I have returned from some business travel to my familiar rant, this time on NPR's Marketplace.  The teaser:

Bailout supporters took a lot of heat for handing that cash over to Wall Street. But commentator and economist Andrew Samwick argues it's actually Main Street that's usually on the receiving end of government help.

You can follow the link to listen to the commentary. I'd be happy to follow up on any questions raised by the piece.

 

It depends upon whom you ask.  Most business leaders and investors favor Senator McCain's low tax, less government spending, free trade stance, despite McCain's admission to The Wall Street Journal on November 26, 2005 that "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated."  However, if you ask low-income workers, the poor, those without health insurance, and those whose jobs have been outsourced, Senator Obama would be favored, despite his lack of business experience.  The differences are stark and clearly defined.

However, as a "deficit hawk," I have a much more difficult time deciding between the two.  How much, if anything, would they do to lift the terrible $3.9 trillion of additional public debt that President Bush has incurred on behalf of our children?

This morning, The U.S. Budget Watch Project opened to an enthusiastic audience of hardened Washington deficit hawks.  Such a group would not have turned out for a talk on budget process reform or on another hunt for "fraud, waste, and abuse."  We turned out because of the respect commanded by Leon Panetta, Bill Frenzel, Chuck Bowsher, Rudy Penner, Charlie Stenholm, Jim Kolbe, Gene Steuerle, and Bill Hoagland.  They were brought together in this endeavor by Maya MacGuineas, President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts.  All are highly respected for their yeoman work these many years to curtail Washington's "addiction to debt."

They announced,  "Washington interest groups usually want more for themselves. Today, one organization will start a crusade to get less."  They will educate the voters to the budgetary peril their children will face unless political leaders take responsibility for the fiscal mess we're in.

This morning's Washington Post's lead editorial, "Who'll Cover the Checks," confirms my point of last Tuesday -- all three presidential candidates have proposed far more spending increases and tax cuts than they would pay for and by roughly equal amounts of half a trillion dollars each.  Elections are not won without overpromising.  Next year, some of those promises will be kept, some will be put off until the future, some will fall by the wayside, and some deficit reduction will be added.  One thing we can be sure of -- for the next few years, the deficit will go up.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal jumped on John McCain's economic policy proposals for either causing "the federal deficit to explode" or requiring "unprecedented spending cuts equal to one-third of federal spending on domestic programs." This was based upon estimates which I would vouch for from the Urban/Brookings Tax Policy Center. I haven't found similar analyses of Barack Obama's or Hillary Clinton's economic policy proposals, but I would expect comparable deficit explosions.

Former U.S. Chamber of Commerce Chief Economist Richard Rahn has a "don't worry be happy" piece in today's Washington Times that, at least when it comes to the federal budget and U.S. fiscal policy, is one of the best examples of selective memory I've seen in a long time.

Rahn says that, because the budget deficit fell slightly from 2006 to 2007, the Bush tax cuts have been a huge success. Here's what he's conveniently not saying: