Prometheus 6

For Democrats, Instincts Differ on Economics
By DAVID LEONHARDT

As they traveled across Indiana and North Carolina over the last few days, trading charges and countercharges about the wisdom of suspending the federal gas tax for the summer, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama were really having a larger fight.

They were arguing over who had better economic instincts....

Truth, I don't think either...ANY of them have "economic instincts."

As the economy has slowed, Mrs. Clinton has released a series of proposals — to stimulate growth, stem home foreclosures and, most recently, reduce energy costs — that have helped burnish her image as the candidate most in touch with the specific concerns of working families. Yet policy experts say these proposals have generally made for better politics than economics.

“I was appalled by Hillary going with the gas tax,” said Alice M. Rivlin, a budget director under former President Bill Clinton who supports Mrs. Clinton for the nomination. It “looked like pandering,” Mrs. Rivlin said.

That's from one of her allies. Though it is more than Paul Krugman has said about it. He's only ever given it a few words as he drives by on his way to jack Obama.

An open letter signed last week by more than 100 economists said the proposed tax holiday would do little to reduce gas prices. In part, that is because a fall in prices would lead to more demand, which would cause prices to return to their earlier level. The result would be that overseas oil-producing governments would get money now flowing to the United States government in gas taxes.

That's what she gets for trying to out McCain McCain...repudiated. 

Along similar lines, Mrs. Clinton’s proposed stimulus plan was widely considered to be more complex and less effective than Mr. Obama’s suggestion of quick tax cuts, which was the same approach Congress and the White House ultimately took.

But Mr. Obama gets lower marks from budget experts for fiscal discipline. His package of tax cuts and new spending would cost roughly $300 billion a year, while Mrs. Clinton’s would cost less than $250 billion. Economists said they were skeptical he could pay for his program without increasing the deficit.

“Obama has a shorter list of tax breaks,” said Leonard E. Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center in Washington, “but has some really big items on it.”

Doesn't the dollar amount of his list of tax breaks match the dollar amount of Mrs. B's proposals? 

Policy analysts specifically criticize Mr. Obama’s proposal to eliminate income taxes for senior citizens with up to $50,000 in income. Thanks to Social Security and Medicare, the federal government already spends a large amount of resources on older citizens.

And, of course, we shouldn't spend any more on them. Make them get a job.

“The tax system already does a pretty good job of protecting poor and near-poor seniors,” said Richard Kogan, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington.

Heh.

Did you actually ask some poor and near poor seniors?