McCain's Economists

by hilzoy

When John McCain released his economic plan (pdf) the day before yesterday, he also released a statement, signed by 300 economists, in support of his economic plan. I was curious about it -- for one thing, the economists' statement does not mention some central aspects of the plan released the same day, like his promise to balance the budget in four years, and while I'd ordinarily assume that economists signing on to "John McCain's plan" were signing on to the actual document he had released, the fact that those 300 names were released within hours made me wonder whether all of them had had a chance to read the document itself.

I didn't know how to answer these questions, though. Luckily, Politico did:

"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."

On my most specific question -- were the economists signing on "in support of John McCain's Jobs for America economic plan" -- the plan released two days ago -- or to something vaguer and more general? -- the answer appears to be: the latter:

"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. (...)

“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.”"

The statements by some of the economists are, um, tepid:

"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 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." [Ed. note: I couldn't agree more.]

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 e-mail, "I would prefer to see him being elected president." (...)

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.""

To my mind, though, the real piece of information here is that these economists were signing on to what they saw as McCain's broad principles, and not to this specific plan.

In related news, Brad DeLong notes some economists who didn't sign on. (I'm glad he did this: when I read it, I wondered how the list would look to someone more familiar with the profession than I am. I recognized some names, but had no real sense of things like: which economists that one might expect to sign such a statement are missing?):

"A lot of economists who you would expect to have signed on--subcabinet appointees in past Republican administrations, et cetera--have not. One would expect, based on political loyalties and willingness to serve in Republican administrations, to see Greg Mankiw, Paul Wonnacott, Dick Schmalensee, Michael Mussa, Thomas Moore, Gary Seevers, Marina von Neumann Whitman, Kristin J. Forbes, Katherine Baicker, Matthew J. Slaughter, Andrew Samwick, and others on the list. They are not there. That is good news."

Comments

[cleek]

now that's misrepresentation i can believe in !

[von]

I don't know that any of this is surprising at all.

[trilobite]

"Maybe I shouldn't have rushed into signing the letter."

This makes me wonder whether the 300 signatures were literally the result of spamming economists. Perhaps this is actually the list of all right-wing economists in the country who habitually fall for phishing scams?

[John Thullen]

"I don't know that any of this is surprising at all."

May I put you on retainer, Von? Your inperturbability in the courtroom as the evidence table loads up is just the kind of cool legal demeanor I could use.

;)

[rea]

I don't know that any of this is surprising at all.

Admit it, Von--you're beginning to find all this nonsense from McCain hard to swallow, aren't you? Even with lots and lots of vodka added to the lemonade?

We'll make an Obama supporter out of you yet . . .

[Gary Hussein Farber]

"I don't know that any of this is surprising at all."

I assume you're applauding the fact that Hilzoy is not "trying to avoid talking about" the 300 economists who "support" McCain's plan, right?

Are we allowed to criticize the McCain plan yet, or is it still too soon?

Serious question: I'm unclear what your position is, other than to, apparently, avoid as much as possible ever withdrawing a statement about McCain or Obama, or explaining said statements and complaints about the commentary of others.

But do feel free to bring us up to date on what you find superior about McCain compared to Obama, and why McCain deserves our support. I'm seriously curious to know your reasoning. Is is specific issues that you base that on, and if so, which ones, or is it...what?

In fact, why not do a front page post, soon, Von, as soon as you have time, to explain to all why we should support McCain? Use your soap box, why don't you? I assume you feel you have a strong case, and this blog gets lots of readers and hits these days!

Thanks!

[Jeff]

I don't know that any of this is surprising at all.

Huh? Wasn't it just yesterday (Monday at ther latest) that you were stating that McCain's plan was so spiffy because "300 economists supported it". Now you're not surprised that they didn't support the plan at all? Does that mean that you now agree that the plan is Epic Fail, or do you still support the plan, unlike, say, 300 economists?

[hilzoy]

Jeff: that was why I posted it. I didn't want to respond that, say, I imagined not all the economists had read the proposal, or that I thought it was pretty striking that they had managed to corral 300 economists in a pretty short time, which they would have had to have done if we were to take them as supporting the actual plan that was put forward. I didn't know the facts, and while nothing in my experience of academia suggests that it would be easy to track down 300 economists during the summer, in (say) a weekend, how did I know?

Now I do.

[trilobite]

If you're going to quote Brad DeLong, you might as well also quote the part where he says that some of the names that are on the list are serious heavy hitters.

I'd like to see the cover letter that asked them to sign on -- if many of them thought they were just stating general sympathy with broad principles, I seriously wonder if that's all they were asked for.

[cleek]

nothing in my experience of academia suggests that it would be easy to track down 300 economists during the summer

seems like there should be a joke in there somewhere, but i just can't find it.

[Nell]

OT: Vote on FISA bill coming up momentarily on C-SPAN 2. All amendments failed.

Thanks so much, Mr. Sulzberger, for not seeing fit to print Risen's report of Bush's lawbreaking when it might have made a difference. And thanks so much, Sens. Reid and Rockefeller, Reps. Pelosi and Hoyer, and all those who've helped return us to Nixonland.

Feingold: I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and I am one of the few members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. And, based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the Inspector General report, the election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation.

I am also familiar with the collection activities that have been conducted under the Protect America Act and will continue under this bill. I invite any of my colleagues who wish to know more about those activities to come speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the civil liberties of Americans. If we grant these new powers to the government and the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was, of that I am sure."

Feigold via FDL.

[hilzoy]

Trilobite: Well, he doesn't actually say that; he quotes Salmon saying that. The reason I didn't quote it, though, was that I thought that kind of went without saying: Becker, for instance, is an obvious heavyweight.

[KCinDC]

I happened to get a copy of the letter:

Dearest Sir;

I am MR. JOHN MCCAIN of Arizona, United States. My Wife MRS. CINDY MCCAIN, inheritted a large sum and has deposit 18Millions of United State Dollars in account to distribute to qualfied Economists. All necessary is to sign the Attached Statment.

With God all things are possible As soon as I receive your reply I shall give you the contact of the BANK in Europe I will also issue you a letter of authority that will prove you as the original- beneficiary of this Fund.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Award-winning comment by KCinDC. No contest.

[tgirsch]

I second the award!

[Bruce Baugh]

KCinDC shoots...it's good! (I really did laugh out loud reading that.)

[trilobite]

LOL!

Thanks, KC, I needed that.

[Brick Oven Bill]

It’s good to know that eBay CEO Meg Whitman is leading McCain’s economic team. Her company only lost half of its value in her last three years at the helm before she got pushed out. That’s like way better than Carli.

[John Thullen]

Well, McCain hires incompetent individuals, of the male and female persuasion (I don't know any longer what you mean; Whitman and Fiorini were among the most competent individals on the planet, despite your vagina envy).

Look, they got their shot. Not nurturing. Their shot.

Here's the deal with Whitman: She's brillant.
She has increased shareholder value, not that shareholders, male and females alike, give a shit, because once you reduce women and men to shareholders, they become the same, whining, ruthless whiners, capitalism being what it is.

I don't agree with Whitman on her backing of McCain, but just because you, B, b, b,BOB, as the Who might sing it, have a vagina in the middle of your forehead, doesn't mean you should go fuck yourself.

I don't think you should be banned. AND, I violated the posting rules.

I think everyone knows where I stand.

I'm a moderate.

[Equal Opportunity Cynic]

It's been a long long time since I've laughed harder than I did at KCinDC's post.

[John Thullen]

KCinDC is one of the 300?

This looks worse than Von thinks. ;)

[liberal japonicus]

John,
Reading your 8:37 was akin to the feeling that one gets when seeing, after watching any number of curve balls slowly stretch one out over the plate, a high and tight heater playing chin music. Irregardless of whether the batter was crowding the plate.

[John Thullen]

I didn't like the look on his face in the on-deck circle. He was timing my pitches.

[tgirsch]

liberal japonicus:

Oooh, negative points for use of the quasi-word "irregardless!" :)

[KCinDC]

Was 08:37 John Thullen, or John Thullen, plus three?

[KCinDC]

Thanks for the kind words, everyone. I do have to give credit to the anonymous spammer who contributed the second paragraph. Probably I should have left out more punctuation in the first to match.

[hilzoy]

More about the economists:

"So the Huffington Post decided to dig in a bit further, sending emails to roughly 150 members of the list. The response, from roughly a fifth of that group, was telling. Many of the economists whom McCain cited were generally supportive of his economic goals. But their support was tempered by strong objections towards specific proposals as well as deeper skepticism to the non-economic components of McCain's candidacy. Many felt compelled to clarify that their show of support for the Arizona Republican's economic proposals shouldn't be misinterpreted as an endorsement of his presidential campaign."

[KCinDC]

So these people signed on to a document put out by a presidential campaign, and it didn't occur to them until later that it might be interpreted as an endorsement of the candidate? They may be gullible enough that my award-winning comment could be true.

[On the Eternal Infamy of Bush Sr.]

Speaking of Barack Obama: LONG LIVE PRESIDENT OBAMA!

Obama is a racial-minority individual and does not like racism:

There is bad news about George Herbert Walker Bush.

What if basically all racial-minority people would subscribe to the interpretations that George Herbert Walker Bush committed monstrous, racist, hate crimes while he was the President of the United States?

It will eventually come out: it is only a matter of time.

Respectfully Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang, J.D. Candidate
B.S., With the Highest Level of Academic Honors at Graduation, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

(I can type 90 words per minute, and there are thousands of copies on the Internet indicating the content of this post. And there are thousands of copies in very many countries around the world.)
_________________
‘If only there could be a ban against invention that bottled up memory like scent & it never faded & it never got stale.’ It came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.