Other Republican economists should take note, and follow his example.
Shorter Glenn Hubbard: Mitt Romney's plans don't add up, but because of (a) the Iraq War that I said would be really cheap (in contrast to Larry Lindsey, who said it might well be expensive), (b) the 2001 Bush tax cut that I said would not bust the budget (in contrast to Alan Greenspan, who said that we would come to rue the day that the Republican Party passed this while giving no thought to how this was ultimately going to be financed), and (c ) the 2003 Bush Medicare expansion that I, my peers, and my successors refused to even think about funding, Obama's plans don't add up either.
The problem with Obama’s arithmetic: The CBO analysed the consequences for deficits and debt over the next decade of keeping [the] tax and spending policy on autopilot [as President Bush, whom I worked for, set it]…. [D]ebt held by the public would reach about 90 percent of [annual] gross domestic product…. The debt problem that the CBO identifies will get worse after the next decade with large and growing shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare…. Mr Obama has proposed to continue current elevated levels of federal spending…. Mr Obama proposes a larger government with explicitly higher taxes on high-income taxpayers but, by the arithmetic of higher spending levels, eventually higher taxes on all Americans.
What Glenn Hubbard does not say is that the "eventually higher taxes on all Americans" were baked into the cake by his and his political masters' decision to go to war in Iraq and to expand Medicare benefits without achieving any administrative efficiencies. And now Romney is going down the same road. It is impossible to say what Romney would do, but right now I am being told that (a) Romney will reverse the Medicare efficiency improvements that reduce costs that are in the Affordable Care Act, (b) in the long run Romney will spend as much on Medicare as Obama would, (c ) in the long run Romney will spend as much on Social Security as Obama would, (d) Romney will spend more on defense than Obama would, (e) Romney will tax the rich less than Obama would.
That looks to me like a prescription for high deficit and debt levels in the long run than Obama--much higher deficit and debt levels, if our history since 1980 is any guide.