I asked her about McCain's opposition to so-called network neutrality, proposed government rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from charging websites for faster delivery of their content. McCain is on the side of the cable and phone companies, which argue that the rules would squelch investment in new broadband networks. Obama has been a big supporter of net neutrality, a huge issue among online activists that adds to his Internet buzz factor, leading some (OK, it was us) to ask if Obama is a Mac and McCain a PC.
McCain's broader economic plan consists of following the course charted by President Bush even as we sail further into troubled waters:
Since 2001, economic conditions have alternated between so-so and outright bad: a recession, followed by one of the weakest expansions since World War II, and then by a renewed job slump that isn’t officially a recession yet, but certainly feels like one.
Over all, Mr. Bush will be lucky to leave office with a net gain of five million jobs, far short of the number needed to keep up with population growth. For comparison, Bill Clinton presided over an economy that added 22 million jobs.
If Calamity McCain wins the presidency, he wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. His faith in tax cuts as the solution to dire economic times, while newfound, is unshakable ... just like the president's.
And what does Mr. Bush have to say about this dismal record? “I think when people take a look back at this moment in our economic history, they’ll recognize tax cuts work.” Clueless to the end.
Or, in McCain's case, clueless from the beginning (of the current campaign). 'Twas not always so:
In 2001, McCain was one of just two Republican senators to vote against the tax cuts. "I think it still devotes too much of it to the wealthiest Americans," he said at the time. And now? Well of course big tax cuts are the anchor of his economic plan. ...
It was last December at a sit-down with the Wall Street Journal editorial board when McCain first made unequivocally clear that as president, he would fight to make Bush's tax cuts permanent (some are set to expire in 2010). Boy, now that's courage. Remember the story of the French politician Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, who saw a crowd marching through Paris and reportedly said: "There go my people, I must find out where they are going so I can lead them"? Thus, McCain to Paul Gigot: Tell me where to go, master, and I will lead you there!
This week, McCain will travel the country explaining why these tax cuts – which so disproportionately are doing exactly what the 2001 McCain said they would, benefiting the very wealthiest Americans to the tune of nearly a half-trillion dollars - have to be made permanent. This is not a nip or a tuck or a refinement. This is a blatant and complete reneging on past principle.
What will McCain do for the economy beyond starving government revenues? Why, he'll balance the budget with a stern scolding and magic pixie dust.
Other aspects of McCain's plan seem even less serious. He's going to balance the budget by the end of his first term by cutting spending and cracking down on entitlements? That sounds lovely, but it's just nonsense. The federal deficit is projected – assuming the Bush tax cuts are extended, which McCain of course assumes – to total $443bn by 2013. Obama economic adviser Jason Furman estimates that reaching that number in cuts would require cutting every federal department, including defence, by one third.
Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that Furman is exaggerating and the real amount of necessary cuts is 25%, or even 20%. John McCain has been in Congress long enough to know that that is totally impossible. On top of that, McCain pledges to "reform" Social Security as a way of saving money. A Republican promising to reform Social Security is sort of like an ivory black-marketer promising to see to it that elephants are treated more humanely.
Why is McCain proposing things that are, as he surely knows, irresponsible (the tax cuts), chimerical (the budget cuts) and potential political suicide (rethinking Social Security)? The answer is straightforward. Conservatives don't trust him, and he feels he has to win their trust. That's bad policy, and it's not even good politics. The man who once said he knew little about the economy is now proving it.
