John McCain and Sarah Palin: Dishonest and Dishonorable

They even lie about how many tame economists they have:

JohnMcCain.com - McCain-Palin 2008: 100 ECONOMISTS WARN THAT WITH CURRRENT WEAK FINANCIAL CONDITIONS BARACK OBAMA'S PROPOSALS RUN A HIGH RISK OF THROWING THE US ECONOMY INTO A DEEP RECESSION...

1. They only have 90 names on the list. Not 100. 90. They can't count.
2. They only have 90 names on the list: that means that they could not find any more--and I assure you that they tried.
3. Shame on them for saying "Barack Obama's proposals run a high risk of throwing the U.S. economy into a deep recession." The economic considerations that can be advanced against Obama policies do not include "throwing the U.S. economy into a deep recession." I cannot imagine what mechanism can possibly be contemplated by which Obama's plans would reduce aggregate demand by enough to accomplish that result.

Yes, I am talking to you, Michael Bordo, Michael Boskin, Charles Calomiris, Kristin Forbes, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Glenn Hubbard, Anne Krueger, Allan Meltzer, Kevin Murphy, William Poole, Kenneth Rogoff, Harvey Rosen, Anna Schwartz, George Shultz, John Taylor, and Murray Weidenbaum. You know better. And I know you know better.

No, I'm not talking to you, Kevin Hassett. I know that you don't know better.

Comments

[Ken Houghton]

Top of my head: Ann Kreueger is also an NBER RA. There's one of the eleven.

[Ken Houghton]

Further on:

Poole used to know better. So did--and, as of last week, does--Rogoff, but he was the surprise on The 300 list too.

I wish I could say the other names on the list--including Kreuger's--were a surprise.

[anne]

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/7/headlines#5

October 7, 2008

McCain Would Cut $1.3 Trillion from Medicare, Medicaid
By Amy Goodman

In other campaign news, a McCain aide has disclosed the Republican candidate’s health plan would result in a major reduction to spending on Medicare and Medicaid. The Wall Street Journal reports the plan could result in cuts of up to $1.3 trillion over ten years. * The cuts would be necessary to keep a McCain campaign pledge for a “budget neutral” health plan. Medicaid and Medicare provide government-backed healthcare to seniors, poor families and the disabled. The programs have already seen sharp funding cuts under the Bush administration.

* http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122315505846605217.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop

[anne]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122315505846605217.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop#printMode

October 6, 2008

McCain Plans Federal Health Cuts: Medicare, Medicaid Spending Would Be Reduced to Offset Proposed Tax Credit
By LAURA MECKLER - Wall Street Journal

John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs.

The Republican presidential nominee has said little about the proposed cuts, but they are needed to keep his health-care plan "budget neutral," as he has promised. The McCain campaign hasn't given a specific figure for the cuts, but didn't dispute the analysts' estimate.

In the months since Sen. McCain introduced his health plan, statements made by his campaign have implied that the new tax credits he is proposing to help Americans buy health insurance would be paid for with other tax increases.

But Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Sen. McCain's senior policy adviser, said Sunday that the campaign has always planned to fund the tax credits, in part, with savings from Medicare and Medicaid. Those government health-care programs serve seniors, poor families and the disabled. Medicare spending for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30 is estimated at $457.5 billion.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the Medicare and Medicaid changes would improve the programs and eliminate fraud, but he didn't detail where the cuts would come from. "It's about giving them the benefit package that has been promised to them by law at lower cost," he said....

[anne]

Douglas Holtz-Eakin definitely does not know better.

[William]

I am utterly shocked that over-educated economists with bulging brains such as Barro, Becker, Bordo, Krueger, Rogoff, and dozens of others would sign this piece of rubbish.

In such dire economic and political times, for an "elite" economist to sign McCain's petition attacking Obama's economic policies is at once foolish, irresponsible and scandalous. I find it completely unacceptable that these economists seem unable to put ideology aside in the case of such a crucial election. Supporting McCain's economic policies is so abjectly absurd that I find this list very depressing.

The petition's statement that "Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite" is a remarkably deceiving and dishonest one.

A simple glance here (http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/03/american-politi.html) and here (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?em) shows that there is ample evidence of the superiority of democratic economic policies.

Why oh why can't we have a better economists' core?

[William]

** economists' corps

[William]

"deceitful," I should say.

[Charles]

Yeesh.

If people will lie about whether 100 = 100, what WON'T they lie about.

Hope you saved a screen shot, Brad. Doubtless they'll find 10 street people and add them to the list, figuring that we won't check.

[howard]

prof, you're getting there, you're getting there.

still: why assume they "know" better? i don't care if it causes john mccain intense personal anguish to run a sleazy campaign and i sure as hell don't care what psychological mechanism caused people who "know" better to sign something this stupid.

so i prefer to deal with the reality in front of me: john mccain is running a sleazy campaign and a bunch of economists stand revealed as wearing no intellectual clothes whatsoever.

[ogmb]

So where is the Economists for Obama list? How about starting with the NBER fellows?

[Patrick]

Brad,
Next month you can have your chance to call them out. Several of those on the list are presenting at thr Cato Institute in D.C.
Of course, you have to pay $150 to register for a days worth of panel discussions....but, hey, nothing like calling out some colleagues on academic dishonesty!

[pgl]

"Doubtless they'll find 10 street people and add them to the list, figuring that we won't check." Kudlow & Luskin as street people - gotta love it. But Brad? You really must not think a lot of Kevin Hassett!

[pgl]

"Doubtless they'll find 10 street people and add them to the list, figuring that we won't check." Kudlow & Luskin as street people - gotta love it. But Brad? You really must not think a lot of Kevin Hassett!

[vkn]

I think it is a simple case of professional envy against Krugman's dominant media influence. After all, how can one, at so broad a level, discount the economic effects of McCain's foreign policy as well as his policies towards the judiciary and various other institutions, and just focus on tax?

[Donald A. Coffin]

They for sure tried (and failed) to get me...not that teaching at a small, regional campus of a state university makes me what you might call prominent.

[albrt]

Bill Poole is a shame! He's shameful! He has no idea!

[Michael Turner]

I wonder if the AEI's John Makin is among those who know better? After all, this time last year, he was saying we need to have a recession, soon, to purge the excesses of the housing bubble, and that any policy aimed at averting a recession would only cause a deeper recession later.

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.27026/pub_detail.asp

But now he signs a letter saying that Obama's policies will cause a deep recession? Sounds like last year he had already signed off on a deep recession as a fait accompli.

If I'm reading the above piece correctly, Makin should be opposed to the current bailout. After all, it is very much, as Krugman said, "son of MLEC", and Makin opposed MLEC. But then, that means Makin's also opposed to McCain's position on the bailout, not just to Obama's position and to Obama's economic plans.

Makin's argues against any bailout on "normative" grounds: a bailout introduces too much moral hazard. But at the same time he quotes Ben Stein decrying the absence of "any lawsuits by the Securities and Exchange Commission against any of these big money center princes or principalities--not to mention criminal investigations from other law enforcement authorities." Fines, lawsuits, jail time, even mere public shaming (no, really! it might work with some of these people) have their place in establishing what's "normative". Why does Makin discount this? With what sense of justice does one announce a preference for an outcome (recession) that punishes almost everyone indiscriminately, not just those at fault?

Makin also thinks Ben Stein is an economist. So it's possible he just doesn't know any better.

I wouldn't be surprised if, in going down the list, you find that most of these 100 (oops, 90) economists would have also signed a letter against the current bailout measures, and therefore are at odds with McCain on that issue.

[Ken Houghton]

The list is still ninety. Getting a good cross-ref list on those 11 NBER RAs as well. (Barro, Feenberg, Feldstein, Hubbard, Anne Kreuger, and Anna Schwartz, for instance, are all NBER RAs.)

Credit Where Due Department: N. Gregory Mankiw is NOT on the List of 90.

[dust]

Four Nobel Prize in Economics laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott. And since Anna Schwartz is on the list, surely Milton Friedman would be, if he's still alive.
Throws the scientific status of economics into doubt...

[David in NY]

As I recall from an incident earlier in the campaign, they get people to sign something that says they "support" McCain, and then they do a switch and put those signatures under something that they don't really support. And the "supporters" are too embarrassed to call them on the bait and switch.

But maybe that's being too generous to the signers.

[John Emerson]

As I keep explaining, economists are not scientists. They're highly knowledgeable mercenary professionals, some of whom who prefer to swin at the ethics-optional beach. And if you can afford one of them, they might be able to help you out some. But in a world where many have no medical insurance, very few have economics insurance.

[Robert Waldmann]

My favorite name on the list is

Ike Brannon, McCain-Palin 2008

Now it might be legitimate to count Holtz-Eakin (as they do) even though he is part of the campaign because he is (or used to be) a reputable economist.

But who is Ike Brannon ? I ask ideas.repec which lists 5 articles since 1997 including one in JEBO, Applied economics, and the International Journal of Production Economics (???) and 2 in the Eastern Economic Journal ??? and a grand total of four (4) cites

In contrast Brad DeLong has 971 citations counted at ideas-repec.

Wow.

[Cash]

Let's face it: One of the casualties of the credit crunch/Wall Street collapse is likely to be Chicago School economics.

Especially if aggressive government intervention keeps the pain tolerable and has the public breathing easier that the problem is being properly managed by competent public servants.

You think anyone will pay much attention to James Buchanan arguing that these public servants are somehow exploiting the crisis to their own advantage?