Obama's "non-ideological" team. I like the way that sounds.

I never dreamed Texas would have a big say in either party's nominating process.  (I bet Hillary didn't, either.)  But we will, in four days.  I can hardly wait.

So far, I've seen a lot of commercials, but not much negative campaigning.  Too bad; I like the negative ones, because it's usually good for a few laughs, and I really enjoy a good chuckle.  [Which reminds me: The best negative exchange I've ever heard happened in a Houston congressional race 34 years ago, just after Watergate forced Nixon to resign.  Candidate X told the reporters, "My opponent looks, and talks, and acts exactly like Richard Nixon."  The reporters dutifully relayed that insult to his opponent, candidate Y, who reacted as follows: "Oh my god, he must be drunk again."] 

Anyway, I saw a ray of hope in an article my son alerted me to.  I'm guessing not too many people will read the whole thing, but it's definitely worth it for anyone interested in "fiscal responsibility" the way I define it.  And here's a reminder: To me, "fiscal responsibility" is when emphasis is placed not on the money, but on what we get for the money.  I want the feds to spend effectively on all of the things that are government's duty; I couldn't care less if we choose to finance that spending with a mix of taxes and borrowing.  I prefer spending enough to prevent wars, equalize justice, and beef up infrastructure; I despise creating surpluses by short-changing our war-prevention, justice, or infrastructure systems.  In short, deficits don't matter if we are spending the money on things that enhance growth, security, and justice.  (...just in case you haven't heard me say that before.)

With that out of the way, here are two snippets from the New Republic article giving us a peek under the Obama campaign's tent.  [Emphasis below is mine.]

...a central tenet of the economic thinking favored by Bill Clinton and his Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, was that cutting the deficit lowers long-term interest rates, which in turn stimulates the economy. The Obamanauts are perfectly willing to accept the relationship between long-term rates and economic growth. But recent evidence suggests that low rates weren't quite as central to the success of the Clinton years as they appeared, and that investments in infrastructure and R&D might be as important as deficit reduction. Not surprisingly, Obama plans to focus less on the deficit than Clinton did.

I like the way that sounds, don't you?  Here's more:

The Obamanauts are decidedly non-ideological. They occasionally reach out to progressive think tanks like the Economic Policy Institute, but they also come from a world—academic economics—whose inhabitants generally lean right. (And economists at the University of Chicago lean righter than most.) As a result, they tend to be just as comfortable with ideological diversity as the candidate they advise.

I like the way that sounds, too.  It's encouraging to me that the private sector consulting buzzwords-of-the-decade, "diversity and inclusion," have now become relevant in the realm of policy ideas—in at least one political campaign anyway: Barack Obama's. 

It's nice to get a glimpse behind the stump-speech facade every now and then, isn't it?  This is a pleasant surprise for me.  I'll be watching with interest to see how the stump speech changes for the general election, after the obligatory nomination-seeking rhetoric has done its duty for Obama. 

Comments

[Bob]

So, I take it that you see Obama winning the nomination? My guess is that you may be right.

The Obama/McCain debates will be very enlightening.

[Giovannoni]

Yeah I saw this piece pass by. Nice comparison with the behaviorists too. But am I the only one to be worried by Obama's Chicago friends? And by "Chicago" I mean a mix of academics and right wingers or central-rightists. There is the possibility that this is not what we need. What will they do when (if) they are in power?

[JorgXMcKie]

Given that Obama is even more intense than Hillary about rolling back NAFTA (probably the most successful trade agreement ever) and seems to want to revisit Smoot-Hawley, I wish he had a few economic historians as advisers, or at least listened to economists (none of whom seem to be in favor of rolling back NAFTA) who knew some history.

Maybe he's just unhappy that NFTA was negotiated by that right-wing nut VP Al Gore.

I see no evidence in Obama's own words that he is not just as Left economically as his Senate record would appear to show.

[JorgXMcKie]

Given that Obama is even more intense than Hillary about rolling back NAFTA (probably the most successful trade agreement ever) and seems to want to revisit Smoot-Hawley, I wish he had a few economic historians as advisers, or at least listened to economists (none of whom seem to be in favor of rolling back NAFTA) who knew some history.

Maybe he's just unhappy that NFTA was negotiated by that right-wing nut VP Al Gore.

I see no evidence in Obama's own words that he is not just as Left economically as his Senate record would appear to show.

[aml]

While the University of Chicago does boast quite a few well known right leaning economists, none of them is advising senator Hussein Obama at this time.

Furthermore, if you actually look at Obama's economic proposals, you will see that not only does he want to roll back NAFTA against the wish of Canada and Mexico (talking about unilateralism!) but also wants to punish corporations for daring to relocate offshore, increase taxes on anyone earning over $250,000 a year, doubling up capital gain and dividend taxes while also increases corporate income tax. Mind you that the U.S already has the highest among OECD countries.

Really, Comrade Obama is no more "non-ideological" than Chairman Mao.

[gunthestops]

"they never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of humanity" T.B. Reed

-->aml Do I need to say more!

[Steve]

We'll have a better idea after the convention whether the false NAFTA bashing was simply nomination-seeking rhetoric -- in Ohio, I might add. I've heard none of that in the Texas ads I've seen.

[Jason]

"I couldn't care less if we choose to finance that spending with a mix of taxes and borrowing." Don't the rates and mix of taxes and borrowing matter? If real interest rates are negative across most of the curve, wouldn't it make more sense to borrow now than tax? Just as it would make more sense to put spending on a credit card with a 0% APR, than it would be to draw upon a high-yield savings account or liquidate stocks.

"beef up infrastructure" Shouldn't infrastructure either be in private hands or funded by taxes on its users instead of maintained with block grants from the Federal government during elections? Why would you want Congress acting as venture capitalists?

[Jon Thompson]

Infrastructure and R&D sound great. In reality, most of the money Obama is talking about now is for green investments that make about as much sense as corn ethanol (in fact, infrastructure for ethanol is a part of the initial $250 billion plan).

Also, as noted, Obama plans to pay for this with taxes seemingly targeted to have the largest cost on the economy. Capital gains, higher marginal taxes on the highest income earners, and higher corporate rates. These are the specific taxes, right now, which are probably on the right side of the Laffer curve.

I'm not impressed, needless to say.