Putting the Con in Economics - Look How Well It Worked Under Bush

by Andrew Tobias

Yesterday, I ended with this overview . . .

We all honor McCain's service. Or certainly should. But what of the rest?

The fact that he's likeable (like George W. Bush) and got mediocre grades (like George W. Bush) and comes from wealth (like George W. Bush) . . . and thinks invading Iraq was the right move (like George W. Bush) and wants to appoint clones (his words) of the Justices George W. Bush appointed . . . and cant keep straight whether Iran is Shiia or Sunni (as Bush couldn't name the president of Pakistan) . . . and wants to make the tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, like George W. Bush (Dems want to keep them for your first couple hundred thousand in income, but go back to the Clinton/Gore rates for the rest) does not necessarily make him the best choice to shoulder more responsibility than anyone else on the planet. Unless that is, you want a third Bush term. (May Day! May Day!)

But what of his economics?

Most recently, he proposed waiving the federal gasoline tax this summer, which has been greeted by economists almost universally as trivial (it would reduce the cost of gas barely 5%), wrong-headed (cut a tax dedicated to repairing our deteriorating infrastructure?), symbolically inappropriate (what's next? should we start subsidizing gasoline to encourage people to drive bigger cars?), and quite possibly counterproductive (if on the margin people are encouraged to do a bit more discretionary driving than they otherwise would have, that would increase demand for gasoline, and, thus, the price).

Yes, one of McCain's opponents chose not to be outbid for motorists affection. (Its like an arms race unilateral disarmament is risky.) But I console myself with the thought that it wasn't her idea and that she at least signaled the irresponsibility of it all by proposing to pay for it, by shifting the cost to the oil companies.

- more -