We were invited to attend a call with some very illustrious people this morning who are advising John McCain on economic policy: Martin Feldstein, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, and John Taylor.
As a tech businessman it’s always a privilege for me to hear from these two ladies, and as a dilettante economist, it’s even more exciting to hear from Doctors Feldstein and Taylor.
The points that were emphasized on this brief call related to job-growth, energy policy, and government spending. It’s worth pointing out the substantive differences between McCain’s positions and Senator Obama’s.
Keep reading…
Ms. Fiorina (former CEO of Hewlett-Packard) made much of the “Jobs for America” plan, which is primarily a recognition of three key points that I couldn’t agree with more: 1) Job growth in America, like economic growth, is not as robust as it could be; 2) Most jobs are created by small businesses; and 3) Job growth will come through selling American goods and services to consumers in other countries.
So what does Senator McCain propose to do about these points? He intends to reduce taxes on business investment and corporate income, and also to bolster the international agreements that make expanded trade possible.
Barack Obama has promised to do exactly the opposite of those things. Ms. Fiorina invited us to remember the lessons of history as in regard to higher taxes and protectionism. What Senator Obama has promised to do will make our current economic slowdown worse.
We got a brief mention of unemployment-insurance reform from Ms. Fiorina, which was intriguing, but no details. That ought to be taken up in a position paper or a future call.
Meg Whitman (the CEO of E-Bay) emphasized again that the focus of McCain’s economic planning is about small businesses, who are the job and growth engines of the American economy.
I really wouldn’t mind it one bit if Senator McCain made this a centerpiece of his campaign. He should say that he’s in favor of anything that will make small businesses grow and prosper. That includes lower taxes on business income, eliminating export tariffs, and making health-insurance portable, and anything else that comes to mind. The Business of America is Small Business!
In contrast, Barack Obama sees small business owners primarily as evil exploiters, whose taxes aren’t high enough. Obama doesn’t see entrepreneurs as the job-growth drivers that we actually are.
On to Dr. Feldstein (the Harvard economist and policy-maker), who made the point that petroleum prices need to come down through both an expansion of supply (more exploration and production of oil and gas) and a reduction in demand (he didn’t spell it out, but we know that McCain is interested in expanding support for alternatives research).
Feldstein’s key point was that expectations for future reductions in the price of oil will necessarily create permanent reductions in near-term prices, because the changed incentives will affect the behavior of producers and consumers. Basically a good point.
We heard from Dr. Taylor (the Stanford economist) on deficit spending. Here I’m less convinced.
Obama wants to reduce Federal deficits by increasing tax rates on high earners. In the first place, there’s only so much blood in that turnip, and in the second, balancing today’s budget is hard enough without all the additional spending Obama has promised.
Obama is just plain lying to us about fiscal policy. And he knows it, too.
But McCain’s fiscal policy hinges on several tenuous things: he expects that reduced spending on Iraq in future years will reduce the deficit, and he holds out hope that he can convince Democrat-controlled Congresses to freeze spending increases for one year, and keep them under control in the future.
McCain expects spending growth of about 2.5% per year during his first term in office. So where’s the deficit reduction going to come from? He expects revenue growth of 5% a year during that time. That’s incredible to me. I need to be convinced.
-Francis Cianfrocca
Steve Maley
Neil Stevens
Daniel Horowitz
Skeptical
Yil Monday, July 28th at 1:03PM EST (link)5% revenue growth? I’m more than skeptical about that. I don’t see any way that kind of increased federal income can be achieved year over year as his plan would require. I don’t see how you can characterize Obama as lying about his fiscal policy and only be skeptical about McCain’s. They are both, err, exaggerating, but that’s what politicians do.
I’m also highly skeptical of “tax cuts pay for themselves” lines when we are talking about cuts to the current rate. I’d be curious as to whether you think there is any truth to that. I do believe tax cuts stimulate the economy, but it’s a loosing proposition from a revenue perspective. Therefore you MUST cut spending first and only when the budget is pretty much balanced should you consider decreasing revenue through tax cuts.
I’ve fallen for the politician who promises to cut my taxes and won’t show me where he plans to cut spending one too many times… Somehow spending goes up and we end up deeper in debt every time.
Carly Fiorina FOR job growth in the U.S.?
NightTwister (Diary) Monday, July 28th at 1:34PM EST (link)That’d be a first.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. – Winston Churchill
Read the piece I posted this morning about deficits
Francis Cianfrocca (Diary) Monday, July 28th at 1:38PM EST (link)I basically believe that tax cuts and deficit spending are basically the same thing, so I’m not in agreement with the premises of your questions.
The government controls the money supply, but there are two different entities that do that (the Treasury and the Fed), and they’re in competition with each other.
A tax cut isn’t fundamentally different from an increase in deficit spending. Ceteris paribus, you can reduce deficits if you cut taxes (which flies in the face of the received wisdom that “tax cuts can’t possibly pay for themselves”), but tax cuts are more stimulative to the economy because they’re anti-progressive.
google the laffer curve....
Attack Mode (Diary) Monday, July 28th at 1:52PM EST (link)….this is how you generate government revenue while decreasing taxes.
This video should get you started:
“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.
google the laffer curve
Attack Mode (Diary) Monday, July 28th at 2:04PM EST (link)….this is how you generate government revenue while decreasing taxes.
This video should get you started:
“Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper” Peter Griffin…Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!
Steel-Belted Radial Right Winger

“I’ll create 5 million jobs from out of unicorn farts and pixie dust” Justatron paraphrasing Obamessiah…yes I love it that much.
Foreign financing
Yil Monday, July 28th at 2:22PM EST (link)I’m getting a headache trying to wrap my head around your argument that a tax cut isn’t fundamentally different from an increase in deficit spending. If that’s true wouldn’t that mean McCain’s proposed tax cuts couldn’t possibly lower the deficit? But, anyway, you go on to point out in your conclusion in your other post that “fiscal discipline will be enforced at the margin by our creditors.” I agree, but that’s a dangerous position to find yourself in one day don’t you think?
Fiscal discipline is a national security issue if we continue to run deficits. In fact with regards to China and Japan we lost a lever of soft power that fiscal sanity would have retained.
The nature of deficits: 200K home mortgage vs 200K bar tab
streetwise (Diary) Monday, July 28th at 2:36PM EST (link)Quality counts!
As I understand the McCain people...
Francis Cianfrocca (Diary) Monday, July 28th at 3:05PM EST (link)…their concern is with “Jobs for America.” That requires taking the gloves off businesses, particularly small businesses and export businesses. The tax-cut and anti-protectionist policies are the right way to address this objective.
But you ask, can McCain meet his deficit-reduction targets if he cuts taxes? My short answer to that would be “No, but it doesn’t matter, because growth matters more.”
Fiscal discipline as a national security issue: I get a headache trying to wrap my head around that one. Look in every central bank reserve portfolio and sovereign wealth fund in the world, and what do you find? US-dollar denominated assets. The very fact that they’re willing to hold our paper is a marker of our strength and our influence over everyone else. The dollar is the world’s money, and as long as that remains true, we’re in the driver’s seat of the global economy.
Prudent management of our money is precisely the reason why everyone else wants to fund our deficits. On a size-weighted basis, no money in the world is even close to as good as ours. That’s a big part of why Hank Paulson and Congress went to extraordinary lengths this month to reassure holders of agency paper that their assets would be protected.
Not convinced
ss396 Monday, July 28th at 9:01PM EST (link)I’m having a lot of trouble with the “tax cuts and deficit spending are basically the same thing” concept, too. I can buy that argument to the extent of a near-term revenue gap, but the behaviors motivated by either course are quite different. I could find the argument more palatable under a tight discipline to the deficit spending, but I see no reason to expect that from this Congress – or any Congress for that matter. It is a lot easier to imagine runaway spending than it is to consider runaway tax cutting.
If you pay someone to sit on his butt, you can’t be surprised when he does.