Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain vs the Economists

Felix Salmon writes:

Clinton vs the Economists: [D]oes it matter if politicians ignore economists? Thoma and Mankiw say yes, if they're willing to ignore the experts on one of the few areas where the experts agree with each other, then you can't trust that they will ever make good use of advice. Krugman and Cowen say no, there are bigger fish to fry, and economists tend to overrate their own importance.

For me, personally, this gas-tax episode has changed my opinion of Hillary Clinton quite dramatically. Yes, I've been an Obama supporter for a while, but I've been less opposed to Clinton than most Obama supporters, until now. But the gas-tax proposal reminded me of the way that she described the proposed Dubai Ports deal as a threat to national security, and I realized that I just couldn't trust her assertions. I'm pretty sure she's smart enough to know that she's pandering - what Mankiw calls "mendacity with a dash of condescension". Which means that Clinton considers working-class votes to be more important than working-class voters. And that's not a claim I'd make about either of the other two candidates.

And Greg Mankiw writes:

Greg Mankiw's Blog: In Praise of Gas Tax Hysterics: Paul Krugman thinks all of the fuss about the gas tax holiday has become a bit hysterical. He agrees that the policy is a bad idea, but it is no big deal, so let's not focus on it. Paul is right that the issue is, quantitatively, small potatoes, but I am nonetheless pleased to see it get so much attention. This issue is like the canary in the coal mine: No one really cares about the canary, but its condition tells us about deeper problems that lie below.

Many economic issues (e.g., health care, corporate taxation, the trade deficit) are vastly complicated, with experts holding a variety of opinions. When candidates disagree, it simply means that each is siding with a different set of experts, and it is hard for laymen to figure out which set of experts is right. By contrast, the gas tax holiday is not nearly as complicated, and the experts speak with one voice.

Why, then, are candidates proposing the holiday? I can think of three hypotheses:

• Ignorance: They don't know that the consensus of experts is opposed.
• Hubris: They know the experts are opposed, but they think they know better.
• Mendacity with a dash of condescension:* They know the experts are opposed, and they secretly agree, but they think they can win some votes by pulling the wool over the eyes of an ill-informed electorate.

So which of these three hypotheses is right? I don't know, but whichever it is, it says a lot about the character of the candidates.

It is very clear on both McCain's and Rodham Clinton's part that it is not ignorance It my be to some degree hubris on McCain's part--but I doubt it. It is overwhelmingy on Rodham Clinton's part and predominantly on McCain's part the third option: mendacity with a dash of condescension.

And Greg is right: it says a lot of bad things about th character of John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton that they would do this.

Comments

[Neal]

But why doesn't the scary black man have a flag lapel pin?

[dsquared]

I am very glad to see that the author of the passage:

"No issue divides economists and mere Muggles more than the debate over globalization and international trade. Where the high priests of the dismal science see opportunity through the magic of the market’s invisible hand, Joe Sixpack sees a threat to his livelihood."

is no longer in favour of "mendacity with a touch of condescension".

( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/business/16view.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin )

[Neal]

(QUOTE)

May 5 (Bloomberg) -- More than 200 economists, including four Nobel prize winners, signed a letter rejecting proposals by presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John McCain to offer a summertime gas-tax holiday....

The moratorium would mostly benefit oil companies while increasing the federal budget deficit and reducing funding for the government highway maintenance trust fund, the economists said....

Clinton and Republican McCain tout the proposal as an example of their concern for struggling middle-class families....

McCain and Clinton dismissed the objections.

``I find people who are the wealthiest who are most dismissive of a plan to give low-income Americans a little holiday'' so they have ``a little more to give to their children and enjoy the summer a little more,'' McCain said today. ``Thirty dollars means nothing to a lot of economists -- I understand that. It means a lot to some low-income Americans.''

Clinton said yesterday on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos that ``I'm not going to put my lot in with economists'' because ``we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively.''...

(END QUOTE)

Pandering, with a capital "P".

By the way--has either one of them actually introduced a bill with their proposal?

[anne]

"And Greg is right: it says a lot of bad things about the character of John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton that they would do this."

No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I like Clinton, which is my right.

[dsquared]

oh sorry - I've just realised that bit was written by Brad rather than Mankiw. It does leave it a bit more ambiguous what Mankiw actually thinks about the practice of pulling the wool over the eyes of the American public while simultaneously patronising them though.

[anne]

I beg you not to harm Clinton.

[anne]

"Which means that Clinton considers working-class votes to be more important than working-class voters."

Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.I beg you not to harm Clinton. I beg you not to harm Clinton.

[anne]

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/05/hillary-rodham.html?cid=113813356

May 8, 2008

Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain vs the Economists
By Brad DeLong

It is very clear on both McCain's and Rodham Clinton's part that it is not ignorance It may be to some degree hubris on McCain's part--but I doubt it. It is overwhelmingy on Rodham Clinton's part and predominantly on McCain's part the third option: mendacity with a dash of condescension.

And Greg [Mankiw] is right: it says a lot of bad things about the character of John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton that they would do this.

[I beg you not to harm Clinton.]

[Ken Houghton]

I'm still betting ignorance for McCain.

Mankiw (as usual; see dsquared's note above) leaves out another possibility: that Clinton knows better, but was told by voters that THEY want it. (It is hardly hubris--unless DeLong and Mankiw are G-ds--for a politician to listen to the Median Voter. Even economists understand that.)

Right now, the voters see McCain proposing something they may want, Clinton improving the plan from a fiscal point of view, and Obama declaring that the 60% of that tax cut his Illinois Senate vote passed on to consumers was "no big deal."

But I guess this is what qualifies as "mendacity" in the economics blogsphere. Unless the CEA really IS the Shadow Government.

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/gas-tax-hysterics/

May 6, 2008

Gas Tax Hysterics
By Paul Krugman

OK, this has gone overboard.

Hillary Clinton's proposed gas tax holiday is not, in my view, a good idea. But the furor over what is, when all is said and done, a small and temporary policy proposal is entirely disproportionate. What's going on?

Part of it, clearly, is the fact that many people in the media really, really want Obama to win and Clinton to lose — read Kurt Andersen * — and have seized on the gas tax as their latest proof that she is ee-ee-vil.

But there's also something going on with economists, a phenomenon I recognize wearing my other hat: the tendency to place excessive weight on issues where professional judgment differs from lay opinion.

The classic example is free trade versus protectionism. Economists are justly proud of the close reasoning that produced the classical case for free trade, and love to skewer dumb protectionist arguments. I've done it myself....

* http://nymag.com/news/imperialcity/46658

[Neal]

From Robert Reich's blog

(quote)

...The gas tax holiday is small potatoes relative to everything else. But it’s so economically stupid (it would increase demand for gas and cause prices to rise, eliminating any benefit to consumers while costing the Treasury more than $9 billion, and generate more pollution) and silly (even if she won, HRC won’t be president this summer) as to be worrisome. That HRC now says she doesn’t care that what economists think is even more troubling.

In case you’ve missed it, we now have a president who doesn’t care what most economists think. George W. Bush doesn’t even care what scientists think. He rejects all experts who disagree with his politics. This has led to some extraordinarily stupid policies.

I’m not saying HRC is George Bush. And I'm not suggesting economists have all the answers. But when economists tell a president or a presidential candidate that his or her idea is dumb – and when all respectable economists around America agree that it’s a dumb idea – it’s probably wise for the president or presidential candidate to listen. When the president or candidate doesn’t, and proudly defends the policy by saying she's "not going to put my lot in with economists,” we’ve got a problem, folks.

Even though the summer gas tax holiday is pure hokum, it polls well, which is why HRC and John McCain are pushing it. That Barack Obama is not in favor of it despite its positive polling numbers speaks volumes about the kind of president he’ll be – and the kind of president we’d otherwise get from McCain and HRC.

Haven’t we had enough of politicians who reject facts in favor of short-term poll-driven politics?

(end quote)

[anne]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hLPqTxd4Fe7e5EymHU-kTUgweRDQD90BPHC01

April 29, 2008

Obama Says Rivals Clinton, McCain Pandering on Gas Tax
By MIKE GLOVER and BETH FOUHY – Associated Press

Obama took a different view on the issue when he was an Illinois legislator, voting at least three times in favor of temporarily lifting the state's 5 percent sales tax on gasoline.

The tax holiday was finally approved during a special session in June of 2000, when Illinois motorists were furious that gas prices had just topped $2 a gallon in Chicago.

During one debate, he joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, "Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices."

[anne]

"I’m not saying HRC is George Bush."

Rotten, rotten, rotten, rotten, rotten.

[anne]

I like Clinton, which is my right. I beg you not to harm her.

[anne]

The harming of Clinton is a harming of women.

[Bupa]

Stop whining anne. It is OK to like Clinton. Rationalize if that makes you happy, but stop whining.

We hope you will passionately fight for Obama once Clinton finally has the grace to exit the race.

[bob]

Anne:
These writers aren't harming Clinton; HC has been harming herself.

And you are too smart to play the gender card "The harming of Clinton is a harming of women". It is harmful to a single woman - HC isn't all women - and it is chiefly just reporting of her own disappointing actions.

[anne]

"We hope you will passionately fight for Obama once Clinton finally has the grace to exit the race."

Creep, creep, creep, creep, bully, bully, bully, bully, rotten, rotten, rotten, rotten. I will vote as I will.

[anne]

"And you are too smart to play the gender card."

Women, women, women, women, women, women, women, women.

[Q the Enchanter]

But the failure of HRC's pander is nothing to be please about. It wasn't a function of the media's function as purveyor of objective fact and analysis; it was instead a function of the media's neurotic antagonism toward all things Clinton.

(Thought Experiment: John McCain supports gas tax holiday, Obama and HRC oppose it. Result? Surely nowhere near the same degree of media saturation the economic consensus received in the instant case.)

So no, I'm not pleased. Twice. I'm not pleased that HRC in her desperation made this pathetic gambit. And I'm not pleased that her gambit failed merely because the media decided in *this particular instance* to deploy reality-based journalism.

[anne]

"But the failure of HRC's [policy] is nothing to be pleased about. It wasn't a function of the media's function as purveyor of objective fact and analysis; it was instead a function of the media's neurotic antagonism toward all things Clinton."

Right.

[Bupa]

"But the failure of HRC's [policy] is nothing to be pleased about. It wasn't a function of the media's function as purveyor of objective fact and analysis; it was instead a function of the media's neurotic antagonism toward all things Clinton."

Brad DeLong that famous Clinton hater, out to get her the moment she slips up. Brad, you gotta do something about that neurotic antoagonism towards all things Clinton.

anne, please seek psychological help. we miss the old you.

[Barkley Rosser]

anne,

HRC cannot be harmed any further. She is already dead.

Ken,

How about those truckers who drive more than anybody else? They are not for this silly gas tax holiday, even the HRC version that might provide some funds for the highway fund. They want oil to be sold out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

[Ken Houghton]

I would agree with Q the Enchanter, save for one statement: "the media decided in *this particular instance* to deploy reality-based journalism."

A media--or an economist--that was actually reality-based (and not sulking because of Hillary's response to Stephy) would have noted that the HRC plan transferred the tax from the consumer paying it to the oil companies paying it. In short, it was a fiscally-responsible version of the McCain plan.

Now, it is fair to ask--even if you're as condescending and mendacious as NGM--what the virtue of the plan then was. There are two answers that would be given by anyone with a memory (sadly, this appears to exclude the Usual "Economic Left" Suspects):

1) It addresses the McCain plan without lying directly to the voters, as Barack Obama chose to do on Sunday.

2) In eliminating the Federal gas tax at the pump, it takes away the claim (made while manipulating gas prices in key states, such as OH, in a run-up to the 2004 election) that the $0.04 increase passed as part of the 1996 Budget--you know, the budget Krugman points to as what kept the growth of the Clinton Era going--was "Al Gore's fault."

In short, it was a political solution that an economist could have and should have loved, since it would NOT have done any of the things claimed by Mankiw and the normally-more-astute Salmon.

The shame is that the economists are all off crying in their beers because HRC made a quip about them. (Whether that's because it's true or because it isn't is left to Dr. D. to explain.) And they're doing so precisely =because= they bought the media-spin b.s. about the "McCain-Clinton" plan.

I'm now less likely to bother casting that absentee ballot for the guy who was a year behind Stephy and I--not because he slandered HRC, but because he lied about the results of his own bill in order to do it.

Either that, or he really =doesn't= care that 60% of the benefit went to his constituents.

If Dr. D. really wants to do character analysis based on economics and policy, I'll wait for his explanation of that one. But I won't hold my breath.

[anne]

"[P]lease seek psychological help. We miss the old you."

Creep, creep, creep, creep, creep, bully, bully, bully, bully, bully, rotten, rottern, rotten, rotten, rotten. I will vote as I will.

[anne]

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/Tragedy/macbeth/macbeth.1.5.html

1605

The Tragedy of Macbeth
By William Shakespeare

Act I. Scene V.

Inverness. Macbeth's castle.

MACBETH

My dearest love,
Duncan comes here to-night.

LADY MACBETH

And when goes hence?

MACBETH

To-morrow, as he purposes.

LADY MACBETH

O, never
Shall sun that morrow see!
Your face, my thane, is as a book where men
May read strange matters. To beguile the time,
Look like the time; bear welcome in your eye,
Your hand, your tongue: look like the innocent flower,
But be the serpent under't. He that's coming
Must be provided for: and you shall put
This night's great business into my dispatch;
Which shall to all our nights and days to come
Give solely sovereign sway and masterdom.

MACBETH

We will speak further.

LADY MACBETH

Only look up clear;
To alter favour ever is to fear:
Leave all the rest to me.

Exeunt

[anne]

"She is already dead." Wooooooooo.

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/Tragedy/macbeth/macbeth.5.1.html

1605

The Tragedy of Macbeth
By William Shakespeare

Act V. Scene I.

Dunsinane. Ante-room in the castle.

Enter a Doctor of Physic and a Waiting-Gentlewoman

Doctor

I have two nights watched with you, but can perceive
no truth in your report. When was it she last walked?

Gentlewoman

Since his majesty went into the field, I have seen
her rise from her bed, throw her night-gown upon
her, unlock her closet, take forth paper, fold it,
write upon't, read it, afterwards seal it, and again
return to bed; yet all this while in a most fast sleep.

Doctor

A great perturbation in nature, to receive at once
the benefit of sleep, and do the effects of
watching! In this slumbery agitation, besides her
walking and other actual performances, what, at any
time, have you heard her say?

Gentlewoman

That, sir, which I will not report after her.

Doctor

You may to me: and 'tis most meet you should.

Gentlewoman

Neither to you nor any one; having no witness to
confirm my speech.

Enter LADY MACBETH, with a taper

Lo you, here she comes! This is her very guise;
and, upon my life, fast asleep. Observe her; stand close.

Doctor

How came she by that light?

Gentlewoman

Why, it stood by her: she has light by her
continually; 'tis her command.

Doctor

You see, her eyes are open.

Gentlewoman

Ay, but their sense is shut.

Doctor

What is it she does now? Look, how she rubs her hands.

Gentlewoman

It is an accustomed action with her, to seem thus
washing her hands: I have known her continue in
this a quarter of an hour.

LADY MACBETH

Yet here's a spot.

Doctor

Hark! she speaks: I will set down what comes from
her, to satisfy my remembrance the more strongly.

LADY MACBETH

Out, damned spot! out, I say!--One: two: why,
then, 'tis time to do't.--Hell is murky!--Fie, my
lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we
fear who knows it, when none can call our power to
account?--Yet who would have thought the old man
to have had so much blood in him.

Doctor

Do you mark that?

LADY MACBETH

The thane of Fife had a wife: where is she now?--
What, will these hands ne'er be clean?--No more o'
that, my lord, no more o' that: you mar all with
this starting.

Doctor

Go to, go to; you have known what you should not.

Gentlewoman

She has spoke what she should not, I am sure of
that: heaven knows what she has known.

LADY MACBETH

Here's the smell of the blood still: all the
perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little
hand. Oh, oh, oh!

Doctor

What a sigh is there! The heart is sorely charged.

Gentlewoman

I would not have such a heart in my bosom for the
dignity of the whole body.

Doctor

Well, well, well,--

Gentlewoman

Pray God it be, sir.

Doctor

This disease is beyond my practise: yet I have known
those which have walked in their sleep who have died
holily in their beds.

LADY MACBETH

Wash your hands, put on your nightgown; look not so
pale.--I tell you yet again, Banquo's buried; he
cannot come out on's grave.

Doctor

Even so?

LADY MACBETH

To bed, to bed! there's knocking at the gate:
come, come, come, come, give me your hand. What's
done cannot be undone.--To bed, to bed, to bed!

Exit

[Barkley Rosser]

Ken,

Let me see, just in what way did Obama lie on Sunday? If it is that a supposed 60% of the gas tax cut in Illinois going to consumers (I do not have the data on that) was "no big deal," that would be a matter of judgment, rather than one of lying. And, who is "NGM" and why are you still obsessing over "Stephy's" being a year behind Obama in school when this was obviously trumped by his years of service to the Clintons at the highest level? You are beginning to lose it. (And Hillary has contradicted herself on numerous occasions throughout this campaign, far more substantially so than this blip over IL gas tax benefits by Obama).

anne,

So, who is supposed to be Lady Macbeth? This is getting creepy, creepy, creepy, if not rotten, rotten, rotten (Wasn't there something rotten in the state of Denmark? Oh, right, that was Hamlet, wrong play.).

And, even if Hillary is not dead, she is not some shrinking violet who cannot take all the heat. Heck, she has bragged about how tough she is, shooting ducks, putting up with all of Bill's public philandering, fending off attacks from Scaife before getting his support, chugging beer and scotch in working class bars, and threatening to "obliterate Iran." She can take it. The question has become, why can't you?

[anne]

"She can take it. The question has become, why can't you?"

Rotten, rotten, rotten, rotten, rotten, bully, bully, bully, bully, bully, creep, creep, creep, creep, creep, creep, creep, creep, creep.

Rotten, bullying, creep.

[anne]

"She can take it. The question has become, why can't you?"

Creepy rotten bully. Get it?

[anne]

"Which means that Clinton considers working-class votes to be more important than working-class voters. And that's not a claim I'd make about either of the other two candidates."

Rotten lie. Get it?

[Robert Waldmann]

More importantly Mankiw is right and (on this issue at least) free of mendacity and condescension, because he wrote candidates plural and not Clinton. He didn't denounce McCain by name, but he didn't pretend that Clinton is the only or the first candidate to argue for a gas tax holiday as www.washingtonpost.com did, Joe Klein did, and Felix Salmonslipped into doing in his headline as you noted in yours.

To explain the qualifier, I have a very high opinion of Greg Mankiw. I even think he made it out of the Bush administration with his reputation intact. However, if I did not know him, I would find such relative honesty from a former chairman of Bush's COE amazing.

[Bupa]

"She is tireless, she is smart. She is capable. And so obviously she'd be on anybody's short list to be a potential vice presidential candidate," said Obama

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN0841282220080508

I guess Obama doesn't mind her "Mendacity with a dash of condescension"

[Barkley Rosser]

anne,

You are name calling. This is unbecoming of you. Really. Too bad that you cannot take it, as nobody was directing anything at you personally until you started engaging in name calling, repetitious name calling that looks silly, indeed, a good deal worse than silly. Not good, anne, not good. And, if you want to call names out of feeling personally attacked or whatever, well that is your problem. But, please, do not claime you are doing this out of some need to defend Hillary. She is a regular Margaret Thatcher, with armor plating all over her. She can take it.

Bupa,

Most politicians engage in mendacity, frequently without bothering with the condescension. So, most of the choices for VP that Obama faces will come with such baggage to some degree or other, unfortunately. Heck, lots of people think that maybe a POTUS or VP needs to be able to do that, part of being tough, like threatening to obliterate entire nations.

[Barkley Rosser]

Robert W.,

Many think that part of why Mankiw started his blog, besides it fitting in with marketing for his widely used textbook, was to help rehabilitate his reputation, which many considered to have been somewhat shredded by the Bush CEA Chair experience. Bernanke probably got out of that position less scathed in terms of his rep than did Mankiw.

(There is no doubt that Mankiw is both very smart and a nice guy to boot.)

[Rick Aster]

The problem is not really that Clinton is ignoring economists, it's that she's ignoring reality. It's as if she decided she would build the foundation of her house using cardboard, then lashed at at structural engineers when they told her that approach could cause problems. You can ignore economists if you want, but you have to have some kind of basis for the actions you take in managing the economy. Clinton's tactic of blaming the economists is just a new version of the all-too-familiar management tactic of blaming the workers when things go wrong at the factory, and I think that's the reason it played so poorly with her blue-collar crowd.

[thorstein veblen]

I'm an Obama man, but I'm unconvinced that the summer supply of gasoline is "perfectly inelastic". Gas can't move across the canadian or mexican borders? I'd imagine a temporary repeal of the gas tax 18 cents, would probably be offset, but by a full 18 cents? That's tough to stomach absent really careful econometric work on past gas tax holidays. I think, generally, the gas tax should be much, much higher than it is... But if it isn't perfectly inelastic (like I would imagine), reducing the tax when the price goes up, or, even better, jacking up the tax when the price of gas goes down, would make for great stabilization policy, since it could help the Fed control inflation and demand simultaneously...