Tuesday, October 7, 2008
ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, McCain-Palin 2008 released the following statement signed by 100 distinguished and experienced economists at major American universities and research organizations, including five Nobel Prize winners Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, and Vernon Smith. The economists explain why Barack Obama's proposals, including "misguided tax hikes," would "decrease the number of jobs in America." The prospects of such tax rate increases under Barack Obama are already harming the economy. The economists conclude that "Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy." The proposals "defy both economic reason and economic experience."
The full economists' statement on Barack Obama's economic proposals and a complete list of economists who support it follows:
Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite. They would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. Moreover, with the credit crunch, the housing slump, and high energy prices weakening the U.S. economy, his proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession. It was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.
We are very concerned with Barack Obama's opposition to trade agreements such as the pending one with Colombia, the new one with Central America, or the established one with Canada and Mexico. Exports from the United States to other countries create jobs for Americans. Imports make goods available to Americans at lower prices and are a particular benefit to families and individuals with low incomes. International trade is also a powerful source of strength in a weak economy. In the second quarter of this year, for example, increased international trade did far more to stimulate the U.S. economy than the federal government's "stimulus" package.
Ironically, rather than supporting international trade, Barack Obama is now proposing yet another so-called stimulus package, which would do very little to grow the economy. And his proposal to finance the package with higher taxes on oil would raise oil prices directly and by reducing exploration and production.
We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.
After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.
In sum, Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience.
Robert Barro, Harvard University
Gary Becker, University of Chicago
Sanjai Bhagat, University of Colorado
Michael Block, University of Arizona
Brock Blomberg, Claremont-McKenna University
. . .
Read the rest of the list here. Talk about damning!
5 comments:
A) I love how one of the economists on that list is actually employed by the McCain/Palin campaign.
Some attempts at objective surveys of economists:
B)http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127
C)http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/16/dilbert.economy/index.html
Fortunately, "I trust the people, not the so-called economists” this november.
While Blomburg did not sign on to McCain's earlier economic plan, Burdekin and Weidenmier did. Also, Professor Zak at CGU.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/c90681b9-5dfe-4de4-8057-ceedb30c228d.htm
I don't know if the CC already covered this.
How do you explain this?
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12342127
I rest my case.
"Our survey is not, by any means, a scientific poll of all economists. We e-mailed a questionnaire to 683 research associates, all we could track down, of the National Bureau of Economic Research, America’s premier association of applied academic economists, though the NBER itself played no role in the survey. A total of 142 responded, of whom 46% identified themselves as Democrats, 10% as Republicans and 44% as neither. This skewed party breakdown may reflect academia’s Democratic tilt, or possibly Democrats’ greater propensity to respond."
Dude, you don't rest your case and then keeping you going. You should have said "I wake up my case."
Anyway, the point is that all of this is stupid and partisan and neither the post nor the comments offers irrefutable or even salient proof of better economic policies for either side.
Really, in the end, it's a matter of taste. Though I daresay writing that a hundered times in a row would yield less readers.
Post a Comment