Austan Goolsbee Lives!
Now that the Dem primary is officially over, it's safe for the Obama campaign to let economics adviser Austan Goolsbee (remember NAFTA-gate?) start publicly making the case for Obama's economic policies.
And so, today on a conference call today with reporters, Goolsbee was front and center as a chief surrogate for Obama, who's battling it out with John McCain today over their competing economic plans.
Obama launches his economic change tour today in Raleigh, North Carolina, at a time when polls show anxiety about the economy toping the list of voter concerns.
Goolsbee was asked an overarching political question: How would Obama successfully avoid the "tax and spend liberal" moniker that the GOP has been so successful at branding on the fleshy posteriors of Democratic Presidential Candidates Past?
"The American people are a bit smarter than that," Goolsbee replied, somewhat optimistically. "If anyone just looks at what Obama is proposing, that's simply not true." Goolsbee pointed out that Obama is proposing tax relief for 95% of American working families while McCain is proposing over $6 billion in tax cuts that will primarily benefit the wealthy.
Goolsbee lives!
Late Update: Here's the audio from the call:
Comments (67)
Greg:
This post makes you sound a bit juvenile, I have to say.
When are you going to post about the McCain flip-flop, as diaried by Ben Smith at Politico?
June 9, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The McCain flip flop, or, the Gallup results.
Some McCain surrogate was on MSNBC this morning, talking about how there was no "bump" for Obama, and why that was a good thing for McCain, and all I could think of was "deja vous". Didn't the Clinton campaign make the exact same argument after Iowa?
And then, there was a bump?
June 9, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any chance of posting the whole conference call?
June 9, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny stuff from Goolsbee:
June 9, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Goolsbee is a super smart guy, and VERY funny. Many times one isn't aware they've been cut to the quick, until they see the metaphorical blood. Not anyone Shrubby would care to converse with. Not that Shrub would know what Goolsbee was saying.
June 9, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that's an interesting question and it brings up this idea: Why not Ron Paul for drug czar? He could end the war on drugs from within and refocus U.S. policy on harm reduction rather than bizarre, inappropriate and counterproductive punishment.
June 9, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feingold, one of the top two budget hawks in the Senate.....
Am I a broken record yet?
June 9, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes you are. Feingold will not be on the short list.
He does not bring balance to the ticket, and would not broaden the ticket's appeal.
June 9, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree to disagree.
June 9, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm leery on any ticket that would take another Democrat out of the Senate - especially when it's one of the few Senators with balls.
June 9, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Explain where you think Feingold can attract voters that Senator Obama can not. How would an African American/Jewish American liberal ticket play in toss up states?
I have no favorite pick, since I am supporting Senator Obama to be President, and will support his pick. I predicted over two months ago that it would be Governor Strickland of Ohio. I am holding to that prediction.
June 9, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Adding Obama discredits McCain. By having Feingold you bring McCain's record to the forefront and how he has totally turned his back on everything he used to represent.
Picking Feingold is a sleeper attack on McCain.
Furthermore, Feingold brings in the Jewish vote, which Obama has been having trouble with.
Furthermore, Feingold locks up the Midwest- completely.
Furthermore, Feingold will absolutely bring in Independents. Independents that may find the Maverick appealing. But NOT when you have the true Maverick of the Senate on the ticket.
Futhermore, WI has a Democratic Gov. who would appoint an excellent replacement for Feingold, say.... Barbara Lawton, the Lt. Gov., who would be an excellent voice on the Federal level.
Don't dismiss Feingold.
June 9, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Feingold is outstanding, so outstanding he should be President. The man is brilliant.
June 9, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think you make a good point about feingold. obama/feingold could tout their honest leadership and open government act, along with bcra, to really undermine mccain's reform argument. plus, if there are going to be people who refuse to vote for obama because of his race or name, i don't think they're going to change their minds because of a certain running mate. but in the end i think this is more wishful thinking by those of us who see obama/feingold as a true "dream ticket."
June 9, 2008 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"African American/Jewish American"
While identity politics certainly exist, they are not the only -- or even the chief -- politics that matter, especially with the younger army of voters rushing to Obama. Those old categories don't have quite the force they used to have.
June 9, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this mean Samantha Power can come back, too?
June 9, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, we're in "unifying" mode right now. I don't expect to see her until the election is won and it comes time to start appointing a staff.
June 9, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post could do with about 30% less snark, Greg.
As for NAFTA-gate, didn't it turn out that Goolsbee's remarks were misinterpreted, and then deliberately leaked by right-wing forces within the Canadian government?
June 9, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhh...the vast North-Right wing conspiracy...nice!
June 9, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought I heard Clinton was behind that.
June 9, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seeing as the Chief of Staff of the conservative Prime Minister is resigning because of NAFTA-gate, apparently it was a big deal to them.
June 9, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. But it was never reported that way by the media. The media failed and passed the blame to Obama.
June 9, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 9, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
He said 28% about a year ago but he's walked that back quite a bit since then:
"I haven't given a firm number," Obama told CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, speaking of how much the levy would rise over the current rate of 15 percent. He "guessed" it would be "significantly lower than" the 28 percent it was under President Bill Clinton.
...
"I think that we can have a capital-gains rate that is higher than 15 percent," he added, but noted people like investor Warren Buffett have said if the tax is "within that range" of 20 to 25 percent, it won't "distort . . . economic decision making."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03282008/news/nationalnews/barack__id_hike_capital_gains_tax_103875.htm
June 9, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes; we Democrats, who actually won all the major wars, and who actually last balanced the Federal Budget are going to take advice from a Georgia Right Winger, who's party can never win a war, or balance the Federal Budget.
June 9, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fun fact:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/demos/mccains-tax-cut-economics_b_105173.html
June 9, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually I'm a California Right Winger, moved to Georgia and my only advice was for how not to be tagged as a tax and spend liberal:
Step 1 Don't raise taxes.
Step 2 Control spending.
Step 3 Don't have the most liberal voting record in the Senate.
Your guy will be labled, and rightly so.
June 9, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, when compared to "reduce taxes and increase spending, particularly in the colossal clusterfuck known as the Iraq war", "tax and spend" doesn't sound so bad.
June 9, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and that's a valid argument, there's nothing wrong with the ideals of a liberal. I just think they go about achieving them the wrong way. My point is don't complain about being a tax and spend liberal if you say you're gonna raise taxes spend more and impliment liberal policies. If those are bad, don't do them. If you think they're good, champion them and accept the title with pride.
June 9, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, I get what you're driving at. That's the Dems, unfortunately - we've let words like "liberal" get turned into slurs. I don't think the Republicans will win this argument just by saying "tax and spend" over and over, though. Obama's going to continually point out how horrible Bush's policies have turned out and note that McCain's promising more of those same policies.
June 9, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Control Spending: Drunken Sailor, Heed Thy Self.
Bush/McCain/Cheney/Delay Cabal have spent like they are on permanent shore leave, and are using unlimited spending amounts Credit Cards issued by The Chinese Communist Government. You elected that cluster of "heck of a job Brownies". Get bent.
June 9, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hyperbole is a figure of speech which is an exaggeration. Persons often use expressions such as "I nearly died laughing," "I was hopping mad," and "I tried a thousand times," "Bush/McCain/Cheney/Delay Cabal have spent like they are on permanent shore leave, and are using unlimited spending amounts Credit Cards issued by The Chinese Communist Government." Such statements are not literally true, but people make them to sound impressive or to emphasize something, such as a feeling, effort, or reaction.
June 9, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 9, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or"...We examined the impact of capital-gains tax rates on investors realizing their gains. As the tax rate increases, investors hold their gains to avoid paying the higher tax. Conversely, lowering the capital-gains tax rate spurs realizations. Interestingly, the 1986 Tax Reform Act increased the capital-gains tax rate from 20 to 28 percent, but investors were given roughly three months before the tax increase was enacted into law. In turn, investors rushed to realize their gains before the higher tax rate kicked in, and capital-gains realizations remained depressed for nearly a decade thereafter with the higher tax rate in place..."
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/9/19/obama-pushes-for-higher-investment-taxes.html
June 9, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your quote is from Dan Clifton an "analyst" from something called Strategas Research. Every quote I could find on the internet, from him, suggests he is a partisan. Maybe also a hack, but definitely a partisan. When we make real-life policy decision based on right-wing ideological talking points, we get the big fat mess we are in now.
The quote from Mr. Clifton, however, demonstrates that it is the timing of realizing gains that stockholders use to game the tax rate changes. Revenue goes up temporarily as people cash in gains. When rates go up they hold in to their stocks. Is that bad? No it is not. Over the long-run people will buy and sell stocks when it makes sense for them, no matter what the tax rate. Is is complicated to estimate this empirically, however.
Buthere's the honest asessment:
From the Congressional Budget Office a much fairer and accurate assessment of the effect of cutting or raising cap gains taxes:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=3856&type=0
Also here is Greg Mankiw (Harvard, one of W's CEA chairmen):
Jason Furman (Brookings):
On and on.
June 9, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so Dan Clifton used to work for Grover Norquist's outfit, and then the American Shareholders Association. He has a masters in economics from Rutgers. Yeah, That's the guy I want making national economic policy.
June 9, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, simple question...did revenue to the federal government increase in the fiscal year following the Bush tax cuts...? Why...?
June 9, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are confused about cause and effect. As a SFC, I think you know that sort of stuff can get you killed. Because one thing happens after another does not mean the earlier event caused the later.
I am not looking at data right now, but there are several things that can cause revenue to increase regardless of tax rates, for example, real economic expansion, population growth and inflation. The problem with your historical example is that the counter-factual, the same economic expansion and population growth with higher taxes is not observed.
I promise you, however, if you ask honest economists--Republican and Democrats-- they will tell you that tax cuts lower revenue. They may stimulate economic growth as well, but that will not make up for the lost revenue. That is what Mankiw was saying in the quote above. I can't get the link to work, but you can look up Mankiw, and Andrew Samwick on this topic. They are both conservatives.
Look, this is not a political argument, it is a an factual one. And I am not trying to just beat you with a political hammer. It is important for our national economic policy that the public understand that tax cuts do in fact lower revenue so we can avoid politicians who are trying to sell us the idea that there is a free lunch.
It is OK to disagree about politics, and your choice of candidate. It's perfectly fine to prefer lower taxes. I can respect that. But it is not OK to choose your own facts. It's not OK to prefer lower taxes because you think they actually raise revenue. That would simply be false.
June 9, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing is...since economics isn't physics, as was pointed out earlier, all you have are theories and assumptions. If federal revenue increased after each of the major tax cuts (64, 81 and GWB's) you can start to form some assumtions of what the cause is. Is it certain? No. Is anything "certain" in economics? Not once you get past the basic priciples. If your statement that my idea is a dangerous lie, was easily proveable, you'd have pointed to the proof. All you can say is that "most"..."any honest"..."economists"...believe that you are right. I'm not an economist, I've taken a few classes, and watch the Sunday news shows and read alot. Is it cause and effect? I have no idea....has it worked the last 3 times it was tried? Yes.
June 10, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
SFC, you would fail my class with an attitude like that. I have pointed you toward Mankiw and Samwick both of whom are conservatives, both of whom worked in the Bush Administration. I thought it might be easier coming from people who share your opinions about politics, but not to the extent they sacrifice their understanding of economics.
Some homework for you:
You can try this:
http://www.cbpp.org/7-11-06bud.htm#_ftnref4
Here's a link that quotes a few more Administration economists:
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2006/10/bush_vs_his_eco.html
Shorter quotes:
Ed Lazear, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors:
2003 Economic report of the President:
June 10, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Economics isn't physics - it's not like we can run repeated experiments with our economy to "show" anything. At best we can observe what happens under the particular circumstances following a rate change. And there are a number of factors that can explain much of the changes, in addition to a different tax rate.
But even that isn't the whole story, because timing of capital gains is determined by investors, who can delay or accelerate them based on timing transactions. Yes, when rates are cut, that encourages many people who have built up long-term gains to sell and take profits. But that's basically a one-time effect, concentrated in the first year of the new policy.
Similarly, raising the tax would encourage people to take profits before the new rate takes effect, causing the appearance of a drop in tax revenue the first year the higher rate takes effect, again a one-time effect. Over the longer term, a lower rate would only result in more tax receipts if sufficiently more gains were realized to compensate for taxing those gains at a lower rate.
The effects of different rates on long-term growth, and therefore the amount of gains that could in theory be taxed, is even harder to predict with any accuracy. And indeed, the capital gains tax rate is only one of many variables that affect the performance of the economy. Pretending there is certainty about this issue might make for nice GOP sound bites, but it's not serious analysis.
June 9, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fosberry, well done. A good explanation.
One impediment to clarity on this is that rates change a lot because they are a fairly convenient political football. So there is confusion about cause and effect. The economics underlying is not that complicated.
The important issue for the campaign is: Will McCain use a convenient lie that is much easier to make than refute to try to win political points? Does he care about political expedience, or the welfare of the country? Is he a deficit hawk or is he happy to fold on that issue for the political support of the reactionary supply-sider lobby? Better yet, does he even understand tax policy?
June 9, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well since we're pointing out the "the most obvious and harmful lies about public policy" why don't you use your vast economic knowlege to explain to Obama and Hillary that corporations don't pay taxes. That any increase in the tax rate on a corporation will just be passed on to the consumer, i.e. the poor and middle class they purport to defend against the wealthy. The "windfall" tax on "Big Oil" will just be paid by us at the pump. I mean, that is a much more obvious and harmful lie about public policy, than "lower marginal tax rates lead to higher revenues."
June 9, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The lie that lower taxes raise revenue has cost us dearly in the form of massive debt and we , our children and perhaps our children's children will have to re-pay it.
You are correct that we have to understand the incidence of taxes--who pays them. Some portion of taxes on corporations are born by consumers, not all, it depends on the market. Virtually the whole cost of social security taxes falls on the employee. OK these are facts. NO honest economist would deny them I have heard Obama admit this many times. I know he understands it.
The thing is, if we raise the price of energy, then people will eventually use less of it and they will have an incentive to become more efficient. That is a good thing. To wit, you can cut the cost of driving to work in half if you take just one other person in your car with you. Amazing. The second part is do you have something productive to do with the revenue raised from the tax. Spending it on basic research in alternative energy sources, improving infrastructure, subsidizing the short-term cost of weatherizing our homes for long term energy savings may be worth it. That is of course a political decision.
June 9, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lower taxes don't lead to debt....spending more than you take in leads to massive debt. Carpooling works great in the city. But in a Northeast liberal kind of way you forgot about the rest of the country. Out here the traffic doesn't always flow in one direction in the morning and the opposite direction at 5pm. Riding a bike to work saves more fuel than carpooling...ever tried to pull a combine with a bike? Falsely inflating energy prices to discourage use isn't "economics"...it's politics. Back to Obama's spending agenda...how is he going to provide tax relief to 95% of Americans? He can't lower taxes...that will apparently lead to lower reveue and then he won't be able to fix the infrastructure as he plans to. He can't cut Social Security taxes. That would lead to a decrease in revenue to a system that is already going bankrupt. What will the tax relief be and where will the offset come from?
June 10, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am trying to understand if you are just missing ears, or the whole brain. You are repeating mindless right-wing talking points when there is in fact plenty of significant social science research that demonstrates how misguided you are. I guess you are just here for the argument.
