Can Barack Obama really make this election a referendum on the economy?
After reading (and watching part of) the speech on the economy that Barack Obama gave in Raleigh on Monday, and listening on a conference call with Obama advisers Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman, I churned out this little piece for Time.com:
When it comes to economic policy, Barack Obama's standard campaign crack that a John McCain administration would amount to a third term of George W. Bush contains an awful lot of truth. Yes, McCain is a different man, with a different history, who will face a different set of challenges and opportunities than Bush has. But look through McCain's campaign pledges on the economy, and for the most part they really do amount to a continuation of two key policy priorities of the Bush administration: cutting taxes and moving more economic decisions (and responsibilities) into the hands of individuals.
McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin tried over the weekend to make the case that it's Obama who more closely resembles Bush because they're both big spenders. But it's hard to see that one sticking. If this election becomes a referendum on the recent performance of the U.S. economy, Obama wins and McCain loses. It's as simple as that.
Can Obama make this election a referendum on the U.S. economy? He's certainly going to try. If his speech in Raleigh, N.C., Monday afternoon was any indication, though, it's not going to be a slam dunk. It's clear that Obama's economic policies aren't a continuation of the Bush era. But what they are remains a hard-to-summarize mix of moderate Democratic standbys, populist silliness and the occasional truly visionary proposal. They haven't coalesced into anything you could really call a rallying cry. Not yet, at least.
The Raleigh speech kicked off a planned two-week push by the Obama campaign on the economy — most of it taking place in battleground states that went for Bush in 2004. This week he's talking mainly about short-term fixes "to help working families who are struggling to keep up"; next week, his aides say, the focus will be on the long run. The latter plays to Obama's strengths, as he can wax eloquent about the nation's need for investment in education, infrastructure and clean energy. For now, he and his advisers are reciting the details of his three big short-term priorities: a new $50 billion stimulus program, much of it routed into extending unemployment insurance beyond the current 26-week limit and helping struggling state governments; a more aggressive foreclosure-prevention effort, with $10 billion in funding; and a tax cut for Americans making less than $150,000 a year — to be financed with tax increases on those making more than $150,000 a year.
These add up to what you could call the stock Democratic response to tough times. They're not necessarily bad ideas, but they're not what you could call new or transformative either. Obama throws in a few populist panders — he favors a windfall profits tax on oil companies (which could discourage investment in new energy resources), and says he would oppose raising the Social Security retirement age (which if phased in over a long enough period would be the fairest, most sensible way to ease some of the system's long-run funding challenges). Near the end of the speech, there was a hint of Obama's "yes, we can" vision: a plan to give $4,000 a year in tuition aid to college students who pledge themselves to community or national service after graduation.
You can see the internal tensions within the Obama campaign in this laundry list. His economic advisers are moderate, mostly free-market-oriented wonks. His campaign strategists would presumably love it if he breathed a bit more populist fire. And the candidate himself balances a lifelong devotion to progressive causes with what seems to be a pretty keen sense of the tradeoffs inherent in economics. All of which helps explain why, for the moment at least, Obama's most compelling economic argument remains the fact that, on the economy, John McCain sounds an awful lot like George Bush.
-
1
you got a bit of a kickin in TPM
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/10/time_mag_sniffs_at_obamas_econ/ -
2
Dude...I was just about to post that too.
-
3
If you think the smackdown from Anrig is bad, wait til Krugman and DeLong have a shot at it.
You're out of your depth here, Justin.
Stick to writing about soccer. You probably don't know about that, either, but at least you won't be polluting discourse about an important issue that way.
-
4
Actually, only my fifth paragraph got a kicking from Anrig. He didn't address anything else I said, and he certainly didn't address the main point of the piece--which is that Obama's strongest selling point on economic policy remains the fact that he isn't at all like George Bush and John McCain sorta is. Anyway, I'll post on that later.
As for TomT, I'm sorry for "polluting discourse" by writing something that failed to accord with your views in every particular. Seriously, I love having you visit here, dude. But there are lots of different takes on economic reality, and voicing one that doesn't happen to be the same as that of Greg Anrig or Paul Krugman or Brad DeLong (although I would imagine that my views on this aren't all that far from Brad's) doesn't amount to pollution.
Finally, one more smackdown for you all (regarding my brief discussion of the windfall profit tax):
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/06/10/is-a-windfall-tax-a-populist-pander -
5
Hey, no calling other posters dude! It confuses me. especially since i am pro-CC and my link was just informational, not opinionated.
-
6
TomT was one of my first migrants from Swampland, way back when. Then I think he got mad when I said some positive things about Rupert Murdoch. But I still feel a certain bond.
That said, I'll call you dude whenever you want, TAD.
-
7
in every particular. Seriously, I love having you visit here, dude. But there are lots of different takes on economic reality, and voicing one that doesn't happen to be the same as that of Greg Anrig or Paul Krugman or Brad DeLong (although I would imagine that my views on this aren't all that far from Brad's) doesn't amount to pollution.
