McCain’s Economic Ideas
March 3rd, 2008 at 09:47am Mark Noonan
A mixed bag, according to the Wall Street Journal:
Imagining how John McCain, the Navy war hero, would play the role of commander in chief has been easy. Imagining how John McCain, the policy maverick, would lead as chief executive of the U.S. economy has been tougher.
In a wide-ranging interview last week, Sen. McCain offered the most-detailed account to date of his thinking on economic issues.
The all-but-certain Republican presidential nominee cast himself as a defender of the Bush tax cuts he voted against, but added caveats to a “no new taxes” vow he made on a Sunday television talk show two weeks ago.On Social Security, the Arizona senator says he still backs a system of private retirement accounts that President Bush pushed unsuccessfully…
…Those who know him well expect that a McCain presidency would be hard to categorize — a conservative populist who acts by instinct rather than economic ideology. For businesses, that could make him hard to predict; for opponents, hard to pin down. In his 25 years in Congress, the Arizona senator has defined himself on economic issues more by his adversaries than by overarching economic principle.
“Sometimes he sees excesses in government and sometimes he sees excesses in the corporate world, and both make him sick,” says John Raidt, a longtime McCain policy aide.
I know - we’re all supposed to have a plan. I think, in a way, that we’ve all been infected with the totalitarian bug to a certain degree…and, so, we’re supposed to plan away, like the totalitarians do, and our plan has to be completely consistent all the way through…either be in favor of massive regulation of everything, or be opposed to regulating anything. As for me, I’m a bit eclectic in my economic views; well, truth be told, I’m a bit weird - despising, equally, the concept behind the Department of Housing and Urban Development and General Motors…the idea, that is, that a large, centralised bureaucracy can do anything right absent firm discipline and incredible esprit d’corps (ie, the only large bureaucracies which have been even so/so successful are the United State military and the Roman Catholic Church); but I’m even more disgusted by those people on the left who essentially see people as incompetant and wish to straightjacket them in cradle-to-grave welfare programs.
In this sense, I strongly sympathise with McCain, even when I think that he’s got it wrong on this or that aspect of economics - I understand, in the end, that his desire is to curb the abuses of varied elites who, regardless of their political views, never have the interests of the average man and woman at heart. We keep taxes low not because we want the rich to keep their money, but because govenrment simply cannot spend money as efficiently as regular people do - no matter how well-intentioned the bureaucrat, he’s still spending other peoples money and thus cannot be as responsible in his expenditures as Joe Smith working out his financial priorities. We oppose stiff regulatory regimes not because we want rapacious capitalists to run wild, but because there’s no way in God’s green earth that some desk-bound pencil pusher at Commerce can really figure out what the economic needs are in Peoria. We want to privatise Social Security not because we want another pool of money for fund managers to play with, but because people must own their property, or be de-facto slaves.
At bottom, my economic views are based upon asking this question: will this help or harm individuals and their families? If the answer is “harm”, then I oppose it; if it is “help”, then I support it. I think McCain has this rough idea, too, and I look forward to seeing it in practice in 2009.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Economy, Republicans
21 Comments
1. jayhay | March 3rd, 2008 at 10:43 am
You say, “govenrment simply cannot spend money as efficiently as regular people do”. Who is going to build a park in your neighborhood? Or provide a police force? Or an army for that matter? You think you and a million of your neighbors will get together, all pitch in $3 spontaneously and do a $3 million repaving of the roads, all efficient like? I doubt it. There are things you need the scale of government to provide, and if you can do it better, you should work in civil service and stop criticizing the committed people that do. Medicare is notoriously efficient compared to the public sector.
2. Taxes » McCain’s &hellip | March 3rd, 2008 at 10:47 am
[...] State Policy Network | Blog wrote an interesting post today on McCain’s Economic IdeasHere’s a quick excerptWe keep taxes low not because we want the rich to keep their money, but because govenrment simply cannot spend money as efficiently as regular… [...]
3. Almiranta | March 3rd, 2008 at 11:05 am
jayhay, the Left always comes back to the police when a conservative argues for smaller government and comments on the inefficiency of government.
Allow me to approach this from a slightly different direction.
Let’s start with the actual Consitution of the United States, and the powers granted to the Federal Government. These are few: From memory, I believe they are national defense, international commerce, and interstate commerce. In any case, they are very few, and very limited.
Furthermore, in 1791 the United States, to reassure people concerned that the Federal Government would be too large and too powerful, passed the 10th Amendment.
During this entire period, Founding Fathers were reassuring people left and right that the Constitution of this new country was specifically crafted to make sure that the vast bulk of government would not be centralized, but would be local, at the state level or even below that, in the hands of “the people”.
So, according to our own Constitution and the 10th Amendment and our own Founding Fathers, the construction of our nation today is upside down.
If we could unring the bell, what would that mean?
It would mean that the Federal government would be in charge of the military, and as the interstate highway system was originally developed to assist national security, it would remain under Federal control. The Feds would continue to handle international affairs and commerce, and interstate commerce.
But that park you ask about? If it was built by any government entity at all, it would be by a state, county, or city government. And so would all roads not part of the interstate system. Education would be firmly back in the hands of local authorities, and so would anything else that particular constituency wanted to vote in. (BTW, government pays for roads, but does not actually build them. Fortunately for us all, the companies actually doing the work are private.)
What’s the benefit? First, it would get the federal government out of our lives, which was the intent of the Founding Fathers. Second, it is a lot easier to keep your eye on your tax dollars when the decisions on how to spend them are made closer to home. No one knows better than the locals what is really needed on a local level. And third, and probably most important, it is a lot easier to fire a city councilman, a state senator or representative, or even a governor, than it is a President or a US Congressman.
By the way, defending civil service is a losing battle. Nothing contributes so to lethargy, incompetence, and indifference as a job guaranteed, no matter what.
And Medicare is “notoriously efficient” compared to WHAT in the “public sector”? The graft and outright theft running rampant throughout the Medicare system are the only things I would call “notorious” about it.
Cut federal taxes to 3 to 5 percent, raise local taxes accordingly, put the people back in charge of government, and then let them vote with their feet and move to better states if they can’t influence local governments to their liking.
4. anarchist | March 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 am
As long as you can keep McCain away from anything to do with financial markets or fiscal policy he shouldn’t do too much damage. He’s got a history of always recomending bailing out the super big financial guys, and has recomended massive inflation as a good economic policy quite a few times. Of course this would just be a continuation of Bush policy like the current massive FannieMae, FreddieMac, FHLB, federal reserve interest rate cuts and loans, bailout to the big guys. But at least us little guys are getting a 600 dollar forced loan from the benevolent federal government.
5. coulterfan | March 3rd, 2008 at 11:45 am
Deleted - off topic.
6. kjstrouble | March 3rd, 2008 at 11:49 am
Almiranta, I could not agree more with what you said to jayhay. The sad thing is, most of the libs on this blog have no real clue.
When you talk about the Medicare system, I have watched my mother do fraud reviews of various companies, and it is scarey. My mother is 74 and intends to continue working with private insurance as long as possible to avoid having to rely on Medicare herself.
7. President Bush » Mc&hellip | March 3rd, 2008 at 11:52 am
[...] Mudville Gazette wrote an interesting post today on McCain’s Economic IdeasHere’s a quick excerptOn Social Security, the Arizona senator says he still backs a system of private retirement accounts that President Bush pushed unsuccessfully… [...]
8. Almiranta | March 3rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
As a conservative first and a Republican second, I am appalled by Hagee and his positions and do not find that they offer any benefit to any candidate. I think McCain made a rash move in accepting the endorsement so quickly, and that he has put himself in very untenable position, as he backed up his acceptance so firmly it will be very uncomfortable to back away from it now.
I feel the same about demogogues such as that vile Bill Cunningham. There are a few such on the Right, and it does us no credit to tolerate them and their hate-filled messages. The Right has solid, substantial, issues—we don’t need hyper-emotional and negative hatemongers like Cunningham and Savage to speak for us—or, I should say, MISspeak for us. Fortunately, they are the exception and not the rule, and nearly all of the conservative discussion is on target and issue-oriented.
9. Almiranta | March 3rd, 2008 at 12:53 pm
anarchist, Bush did not come up with the various government agencies and programs you list. But they are part and parcel of the entire Federal takeover of government, going back to their inceptions.
I notice that you did not include entitlement programs, which are of course cherished by the Left, or Social Security, or education. No, you express a true Leftist loathing of The Rich, or, as you put it, the “big guys” or better yet “the super big financial guys…” so you kind of blow your ‘anarchist’ cover and reveal yourself to be a Lefty. An anarchist would be even more offended by the big and expanding entitlement programs, and the even more grandiose plans put forth by the dem candidates, all of which demand more and more and more government.
An anarchist would have cited all the administrations which have followed much the same path as Bush has—and if fairness were to be part of your makeup you would have pointed out the flak Bush has taken from true conservatives, who have been called Bushbots even while taking him to task, very strongly, when he has strayed from conservative concepts.
10. Jim | March 3rd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
For the lefties, let’s look at the inefficiency of government:
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reports_porkbarrelreport
In summary, large centrally located pools of money are easier targets of corruption than are many diverse pools at a more local level.
Taking highways as an example, usage based funding (toll roads) is an alternative to centralized taxation.
And I agree with Mark that the Bush social security investment accounts are a step in the right direction to address the solvency issue that is approaching. I’m in favor of very limited unemployment insurance and low cost insurance for impoverished families, strong defense, and preservation of natural areas. Otherwise, entitlements be darned.
I’ve noticed the Green party attacking McCain’s environmental record. But he seems to address global warming and other issues fairly progressively. This is becoming a bigger issue than it has historically been.
11. Piggy | March 3rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Deleted - off topic.
12. SteaM | March 3rd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Deleted - off topic.
13. John Ryan | March 3rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I am with you !!
Let’s do everything like they did back in the 1700s !!
14. jayhay | March 3rd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Al miranta, I don’t have time to address all specifics, but I can address the gist. First, Medicare is generally calculated at an overhead of around 3%, public health care around 10% plus and minus - economies of scale and a non-profit structure wins hands down. Some info on that here from a quick google:
http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2004/10/policy_medicare.html
Second, I appreciate true conservative values, shown by your criticism of “social conservative” nutbags on the right. So I see you can see the difference, which is a good sign. But re: government spending, it’s an easy target - who wouldn’t like to pay less in taxes? But everyone likes their part of the pie, whether it’s the military, or social programs, or whatever. It’s the other guy’s stuff they think is pork.
We need a new force at work in Washington - Congress won’t/can’t do it. The next president needs to be able to tell the public the truth (economic policy, foreign policy, etc.), get everyone on board, pull up our boot straps and get some s**t done. If the next Pres can explain that for the common good we need to change some things (like “this war was a freaking boondoggle, Osama is still loose, and we’re up to our eyeballs in debt…”), the American people will get on board, and Congress will follow. We need someone that sees government in a new way, and can diffuse the knee-jerk partisan gridlock we have. I think Obama’s that guy, you probably think otherwise. I know that the last seven years have been a disaster, and anyone that says they are both a conservative and supports this past administration has destroyed what “conservative” even means.
15. phil | March 3rd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Deleted - off topic.
16. congressive | March 3rd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Deleted - off topic.
17. anarchist | March 3rd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Almiranta, I’m a pretty critical of all of McCain’s big government views. I was very critical of his and republicans’ recent endorcement of large expansions of government in healthcare and education(Medicare B, NCLB, ect…).
But if you look at McCain’s past he has supported financial bailouts with a particular zeal, which have cost quite a lot of taxpayer money, not to mention the effect it can have on economic cycles, and any time anyone ask him a question about the economy he always responds lower interest rates(print money). I’ve heard him say before he thinks interest rates should be 0%, and since he’s been in government for over 20 years, he must understand that he’s advocating massive inflation and a risk of destroying the currency.
These are the 2 issues in the economy where he’s particularly bad, especially on inflation where he’s almost dangerous.
18. Diana Powe | March 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Senator McCain has said on more than one occasion that he doesn’t know much about economics and yet seems to have no interest in doing anything about that fact. Instead, we’re supposed to be reassured by Mark’s notion that the Senator has a “rough idea” about what to do. Well, given his known propensity for flip-flopping, maybe it’s because he just makes stuff up as he goes along:
19. Christian Wright | March 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Deleted - off topic. One more insult like that, and commenter will be banned.
20. plainjane | March 4th, 2008 at 8:04 am
When I first saw this post, I asked why? There is not much need to debate. McCain will give you four more years of Bush economic policies. But then I saw 19 posts on the subject and wanted to find out what I was missing. But after checking it out. I saw six deletes and three Almiranta rants. Therefore my inital observation was on target. When it comes to economics, a vote for McCain is a vote for a Bush third term.
21. cons3rvative | March 4th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Hello all. I think I’ve found my way to a conservative blog, but see McCain stuff everywhere here.
“I understand, in the end, that his desire is to curb the abuses of varied elites who, regardless of their political views, never have the interests of the average man and woman at heart.”
I know that McCain has stood up against special interests and I appreciate that, but, he stood by the elitests, allowed their endorsements, skated the FEC laws he helped make, made BBQ today for the media instead of having a debate with Huckabee. I think Huckabee was much more in-tune with the common man/woman. I think McCain used the media to his advantage and was basically handed the nomination. Perhaps this post will get banned like many above me. I hope not. I’m frustrated enough!
I’m going to be sick.
Tonight, My choice, Huckabee dropped out.
Yes I’m a Bushy, but I’m not a McCainy.
How can I line up behind McCain and “coelesce” when I feel..scratch that..I know that he doesn’t mirror my convictions?
He is a hero, no doubt.
Maybe I’m so far right that right is wrong?
Maybe being right is the new left and the old right is the new liberal? help..I’m confused!
My choice now is to line up behind him and support him or opt out. I’m afraid opting out will help the dems.
If McCain wants my vote and support he needs to promote pro-life. Needs to address our economy. re-invent our taxes and protect our freedom of speech. His only platform cannot be war. We need a leader in peacetime too.