You are truly entitled to your political philosophy. And I would be able to respect that if you stopped insisting on a set of facts that are just not
Debt is created by spending more than you take in or taking in less than you spend. If we spend a certain amount and continue to spend that amount and our salary drops by 20% we will have to borrow. That's not hard to understand. Maybe you've inhaled too much combine exhaust.
As for energy prices and efficiency, farms are in fact great models of efficiency. Your snark about carpooling is rather stupid unless you actually think the energy consumption of other folks has nothing to do with the prices you pay.
I'm not sure what "falsely inflating" energy prices means. We can choose as a mater of policy to increase energy taxes to raise prices and provide an incentive for more efficient behavior (and we can use some of the proceeds to subsidize some people who have unavoidably high consumption). Mind you, energy prices are rising whether you like it or not. the question is whether you think policy should encourage faster progress toward efficiency.
The other issue is that some energy consumption imposes costs on third parties that is not paid for. Higher taxes are used to pay for those "externalities".
June 10, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Greg, you going to cover the major Obama speech on the economy?
http://thepage.time.com
That seems like big news to me.
June 9, 2008 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If he mentions HIllary, or Hillary as VP you can count on a post.
When Obama clinched the nomination, I think we got one post, and nothing on the historic nature of the accomplishment (If I remember correctly). Hillary concedes, what, about 5 posts. Hillary as VP, about 3 posts a day.
June 9, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know how many of you are comfortable writing Letters to the Editor, but a lot of you are very savvy on facts. I just wrote to our local paper, laid out some basic economic numbers, Clinton surplus to trillions of dollars in debt today, now running one million PER MINUTE. I then simply explained how this affects the average person, no raises, health care costs rising, no money for education or buying beyond the basics, etc. I think if we all approach this type of logic, and put the numbers in personal terms that uninformed people can understand, it might help. We are all political junkies. Most people will believe what a neighbor says, Senator Obama is a black muslim terrorist. I hear it where I live repeated. I also mentioned his grandfather served with honor in WW II and his mother was from Kansas. Most people have NO idea.
Bottom line, Obama wants to give 95% if American's tax relief and get us beyond our oil addiction. Who knows, you might help him win a few votes.
June 9, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the key to the Obama campaign:
"Bottom line, Obama wants to give 95% if American's tax relief and get us beyond our oil addiction. Who knows, you might help him win a few votes."
First off less than 78% of Americans pay income tax, so how he plans to give 95% tax relief is gonna be interesting. Is he gonna force States to cu taxes? Cut Social Security Taxes? Cut the federal gas tax? Next get us beyond our oil addiction...any suggestions here? Atomic energy is out of the question, harvesting our own resources is out too. It does all sound nice when he reads it off of the teleprompter though.
June 9, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy crap, you sound bitter.
First, where is your source that over 22% of Americans pay NO income tax. That seems high.
Second, Biodiesel would be a good start.
I don't think drilling in Alaska would solve the oil crisis. We need to stop using oil... now.
And as for Nuclear Power:
"On nuclear power, Sen. Obama says he's open to expanding nuclear energy, which now provides 20% of the nation's electricity, as part of an effort to increase power sources that emit little or no carbon dioxide. But he also has said there is no future for expanded nuclear energy until the U.S. comes up with a safe, long-term solution for disposing of nuclear waste. He opposes the Bush administration's plan for storing waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121296676181055711.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
June 9, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were right that the % was incorrect, a (slight typo) but in the wrong direction.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05inrate.pdf
"...32.58% of those Americans who filed income tax returns did not owe any federal income tax at all for 2005." That's the latest year published. The other problem is we can't stop using oil now. That's impossible, we can use domestic resources while we search for alternative sources of energy. That would decrease our dependence on OPEC while we try to eliminate fossil fuels completely. But the Democrats in congress won't allow us to recover our resources even as Cuba and China drill in the same offshore fields we won't allow our own companies to drill in. Everyone wants clean, cheap, renewable energy, but it won't happen overnight. What we do between now and then is what we need to work on.
June 9, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Control Spending: Drunken Sailor, Heed Thy Self.
Bush/McCain/Cheney/Delay Cabal have spent like they are on permanent shore leave, and are using unlimited spending amounts Credit Cards issued by The Chinese Communist Government. You elected that cluster of "heck of a job Brownies". Get bent.
June 9, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there an echo in here?
June 9, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be careful about demanding strict adherence to exact numbers when YOU are promoting one of the most obvious and harmful lies about public policy--that lowering tax rates raises revenue.
I do not know where the 95% number is from, but Obama has in fact talked about giving rebates on payroll taxes. He has also talked about refundable credits--and refundable credits are available even to those without enough income to be taxed. (it's basically a subsidy).
June 9, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well an increase in tax revenue to the federal government followed the tax cuts implimented by Kennedy in 64, Reagan in 81 an GWB...is suppose there could be an alternative explanation...of course alot of really smart people (smarter than me) seem to think it works.
June 9, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
SFC, all due respect, you and those other "smart" people are mistaking correlation for causation. Growth, increasing population, and inflation will all cause revenue to rise. The increase would have been larger with higher tax rates.
The myth that lowering taxes raises revenue--that is that tax cuts pay for themselves-- is an ideological argument that does not stand up to the rigor of objective economic analysis. You can favor lower taxes if you want, but do not do it for false reasons.
Here's the quote from Mankiw again:
June 9, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
One last point...there is no such thing as "objectice economic analysis"...there's no such thing as "objective analysis" of any kind. Everyone brings preconceptions to every sittuation...the key is to understand the preconceptions of the "analyzer" when reviewing their analysis.
June 10, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is an immature and nihilistic view that reduces important matters of public policy to the mere realm of opinion. I wonder if they have such low standards in the military profession.
There is a proper way to study the effects of a policy. Our data may be of varying quality but the methods--the math and the statistics are not mere opinions.
What I am saying to you is that when people who know what they are doing--whether they are conservative or liberal, democratic or republican--examine this question they conclude that reducing taxes does not increase revenue. Here's how you are confused. Lowering taxes can stimulate economic activity (depending on the tax) which reduces the amount of revenue lost, but in no sense does revenue actually increase. It's just that they lose a little less.
June 10, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps it's 95% of those who pay taxes who will see the relief?
You know, the vast majority of Americans who aren't even within shouting distance of being "rich"?
But go ahead and toss out those numbers, by all means.
June 9, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
hopefully samantha powers will return to the campaign officially as well.
she's too damn smart. she's the type of person i want not only campaing for barack obama, but also governing with him as well.
June 9, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't believe there's anyone named "Austan Goolsbee," outside of a Dickens book.
June 9, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to freshen up on the coming battle of words over the economy.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
June 9, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I watched Mr. Goolsbee at this economic advisor debate on C-Span. The man is FREAKING AWESOME! He totally pwned Romney's guy.
Romney's guy: "We haven't taken on any new huge spending programs through the Bush administration."
Goolsbee: "Uh, Iraq?"
Pwned!
June 9, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Got a link for that video?
June 9, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what Greg meant was, 'that's not change you can believe in'. Where's the veracifier green screen?
June 9, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Timing. Reduce tax rates encouraged people to take their gains then. And only ten, co the effect in temporary, not a permanent. The Lauffer Curve only has one point where reducing taxes increase revenue for any point in time. After the time point is passed further, con constant rate, do not continue to produce more income.
I would refer to this crop on "non-conservative" with the "BORROW AND SPEND" label.
Obama is the "most liberal" senator only if you cherry pick votes, like you cherry pick intellegence. Using a more constructive standard McCain is more conservative than Obama is liberal. How did he get labeled a moderate? Being a Navy brat of a non-officer, I don't trust fly boys.
June 9, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink