he's shifted his policy, retracting his prior argument for delaying the post-Shuttle program. So to me, it looks like he's willing to listen to reasoned arguments, and shift his policies where appropriate.
Though with all that said, for anyone who's interested in a break from serious debate, you might enjoy some low-brow Obama humor. ;-)
Jordan - That article you link to is entirely beside the point. I pay nearly 40% of my income (fter 401(k)) BEFORE sales taxes and the rest of the items your article identifies in making the dubious claim that "we all pay 40%."
And I'm sorry, but $200k is not rich, especially in a city as expensive as NY (I would not make much more than $100k in the same job in any other US city). I'm relatively comfortable, yes. But am I deserving of an even more punishing income tax burden than what I already pay? NO. I don't care what income bracket I'm in. What right could the rest of society possibly have to any more of the fruits of my time and effort than I already give?
Isn't there some point at which an individual's right to enjoy the benefit of his labor outweighs the right of the majority to force him to part with it? I'd say we've already crossed that line. Now, I'm not going to go out and buy a trailer on half an acre in Wyoming and declare independence, but I'm not knowingly voting for income tax increases either, no matter how smart Austan Goolsbee is.
Gawd Megan, you're hot.
As libertarians go, I'm not a tax nut; I think deadweight loss is relatively low, and taxation is among the least intrusive actions the state can take. I'm far more concerned about regulation. The economic cost tends to be higher; it lacks the natural limits imposed by citizen resistance; and it doesn't so extensively accustom the citizenry to taking orders from the state.
Even though you're a veggie person I wonder if you're my political soul mate.
DSR,
What do you have against paying your fair share in taxes? We need to raise taxes on you so we can give a tax break to working families.
>top marginal rates of tax on personal income are not low,
>when you take state and local taxes into account.
Not really true, though it depends how you slice the data.
For single childless people earning 167% of median (a pretty good proxy for likely entrepreneurs), here's the _actual, effective_ top marginal rate, including all taxes:
(Average, 2000-2006. OECD)
Jap 28
Spa 30
Tur 32
Can 36
Aut 37
Swi 37
Nwz 38
US 40
UK 41
Fra 42
Gre 44
Ire 45
Por 45
Ita 46
Aus 48
Nor 48
Ger 49
Fin 51
Net 52
Swe 56
Bel 61
Den 63
Those hotbeds of growth and prosperity, Japan, Spain, and Turkey, are notably lower. Four others--two fast growers, two less so--are sort of inconsequentially lower. We're right down there in the bottom of the pack.
Other ways to analyze it, of course. But fwiw...
Steve
Steve,
How do those countries shake out when you look at corporate income tax rates?
Megan,
You are being fooled. You are being fooled by one of the more clever politicians to come along in a long while, but you are being fooled.
If there were to be opposition in control of one or both houses of the legislature, then a President Obama might not be such a bad thing (and could be quite a good thing), but Obama, if he wins, will likely win with a substantially increased majority in both the House and the Senate. He will have no need to govern from the center, and he will have no need to continue to fool people, at least until he runs for reelection.
One can decide that Obama is seriously left, based on some of his rhetoric, and his advisors are a facade to get elected (in the general election, should he win the nomination). Or one can, with at least equal logic, decide that his advisors reflect how he would govern, and his rhetoric about "exported jobs" is a facade to get elected (in the primaries).
Which you pick says more about you than it does about Obama's views. So what should those without prejudice decide? For me, the relevant point is his willingness to consider other points of view. Any President is faced with situations (of all kinds, not just economic) neither he nor anybody else anticipated while he was campaigning. The test is whether they react based on the reality in front of them, or based on the way they would like to see the world.
His rhetoric, the positions on the issues he’s taken, and his actual votes – you know things that most people regard as “evidence” as opposed to merely “hope.”
From Obama's economic policy speech in Wisconsin on Feb. 13 (Sorry for the block o'text, but I think it's necessary):
"A few hours northeast of here is the city of Manitowoc. For over a century, it was the home of Mirro manufacturing – a company that provided thousands of jobs and plenty of business. In 2003, Mirro closed its doors for good after losing thousands of jobs to Mexico.
But in the last few years, something extraordinary has happened. Thanks to the leadership of Governor Doyle and Mayor Kevin Crawford, Manitowoc has re-trained its workers and attracted new businesses and new jobs. Orion Energy Systems works with companies to reduce their electricity use and carbon emissions. And Tower Tech is now making wind turbines that are being sold all over the world. Hundreds of people have found new work, and unemployment has been cut in half.
This can be America’s future. I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday, and I know how hard your Governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. But I also know how much progress you’ve made – how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you’re churning out. And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President."
This doesn't sound to me like somebody who's particularly opposed to free trade. On the contrary, it's what I'd expect to hear from somebody who's for free trade. Accept that it's hard when someone loses their job to foreign competition. But then figure out where your competitive advantage is, retool, and play to that strength.
He does have complaints, but I don't think they're about free trade per se. It's more about the externalities of unemployment for workers. You can address those externalities without being a protectionist.
It would be interesting to compare the list of OECD top marginal tax rates with the list of "happiest countries in the world" that got published in 2006. Denmark won that little contest too.
Denmark won that little contest too.
I know I'd be ecstatic to live in a place where cartoonists go into hiding because mobs put prices on their heads.
Of course, I already live in a country where the MSM avoids the problem by being to chicken**** to publish the damn things, so maybe it's a wash.
liberalrob,
You are correct, that taking money from Bill Gates, and the like, and spreading it around would indeed make more people happy.
What that would do for the economy as a whole (future productivity, development, etc), not to mention the injustice of it all, is another question.
So which is the better society: one where some people get fabulously rich and a lot of people are unhappy, or one where almost everyone is happy but few are fabulously rich.
So which is the better society: one where some people get fabulously rich and a lot of people are unhappy, or one where almost everyone is happy but few are fabulously rich.
Liberalrob: Which is the better world: one where some people get fabulously rich and the broader mass of people are richer, or one where few are fabulously rich but the poorest are worse off?
There are fabulously rich Danes, you know. Rising inequality in the US has little to do with the fabulously rich, because there just aren't enough of them to affect the statistics that are cited. It has a lot more to do with impressive gains by the top 5% (household income $150k+), top 2% (household income $200k+), and top 1%, people that don't consider themselves "fabulously rich" but have been doing pretty well recently. (Except for their AMT complaints.)
He does have complaints, but I don't think they're about free trade per se. It's more about the externalities of unemployment for workers. You can address those externalities without being a protectionist.
You can, and McCain does, since McCain has consistently been great on trade according to Cato, but strongly supported retraining programs. Or you can be like Sen. Obama and sponsor the incredibly dumb Patriot Corporation Act, along with Sen. Dick Durbin and Sherrod Brown.
How do those countries shake out when you look at corporate income tax rates?
Denmark has a considerably lower corporate tax rate than the US and lower than most of Europe. The rate is 25%. Dividends are also generally exempt from tax. It also has favorable tax treatment of multinationals, holding corporations and expatriates.
There is a lot to be said economically for such a system, but the high personal tax rates are not the entire story in Denmark.
John McCain, whose goals may be slightly more moderate, but whose instincts are for regulating the hell out of any market outcome they don't like. McCain is not a classical liberal; he's the product of an intensely hierarchical honor culture that he seems to think would substantially improve the rest of us if we adopted more of its values.
In general this is a nice post. I think though that it would be interesting to look further at the a priori's that inform your choice.
I was just reading yesterday about avoiding Social Security tax by incorporating. Don't you all understand that those us who don't have the time/inclination to avoid the increased tax will be balanced out by those who do. This does the opposite of 'bringing us together.'
I don't think we should send our young men out to be decimated for the purpose of being able to act for a life beyond ourselves but veterans have impressed me with their greater breadth of emotional experience. RE: the 'combo-pack of free market ideas he bought because it was cheaper than buying the parts individually,' clever, but I see it as his opposing the 'free market' where it opposes perhaps the honor of loyalty; e.g. Canadians are free riding on our pharmaceutical production and research. American firms owe to U.S citizens more than they do to the Canadians; so should not sell their drugs for less there. He would block that which is only in an odd sense a 'free market' result. As far as 'the intensely hierarchical' by the way, when John McCain was a Navy pilot his rank allowed him the privilege of not flying above a certain parallel of North VN. He declined this privilege and it was on a mission that he did not need to fly that he was shot down.
Now, I asked first. My answer to your trick question is obviously the second, because the poorest will not be as significantly poorer than the median. They will feel that life, while unkind to them, has been "fairer" than in the other situation, where resentment at the fabulous lifestyles of the upper crust will be high. Overall I think it would be a happier, more stable society. A few fabulously wealthy outliers would be more likely to be viewed as fortunate exceptions, not resented as parasites and exploiters.
I was just reading yesterday about avoiding Social Security tax by incorporating.
It won't work. The IRS has already thought of it.
"McCain is not a classical liberal"
Not being a classical liberal myself I'm pretty good with that.
However McCain has a solid record on free-trade. His record on taxes is more moderate, but nowhere near as Left-leaning as many seem to believe. At his lowest the "National Taxpayers Union" did rank him 46th in a Senate with 49 Republicans.
http://www.ntu.org/main/components/ratescongress/details_all_years.php3?senate_id=11
Obama at highest ranked 69th.
http://www.ntu.org/main/components/ratescongress/details_all_years.php3?senate_id=180
However in general McCain was in the top half of Republicans.
LiberalRob,
The fabulously rich -- men such as Lakshmi Mittal and Mo Ibrahim -- have done more to lift other people out of poverty than any liberal. Are spite and envy valid enough reasons to prevent men like this from becoming wealthy? They were in no position to help the poor before they became successful.
"I know I'd be ecstatic to live in a place where cartoonists go into hiding because mobs put prices on their heads."
I hate to threadjack, but it was foreign Muslims who reacted violently to the cartoons. Danish Muslim groups wanted to discuss the cartoons by meeting with the cartoonists, the cartoonists refused and the issue was dropped, all months before Riyadh made a big deal about them.
Megan, are you seriously suggesting that Obama’s instincts (not to mention actual record) suggests that he’s less inclined to “regula[e] the hell out of any market outcome [he doesn’t] like”? Just look at their respective health care reform proposals – McCain has come out in favor of ending (or at least mitigating) the tax bias in favor of employer-based health insurance whereas Obama wants to mandate that employers provide health insurance. McCain is in favor of letting consumers buy a policy anywhere in the country that matches their preferences (thereby giving consumers a chance to buy actual health insurance instead of prepaid health care) whereas Obama has come out in favor of mandating that EVERY health insurance match a new set of national mandates (which will make health insurance even less affordable thereby driving more people into his new government-run program).
And Obama is a product of what culture exactly? The Chicago political machine that instead of “duty, honor and loyalty” preaches “graft, corruption and patronage.e” Has it escaped your notice that McCain has been the one fighting against corporate welfare and government subsidies (which are as much an anathema to the free market as most economic regulation if not more so) whereas Obama merely wants to redirect them towards his favored constituents. McCain may not be an economic libertarian by even GOP standards (although his voting record shows he’s generally pro-market), but compared to either Obama or Clinton he’s practically an Ayn Rand acolyte.
"It would be interesting to compare the list of OECD top marginal tax rates with the list of "happiest countries in the world" that got published in 2006. Denmark won that little contest too." liberalRob
This is one study. Others have placed Ireland or Iceland as tops.
Still let's say it's true, do you think this is because of their economic policy? Maybe culture plays a role. Or maybe low rates of murder and corruption plays a role. Or knowing that no one really counts on Denmark for anything relieves stress. In a related way maybe lowered expectations play a role. The Danes have been comparatively stagnant in Human development for the last 30 years.
http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/10.html
They're now noticeably below their former dependency Iceland and also below the US. There's some reason to think that the more people get the more they want and that a satisfaction gap rises. Perhaps by being stagnant they've avoided that whole cycle. Future Danes will be about like today's Danes or yesterdays Danes. No expectation, no disappointment.
"Future Danes will be about like today's Danes or yesterdays Danes. No expectation, no disappointment."
Despite how that came out that actually ended up sounding mildly appealing to me. I'm a non-liberal type of conservative though. On one level living in a stable constitutional monarchy where nothing much changes sounds kind of relaxing. I'm guessing though it's not quite like that.
As much of orthodox liberal as Obama is, is there any reason to expect that his economic policies will be any different than a Mondale or a Dukakis? Let's set aside his "imaginary hip, black friend" appeal for a moment and get real.
"Obama's economic advisors are some of the smartest economists working in the field today, and they're people I deeply respect."
So you're hoping that he doesn't mean what he says, or his record indicates, and that his advisors will essentially run the economic situation? Or that whether he means it or not he's inexperienced enough he'll just go along with his advisors?
Either way it sounds like what you're doing is endorsing Obama's advisors. That's an interesting approach, but it sounds risky. The President can change his advisors pretty fast and radically, even if Bush hasn't, so you're staking yourself on potentially unsteady ground.
It's more rational than some, but I'm betting there's a less rational element to it. You just don't like McCain or Clinton. You've seen both in action and they don't suit you. Obama is more of a blank-slate. You, or anyone, can believe he's "really more in tune with me than he'll admit" or "he doesn't really know what he thinks yet so he can be turned around." I'm skeptical of that as he's been in politics for a decade or so and I haven't see much reason yet to think he's "really" not to the Left or that he will become less Left-wing.
I adore Megan, so criticisms are rare and softened by the admiration, but Obama is an onion waiting to be peeled.
He is, as of today mostly shrink-wrapped hype, media created, media endorsed, media exalted, iconoclastic comic book superhero, the straw that stirs the leftist's drink...and potentially tomorrow's hangover for the rest of us.
His Euro-Socialist leanings have been carefully submerged, in a "Act Democratic, speak centrist, vote Socialist" slick pr campaign.
He's the Happy Meal candidate combo. Would you like change with that?
A little something for the inner child in all of us to pin hopes on.
But, shouldn't we peel the onion, just a little bit before we throw caution to the wind? Not to stray too far from the market-centric nucleus of our discussion, but the man's penchant for Jimmy Carter emissaries ought to scare the pants off of us economically (and Israel, geopolitically). His attachment to the New Far Left/Euro-Socialist mindset has shown disturbing cracks in his "deep cover" from time to time. And his closest mentors and advisors have a disturbingly fringe element to them. I am not a fan of Soros, Farrakhan, Brzezinski, and without adhering strictly to a Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon mindset, there is enough connection to at least look more deeply into what may be bubbling beneath the surface.
I simply am not yet "buying" what he appears to be selling. The Euro-Socialist candidate knows if you lean far left, your message has to be a vox populi reverb. It's intent is more sedative than amphetamine for those who aren't already part of the choir. The high is infused by empty rhetoric and an implied promise delivered with charisma and then given a gloss and sheen by pre-planted media shills.
Chicago is rumored to have a Potawatomi/Algonquin origin, meaning Stinking Onion.
Megan, maybe we first ought to peel it a bit bfore we take a big bite of it is all I'm saying.
I understand your points. Indeed, there is something to be said about judgment shown in picking advisors.
HOWEVER...
1. I think that tax rates matter a lot more than you think... Both in terms of damage to the economy and in damage to the culture. Deadweight losses are significant. There is a lot of capital taking flight to Dubai and other parts of the world. Many projects are canceled because the after-tax IRR's no longer meet the hurdle rate.
2. What makes you so confident that Obama wikll regulate less than the other folks? One of his main priorities is to regulate away free trade where we already have it!
3. I have no idea why you would give Obama the benefit of all the doubt that he so carefully cultivated... Yet you come down hard on McCain. You assume that Obama is an outlier on regulatory matters relative to his party (which LOVES regulating)... You further assume he'll be effective in stemming the tide of regulation pushed by his party. On the other hand, you assume McCain is a pro-regulation outlier on the Republican side... And that he will somehow create a morass of regulation in spite of a Republican vice president, cabinet, and congress imposing some discipline on these issues...
It seems to me, as biased as I am, that you are building the case for Obama after the fact. You already want to vote for the man. Now you seek to rationalize it.
Agreed and it’s a pretty weak rationalization. In the past when Megan announced her decision to support Bush over Kerry in the 2004 election she went through issue-by-issue where she agreed or disagreed with each candidate. Even people who disagreed with her decision had to admit that she was honest about her reasons for doing so. Here we no discussion of the issues or their respective records only “I like one of Obama’s economic advisors (who seems to have little to no influence on the actual candidate) and don’t like that McCain is a product of the military culture.”
"It seems to me, as biased as I am, that you are building the case for Obama after the fact. You already want to vote for the man. Now you seek to rationalize it."
Seems that way to me too.
I don't have a lot against Obama, but I trust what he has actually ssid and done over his advisors.
The kicker for me is that we will have a totally democratic congress. Unified government produces some of the worst outcomes in this country from a libertarian perspective. I don't see Obama standing up to his party.
I don't agree with McCain on everything, but I do think he will stand up to spending, he has proven that throughout his carreer. That is important to me.
My fear with him is that he will get us into a war with Iran, but I don't think that will be possible with a Democratic congress.
Years ago Milton Friedman had an interesting WSJ editorial where he used pages in the Federal Registry to measure the size of federal regulations.
He made a big deal of the point that this measure fell under Reagan.
So after seven years under Bush II the number of pages in the Federal Registry has averaged
75,208 as compared to an average of 71,592 under Clinton and 72,333 under Carter.
So the number of pages under Bush is 5% higher then under Clinton and a new all time record high.
Now, you want to explain to me again how the Republicans are the low regulation party.
Useful site. Thank you!
Useful site. Thank you!
Useful site. Thanks!!!
Useful site. Thanks.
Useful site. Thanks!!
Useful site. Thanks!!!
Useful site. Thank you!
Nice site. Thanks!!!
Cool site. Thanks.
Useful site. Thank you!!!
Useful site. Thanks!!!
mevgb inbu kycendb vzmir
eajlkwu bvztw qlzpjt
jzgoad xwjet hgtjef
atzcg pwczox fyqog fwbu
ozsqhg wceavj ozbqirt jlgput gmxzt avlwty mpisjfrkw