Do you have any kind of training in economics, though? That's my beef with most of you journalists when you try to write about things like economics (or science or a host of other topics). That said, I was probably too harsh there, but I have a difficult time understanding why economic policy has to be transformative. Isn't sensible good enough?
Also, I'll give you a lot of credit if you'll answer this one: do you agree that Robert Samuelson is polluting the discourse?
-
8
Justin,
I'm not so certain that we really know enough about either of these two candidates proposals to seriously have a real discussion. Neither are hardly comprehensive. While a policy by policy approach may be satisfying to Hillary policy wonks with 10 point checklists...what this country really needs is a road map with check points, some detours marked off, etc.Until either can do that, I think we're really headed for trouble unless ol' Helicopter himself grows a pair and smacks the world with a big pimp hand of rate adjustment upward at the very next meeting. That'll bring down oil, commodities, strenghthen the dollar and convince people the US may be on the ropes but don't count us out.
Until then, the candidate fluffing is just a slow train to nowhere.
Severly economically depressed voter
-Bryan -
9
@TomT: No, I don't think Samuelson is polluting the discourse. He can be kind of a broken record, he doesn't get out much, and I disagree with him much of the time, but what he generally offers are reality-based interpretations of the facts that can spark interesting arguments--that is, promote intelligent discourse.
What drives me a little nuts is how much more attention his columns get in the blogosphere than do my columns or those of his Newsweek colleague Dan Gross. I guess it's partly because he's been around for decades and partly because lefty bloggers are more likely to take issue with him. But sometimes I wonder if it's just that his stuff runs on the Washington Post op-ed page, and lots of people never get beyond that and the NYT op-eds.
Finally, the question about why we need economic journalists when now we've got a bunch of bona fide Ph.D. economists writing about the subject all the time is one I think about a lot. I think I'll devote a post to it sometime soon.
@Bryan: I hear you. Although I do think you can get at least a vague sense of direction, if not a real road map, from Obama's and McCain's campaign pronouncements.
-
10
What drives me a little nuts is how much more attention his columns get in the blogosphere than do my columns or those of his Newsweek colleague Dan Gross. I guess it's partly because he's been around for decades and partly because lefty bloggers are more likely to take issue with him. But sometimes I wonder if it's just that his stuff runs on the Washington Post op-ed page, and lots of people never get beyond that and the NYT op-eds.
I agree with you about this.
I disagree with you about the standard defense of hacks like Samuelson -- "hey, they provoke conversation!" What provokes conversation about Samuelson is that that big of a jacka$$ is allowed to write for the opinion page of the second most respected newspaper in the country.
-
11
I just don't see Samuelson as a hack or a mere conversation provoker. For a long time his column was one of the only homes for economics-oriented wonkdom in the national media. Now, in a world replete with Brad DeLongs and Greg Mankiws and Paul Krugmans and Clive Crooks and Curious Capitalists, he's held to a different standard, and doesn't always come off as well. Plus, he's had this column for more than three decades, which is an awfully long time. But it's not like he's some kind of pox on the national discourse. I still learn stuff from his columns on occasion.
-
12
I think you're essentially admitting you agree with me about Samuelson.
Good enough.
-
13
No, no, no! I'm saying I don't love his stuff to death, but that it has value. I really don't like the whole Brad DeLong "This person should be fired" school of media criticism. Although maybe that's just because I'm seeing media jobs disappearing around me all the time and it makes me a little nervous.
- TIME The road to World Cup glory | http://su.pr/4BIr6L - 10 hours ago
- TIME Twitter App Showdown: Echofon Pro vs Tweetie 2. There can be only one. (via @techland) | http://su.pr/2NRR4C - 13 hours ago
- TIME The National Zoo's panda is leaving. See pictures here | http://su.pr/1wUNuY - 14 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Tennessee Mayor Accuses Barack Obama Of Hating On Charlie Brown, Peanuts
- Wii Fit Plus Review
- Obama Shifts Date of Copenhagen Visit
- NV Sen Poll: Reid In Trouble
- The PlayStation Turns 15, We Reminisce
- 'Forgotten Man' II: Two-Thirds of Jobless Blue-Collar
- 135 Money-Saving Resources and Tips, Special Holiday Season Edition
- Twitter App Showdown: Echofon Pro vs Tweetie 2
- False Economy: Think You're Saving Money? Think Again
- Loving The Joke
- How Strong Is the Evidence Against Amanda Knox?
- Will Federal Spending Mistrust Mean the End of Obama's Audacity
- Amanda Knox, Convicted of Murder in Italy
- Nicolas Sarkozy: A French Paradox
- India, Pakistan and the Battle for Afghanistan
- Hate Your Job? Here's How to Reshape It
- Amanda Knox Testifies: The Murder Trial That Has Gripped Italy
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Astronomers Spot Planet-Like Object GJ 758 B in Orbit
- Foxy Knoxy Case Still Roils Italy
Quotes of the Day »
RSS