“Dilbert” Survey of Economists on the Candidates
September 16th, 2008 . by economistmom
Wow, this is pretty interesting. I just learned on CNN.com that the cartoonist who draws “Dilbert” commissioned a survey of 500 economists from the American Economic Association (what I’m sure is the largest U.S. association of professional economists), asking them which presidential candidate they preferred on a variety of economic issues. Note that “reducing the deficit” ranked 10th in priority out of 20 issues–the top two issues being education and health care, and the last being eliminating the estate tax. (Those top and bottom rankings alone should give everyone at least some faith in economists as human beings.)
On the issue of reducing the deficit, 37 percent favored Obama’s position (i.e., presumably thought Obama would be more successful), 29 percent favored McCain’s, and 33 percent said there would be no difference. Seems about right given what we know of the candidates’ proposals and how much they are likely to increase the deficit. On the mortgage/housing crisis (ranked #7 in priority), 41 percent favored Obama, and just 18 percent favored McCain–with 41 percent saying there would be no difference. (Sounds like McCain has some convincing to do regarding the latest “ouch“, at least among folks who well understand economics.) Now, on “reducing waste in government,” the numbers are just about the opposite: 16 percent favor Obama, 38 percent favor McCain, and 46 percent say there would be no difference–but right now how concerned are voters over earmarks and “porkbarrel” spending compared with the financial market crisis we’re in?
‘On the mortgage/housing crisis (ranked #7 in priority), 41 percent favored Obama, and just 18 percent favored McCain…’
Considering that Obama is supported by some of the people who looted the FMs, that is an amazing result.
Did you catch his link to this other post of his? http://www.dilbert.com/blog/?Date=2008-08-22 He seems like a sensible guy.
As for McCain vs. Obama on deficits and our fiscal outlook, as I’ve noted before, I think what they are each proposing is only part of the picture, the other being how much of what they (supposedly) want would actually get through Congress, and with what compromises. Both candidates’ proposals would be bad for our fiscal outlook. But McCain’s best pitch to us strange folks who are concerned about our fiscal imbalance would be “Hey, vote for me — I can’t get what (I’m saying) I want!”
In more serious terms, it would probably be smart for McCain to essentially pitch the benefits of divided government, although not in those exact terms. Rather, he could say:
“I want less government spending and lower taxes. The Democrats who control Congress want higher spending and higher taxes. If I’m president, I’ll have some tough negotiations with Congress, but as I’ve demonstrated time and time again, I will work across the aisle with the other party to reach smart compromises. But if Obama is president, there will be no resistance to the taxing and spending of the Democrats who control Congress, and taxes and spending will go through the roof!”
Rick Davis and Steve Schmidt, if you happen to be listening, the above was pro bono. You’re welcome.
But McCain’s best pitch to us strange folks who are concerned about our fiscal imbalance would be “Hey, vote for me — I can’t get what (I’m saying) I want!”
Mankiw has pointed out that by a similar odd twist Obama may be the person to vote for to keep the tax on investment income low. He’s on the record saying he wants to increase it somewhat from today’s level, but still keep investments significantly tax-favored. Mankiw speculates a Democratic Congress may be more likely to give him that than give McCain anything.
“Obama — for the rich investor!”
On the other hand, have we all noted the “North Vietnamese for McCain!”
He bombed them, and they want him to be President! The guy must have something.
Jim,
Yes, there is always the possibility of a “Nixon to China” dynamic.
“Now, on “reducing waste in government,” the numbers are just about the opposite: 16 percent favor Obama, 38 percent favor McCain, and 46 percent say there would be no difference.”
seriously? I was thinking for a bit that these economists actually new something. What has McCain proposed to reign in startlingly wasteful contract spending? There are headlines after headlines (and congressional hearings after congressional hearings) about how inefficient and wasteful federal contracting is. Obama at least has addressed some of these problems through legislation and introducing bills as a Senator. What has McCain done?
Forget about earmarks (@$20 billion - not all of which are wasteful). Even if only 10 percent of federal contract dollars are wasted, that’s more than twice as much each year (@ $45 billion) as earmarks. And I’d bet my quickly shrinking nest egg that 10 percent is far too low.
Are people paying attention at all?
George Will steals my idea (expressed in my initial comment upthread)
In today’s (Thursday, 9/18) Washington Post, Will writes: