My "Fiscal Fitness" column from this week's Roll Call is about John McCain's promise to balance the budget by 2013.

Comments much appreciated.

There weren't many details available when the Treasury yesterday announced that it would ask Congress for the authority to buy Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stock should it be necessary.  Published reports like the ones in the New York Times and Washington Post didn't indicate the estimated cost but talked about it being in the billions.

There's little doubt that Congress will provide what Treasury is requesting.  My question as a budget person is how it's going to be treated.

Brad DeLong has one his best posts EVER this past Friday.  Don't miss it.

Andrew, as usual, has raised a number of interesting questions.

I have just one observation.  Does anyone else see the excruciating irony here?  The same administration that wants to do away with earmarks and asks everyone to trust the decisions to department and agency employees, refuses to trust those same employees when they make other decisions.

The word "plan" is in quotes in the title above because what John McCain announced yesterday isn't really a plan that holds together to accomplish something; it's a laundry list the candidate will pull from whenever he needs a talking point. 

Want deficit reduction?  I've got it.  Just look at my plan.

Want an energy policy? Look at my plan.

Want taxes cut?  I've got it, check out my plan.

Among many others, Brad DeLong and Economistmom have more details and an analysis worth reading.  But the easiest way to determine what this was all about is to look at what the candidate actually said yesterday as opposed to teh 14-page written document. According to a reporter from a national publications who called me, McCain never mentioned the worrd "deficit"and didn't talk about deficit reduction.  As a result, this paper decided not to publish a story on it.  In the reporter's terms, his editors "took a pass."

It’s a Case of Murder on the Budget Express
July 8, 2008

There’s a great scene from the 1974 movie version of Agatha Christie’s “Murder on the Orient Express” where her iconic ace detective, Hercule Poirot, wonderfully played by Albert Finney, talks about the number 12.

My Beautiful and Talented Wife (The BTW) pointed me to this story from Lisa de Moraes in this morning's Washington Post about what's available to watch on cable TV today.  The money quote:

And nothing says "founding fathers" like a 17-hour MSNBC "To Catch a Predator" marathon, including two blocks of extra-special "Predator Raw: The Unseen Tapes.

I'm heading to the movies, where Maxwell Smart and Indiana Jones await.

At some point in the past month or so, John McCain and Barak Obama or their advisors have both said that they will pay for some or all of what they're proposing with reduced military spending. 

The problem is that, even if all US troops are withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan, it's not at all clear that the Pentagon budget will fall much or even at all.

Consider the following:

Pete's post on gasoline prices obviously hit a nerve.

So here's my question:

If consumers are willing to pay higher prices for gasoline, why should we think that energy companies are going to do anything but charge those higher prices?

Much of this was prompted by Pete's post.  We..and I'm definitely including myself in this category...have lives that assumed that relatively cheap energy would continue.  We have gas guzzling cars, like air conditioning, drive many miles to work, haven't supported mass transit or oil altenatives, etc.   We might not like today's higher prices, but didn't we set ourselves up for this?  Whosever said that prices would always be low?

In other words, in what's supposed to be a market-driven economy, aren't we complaining about the market working?

Yes, I know that supply is being set by a cartel.  But given the amount of refining capability and the worldwide demand, it's not clear to me that pumping more oil would make that much of a price difference in the current environment anyway. 

Andrew, as usual, asks an interesting question: "...how long it should take people to make up their minds about how to cast their ballots..."?

Unless the situation has changed dramatically in the past few years, the answer is that the overwhelming number of voters have already decided who they are going to vote for.  Indeed, most voters make up their minds long before the balloting is ever conducted.  My guess is that as much as 80 percent of the electorate know from the start who they are supporting.  That's especially true in the general election where party affiliation, which is obviously known from the start, rather than any issue, is the most important reason for most people.