EconomistMom.com
…because I’m an economist and a mom–that’s why!

EconomistMom.com

McCain-Palin Economic Platform: Bush Policy Extended, With Lipstick

September 14th, 2008 . by economistmom

Here’s the part of Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson where she explains(?) the McCain-Palin economic platform…  If you’re able to understand her explanation, let me know where you see the “change” from Bush economic policy –other than the lipstick, I mean…

Sarah Palin on Economic Policy:

GIBSON: Governor, John McCain and you are now talking about the GOP as a party of change. We’ve got a very sick economy. Tell me the three principal things you would do to change the Bush economic policies.

PALIN: And you’re right, our economy is weak right now and we’ve got to strengthen it, and government can play an appropriate role in helping to strengthen the economy.

***

PALIN: Our 6.1 percent unemployment rate is unacceptable, also, across our nation. We need to put government back on the side of the people and make sure that it is not government solely looked at for all the solutions, for one.

Government has got to get out of the way, in some respects, of the private sector, being able to create the jobs that we need, jobs that are going to allow for the families to be able to afford health care, to be able to afford their mortgages, to be able to afford college tuition for their kids. That’s got to be the principal here, reform government, recognize that it’s not government to be looked at to solve all the problems.

Taxes, of course, I think is one of the most important things that government can obviously control and to help with this issue.

GIBSON: What you said to me at the beginning I don’t think anybody in the Bush administration would disagree with. What do you change in the Bush economic plans?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that we reform the oversight, also, of the agencies, including the quasi-government agencies, like Freddie and Fannie, those things that have created an atmosphere here in America where people are fearful of losing their homes.

People are looking at job loss. People are looking at unaffordable health care for their families. We have got to reform the oversight of these agencies that have such control over Americans’ pocketbooks.

GIBSON: So let me summarize the three things that you’d change in the Bush economic plans. One, two, three.

PALIN: Reduce taxes, control spending, reform the oversight and the overseeing agencies and committees to make sure that America’s dollars and investments are protected.

GIBSON: So let me break some of those down. You talk about spending. How much smaller would a McCain budget be? Where would you cut?

PALIN: We’re going to find efficiencies in every department. We have got to. There are some things that I think should be off the table. Veterans’ programs, off the table. You know, we owe it to our veterans and that’s the greatest manifestation that we can show in terms of support for our military, those who are in public service fighting for America. …It’s to make sure that our veterans are taken care of and the promises that we’ve made to them are fulfilled.

GIBSON: So you’d take military off the table, the veterans’ benefits. That’s 20 percent of the budget. & Do you talk about entitlement reform? Is there money you can save in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?

PALIN: I am sure that there are efficiencies that are going to be found in all of these agencies. I’m confident in that.

GIBSON: The agencies are not involved in entitlements. Basically, discretionary spending is 18 percent of the budget.

PALIN: We have certainly seen excess in agencies, though, and in — when bureaucrats, when bureaucracy just gets kind of comfortable, going with the status-quo and not being challenged to find efficiencies and spend other people’s money wisely … then that’s where we get into the situation that we are into today, and that is a tremendous growth of government, a huge debt, trillions of dollars of debt that we’re passing on to my kids and your kids and your grandkids … It’s unacceptable.

I hear Doug Holtz-Eakin has been tasked with (demoted to?) “tutoring” Palin on economic policy these days.  Poor Doug…guess he’s got his work cut out for him. 

3 Responses to “McCain-Palin Economic Platform: Bush Policy Extended, With Lipstick”

  1. comment number 1 by: B Davis

    Here’s the part of Palin’s interview with Charlie Gibson where she explains(?) the McCain-Palin economic platform… If you’re able to understand her explanation, let me know where you see the “change” from Bush economic policy –other than the lipstick, I mean…

    I’m assuming that the change is summarized by this quote from the interview:

    GIBSON: So let me summarize the three things that you’d change in the Bush economic plans. One, two, three.

    PALIN: Reduce taxes, control spending, reform the oversight and the overseeing agencies and committees to make sure that America’s dollars and investments are protected.

    The first item, reduce taxes, is obviously not different. The second item, control sending, is only different if they actually do more than just talk about it. As I posted in an analysis at this link, Bush has projected cuts in spending in every one of this eight budgets. They have always been projected to occur within the next one or two years. As everyone knows, however, spending has just continued to increase. Of course, Congress deserves part of the blame for this. Still, there was a Republican Congress until 2006. Hence, the Bush administration can be said to be very bad predictors of future spending and ineffectual at promoting this portion of their stated policy. Also, I did not get the impression that they were serious about this policy, especially having pushed the new Medicare prescription drug benefit.

    The third item, “reform the oversight and the overseeing agencies and committees to make sure that America’s dollars and investments are protected” sounds a bit vague. She doesn’t specify whether she means more or less oversight, just different oversight. To my knowledge, Bush policy also led to different oversight. Hence, the really big difference does appear to be the lipstick!

  2. comment number 2 by: Brooks

    She was obviously struggling to fit talking point to question. Hey, at least she didn’t reply to the economics question by saying for a fourth time “We should not second-guess the Israelis” !

  3. comment number 3 by: Patrick R. Sullivan

    She was talking about the subject of last night’s Q&A:

    http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1197

    ——————quote——————-
    LAMB: I want to jump in this process, because I found this on the Web, again from Ralph Nader.

    And it’s – he wrote a letter to Christopher Cox, who runs the Securities and Exchange Commission, about a lot of things, and including why do the people who run Fannie Mae – and there’s also Freddie Mac in this – but Fannie Mae make so much money? And the time period was the years 1998 to 2003.

    I’m just going to go down the list. Franklin Raines, at the time, the CEO, compensation from 1998 to 2003 was $90 million. Portion derived from components tied to attaining EPS goals – earnings per share goals, I assume – $52 million.

    Timothy Howard, compensation the same time period, $30 million. He was, I believe, the chief financial officer.

    WALLISON: Yes, CFO.

    LAMB: Jaime Gorelick, who we saw a lot of during the 9/11 Commission, she was the vice chairman of Fannie Mae, took away $26 million in those years, ’98 to 2003. And that her portion derived from components tied to attaining her earnings per share goals was $14 million.

    [...]

    LAMB: Let me show you a piece of paper. This is not very fancy graphics, but there are 70 members of the House Financial Services Committee. Every time you see a line through a name, that means that, in the 2008 cycle – and you can actually turn the pages here, same thing on the other side – the names really don’t matter.

    But out of the 70 members, 50 of them got (ph) money for their campaigns …

    WALLISON: That’s right.

    LAMB: … from Fannie Mae. And, of course, money from Freddie Mac.

    But we can add to that, not only do they get tremendous amounts of money all the time in the coffers, they have their PACs give to PACs.

    WALLISON: Yes.

    LAMB: And the PACs end up serving the members.

    WALLISON: Right.
    ———————endquote————–