In Theory, Economists Support McCain

Politico: But It Seems Many Signatories Of Campaign Statement Disagree With Key Details Of Economic Agenda

(The Politico)  This story was written by Alexander Burns and Avi Zenilman.

---

The endorsement could hardly have been stronger. On Monday, John McCain’s campaign released a statement signed by 300 economists who “enthusiastically support” his “Jobs for America” economic plan, providing a heavyweight testimonial to the presumptive Republican nominee’s “broad and powerful economic agenda.”

There’s just one problem. Upon closer inspection, it seems a good many of those economists don’t actually support the whole of McCain’s economic agenda. And at least one doesn’t even support McCain for president.

In interviews with more than a dozen of the signatories, Politico found that, far from embracing McCain’s economic plan, many were unfamiliar with - or downright opposed to - key details. While most of those contacted by Politico had warm feelings about McCain, many did not want to associate themselves too closely with his campaign and its policy prescriptions.

Howard Beales, an economist at George Washington University, explained that he signed the letter as "an expression of support for [McCain], not necessarily each and every detail of his plan, which I may not have had time to study closely."

Beales said he thought McCain had "a good plan," in general, and that his policy priorities were better than Barack Obama's. In signing the letter, however, he did not intend to give a blanket endorsement to McCain's full agenda.

Professor James Adams of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute declined to elaborate on his decision to sign the letter. "I'm not involved in the campaign," he said. "I simply read a statement and signed on."

Constantine Alexandrakis, a professor at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, expressed second thoughts about signing.

"I would describe myself as an Obama supporter," he explained. "Maybe I shouldn't have rushed into signing the letter."

Alexandrakis said he added his name in order to show his support for certain principles in McCain's plan - such as free trade and a reduction in corporate tax rates. But there are other aspects of McCain's proposal, such as his pledge to make permanent the 2001 tax cuts, that Alexandrakis opposes.

"While I do not agree with Obama's plan 100 [percent] either," he wrote in an email, "I would prefer to see him being elected president."

It’s easy to see why some of the economists might seem less than enthusiastic when asked directly about the McCain plan. The McCain campaign’s economic team, led by adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, began collecting signatures from economists several months ago, with the intention of showing support for McCain's broad economic priorities, rather than the specific items in his Jobs for America proposal.

The statement they signed is 403 words long - and there is no mention of the gas tax holiday or the deficit, which the Congressional Budget Office projects will approach $400 billion this year.

But the Jobs for America plan is a 15-page document that touts a gas tax holiday proposal on the second page and prominently features the promise that “John McCain will balance the budget by the end of his first term” on the fourth page. The press release accompanying the economists’ statement claimed it was “in support of John McCain's Jobs for America economic plan.”

“This really is a general statement on the overarching principles of McCain’s plan to grow jobs and spur economic growth,” said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers. “Obviously it is what it is and it’s a general statement about cutting spending and cutting taxes and making us more competitive to move forward.”

For that reason, Gary Becker, a Nobel prize-winning economist at the University of Chicago, said he definitely supports the plan, even if he is not completely familiar with its specifics.

"I like the main thrust of the plan,” he said. “I felt that I could support it without knowing every detail."

Likewise, William Albrecht, professor emeritus at the University of Iowa, viewed the plan in general terms. "Overall, I thought [McCain's] economics was better than Obama's," he said.

While he favors McCain's overall outlook on the economy, Albrecht said he is not sure that he would agree with all the individual measures in the Arizona senator’s economic platform. He sounded a particularly skeptical note when asked about McCain's pledge to balance the federal budget within four years.

"He's not going to balance the budget," Albrecht said. "Nobody's going to balance the budget."

John Bethune, dean of the business school at Barton College, called his own decision to sign the letter “a comparative endorsement.”

“When I look at both the candidates, McCain’s the one I agree with more,” Bethune said, citing McCain’s stances on taxation and government spending as reasons for his support.

But as much as Bethune prefers McCain to Obama, he has doubts about the Republican candidate, too.

“I’m not sure taxes will go down under McCain,” he said. “I don’t know if we’ll get a smaller government.”

Like many of the economists interviewed by Politico, Bethune became aware of the letter when a colleague forwarded it to him by email.

Donald Bellante, a professor at the University of South Florida, also followed Bethune’s comparative approach.

"I'm not going to say that I agree 100 percent with everything" in McCain's proposals, Bellante said. McCain's plan for a gas tax holiday, for example, strikes him as an undesirable measure.

But, he noted, just as in the policy arena, there was no opportunity to pick-and-choose which part of the candidate’s platform he signed on to.

"Unfortunately, it's the case that when it comes to policy it's either yes or no," Bellante said.

[chrisl45]

Nobel prize winners supporting John McCain along with hundreds of economists. What more could you want. This proves John McCain will lead the US to becoming a more prosperous nation. My congratulations, best wishs, and support go out to him and his campaign.

[vrnnjoseph]

After reading the article it looks like 300 economist really don''t support McBush. Really bad how the title of the article can mislead the neo-nut morons that support this guy. I heard he finished second to last in his Naval Acamdemy Class!!! We don''t need another Moron running the Country!!!

[rgrxx175]

"300 economists" i think they got it wrong, they meant 300 lobbyist...

[zerato-2009]

He steals from the clinotn 92 campaign, when clinotn kept bringng up the endorsements of his economists. Mccain steals from the clinotns and can not get his economist onboard.

[newsjunky5]

His plan almost works if you think we should adopt a Faith-Based economy.

[newsjunky5]

I could carve a better man out of a banana

[newsjunky5]

Sounds like McCain has duped the economists. Not a good sign.

[newsjunky5]

"Upon closer inspection, it seems a good many of those economists don%u2019t actually support the whole of McCain%u2019s economic agenda. And at least one doesn%u2019t even support McCain for president."

---------------------------------

McCain doesn''t want you to inspect closer. This could be McCain''s lie number one.
I like how Politico''s headline insinuates one thing, the opposite of what the story tells us.

[incog-nito]

Free trade is a good thing in theory, if:

1. Everybody competes on a level playing field. Same labor and safety standards, no currency manipulation, no gov''t subsidies, etc. Preferrably the same currency.

2. You care about welfare of people in developing countries over your own welfare.

In reality, it''s not a level playing field. American workers are forced to compete against countries with little standards or laws, with gov''t run businesses (China), with people working for a few dollars a day. Tariffs were historically used to even the playing fields, but with "free trade" it''s no longer the case.

Second, the role of the U.S. gov''t is to protect its people and American interests, not those of other countries. You can sure that China will not care less if U.S. workers lose their jobs or their wages get decimated.

[rational_1]

If you were to place 300 economists in a straight line, they would all point in a different direction. McCain is lost on the economy.
Posted by BajaJohn1 at 10:04 PM : Jul 09, 2008

If they don''t know what they''re doing, then what makes you think you can trust in Obama''s plans? What makes him the great hope... except perhaps for excessively using words like ''hope'' and ''change''. Socialism would be change alright, but not necessarily good change.

[samthetvcat]

---"The problem with economists is that, everybody else, they have wildly different opinions about what to do. They also have their political biases (as the article clearly points out). Their realm is mostly academia, where theories and hypotheses abound, not the real world. I am not sure if a bunch of economists together would produce any meaningful solution, or just more confusion."---
Posted by incog-nito

LOL omg yeah - so true . . . if I feel confused now then wow what if a hundred of them are out there telling us all they know what''s best and get into all the math and stuff - yikes! I feel a headache coming on already LOL

It does make you wonder how reliable their theories are if even the Obama supporter is saying he''s for free trade . . . like maybe they''re theories need some revision to incorporate the realities of China (?) I wonder . . .

[incog-nito]

SamTheTVCat: The problem with economists is that, everybody else, they have wildly different opinions about what to do. They also have their political biases (as the article clearly points out). Their realm is mostly academia, where theories and hypotheses abound, not the real world. I am not sure if a bunch of economists together would produce any meaningful solution, or just more confusion.

[samthetvcat]

---"But, he noted, just as in the policy arena, there was no opportunity to pick-and-choose which part of the candidate%u2019s platform he signed on to."---

I thought about majoring in Economics in college but there was so much ''trending'' as opposed to clarity, it drove me nuts. Like you study stuff in terms of if you cut taxes the economy has a tendency to grow. And if you lower interest rates, the economy has a tendency to grow. But if you cut taxes and raise interest rates and then factor in the trade deficit and about 10 other factors all you get is mush. I kept thinking to myself, like how is anybody ever going to be able to rely on your word if all you can give them is mush?

So here it is and all these economists who followed through all the way to the level of PhD are clearly extremely comfortable with mush . . . but I have no idea what we do with that. Anybody else feel like we can trust them solely on their endorsements? Meh . . .

I wonder whether if somebody were to ask like a hundred or so top economists to draw up plans they think could best help the country, and then a couple of other economists went through the findings whether there''d be some consensus. I don''t feel like we can rely on the politicians to really be motivated to give us a well-thought out plan that puts everybody first as opposed to winning their elections (?)

[harp1963]

"Divitiae, si affluant, nolite cor apponere,"

Josemaria Escriva

[incog-nito]

McCain''s economic plan has its pros and cons, but his promise to balance the budget in his first term is political stunt and an outright lie. It''s not going to happen with tax cuts (mostly for the rich) that would INCREASE the deficit, not reduce it. Also, there is NO plan to grow jobs, only the usual blather about "free trade", which has proven to be a leading cause of job LOSS.

BTW, this is not a new plan. It has already been tried for the past 7 1/2 years, and FAILED.

[kmccliment]

Obama supports gellato for everyone free for the next 4 years. YEA!

[kmccliment]

Mr Potato head speaks again: Ok my friends i will give you what you want if you support me on this lie. Cause you know I know nothing about economics.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by WarDogLRS

Really? Thats what a good leader does is find people that no a specific job. ie. He has found some that do know economics and like some of the economists interviewed they like McCains economic outline better than Obamas. These are economists they know what they are reading. Or are these JUST WORDS? Obamas a Joke!

[randynason]

Loser McCain is such a pain in the country''s arse.

[wardoglrs]

Mr Potato head speaks again: Ok my friends i will give you what you want if you support me on this lie. Cause you know I know nothing about economics.

[anecdote1]

Yes, and in theory, trickle down economics works.