The Economic Consequences of Bush Versus Kerry
Guess which one our libertarian free market economist picks?
Erik Chavez
Issue date: 10/14/04 Section: Perspectives
- Page 1 of 1
After hearing both sides of this lively debate between Professor Goolsbee (Kerry supporter) and Professor Kroszner (Bush supporter) it seems quite clear that neither of these candidates listens to his economic advisors. However, President Bush seems to be the best of the worst from an economic perspective. The basis for this is that John Kerry continues to argue that George Bush has not done enough with his policy. Admittedly, Professor Goolsbee stated that John Kerry has not said much regarding his medical or social security planning.
Professor Goolsbee had a couple of issues with George Bush that led him to change his perspective on the current president. He is dissatisfied with Bush because he did not cut spending after he cut taxes, which led to an approximate 6% swing from surplus to deficit. Professor Goolsbee argues [based on research conducted by Professor Sam Peltzman] that the best way to reduce the deficit is to have a dual party government. He credits the surplus generated under the Clinton presidency to the fact that republicans controlled Congress.
When questioned about passing legislation that is unpopular but economically sound, such as a flat tax or major social security reform, Professor Goolsbee agreed that the only way to accomplish that is to have the Administration and Congress be from the same party. If the goal is to implement either of the aforementioned policies, then supporting Bush in this election is the only way to accomplish this in the next presidential term, given that Congress is republican.
While George Bush has passed horrendous economic policy, John Kerry has continued to say that the benefits (spending) are not enough and that he will increase the benefits that Bush currently has in place. In this writer's opinion, it seemed that both debaters would prefer to see their candidates pass better policy and not just cut taxes but also cut spending. It seemed quite clear that Kerry's plan is not much more than election hype because it is fiscally impossible to support an increase to Bush's bad economic policy without increasing taxes or the deficit.
There are many aspects, outside economics, to consider in the presidential campaign. Professor Kroszner seemed to argue quite effectively that Kerry is definitely not the best candidate for the presidency from an economic perspective. Kerry's economic policy discussion focuses on the negatives of George Bush rather than clarifies Kerry's own plan: a plan that seeks to add costs to the current George Bush plan without disclosing where or how the revenue will be generated to cover these costs.
George Bush: 1 - John Kerry: 0.
Professor Goolsbee had a couple of issues with George Bush that led him to change his perspective on the current president. He is dissatisfied with Bush because he did not cut spending after he cut taxes, which led to an approximate 6% swing from surplus to deficit. Professor Goolsbee argues [based on research conducted by Professor Sam Peltzman] that the best way to reduce the deficit is to have a dual party government. He credits the surplus generated under the Clinton presidency to the fact that republicans controlled Congress.
When questioned about passing legislation that is unpopular but economically sound, such as a flat tax or major social security reform, Professor Goolsbee agreed that the only way to accomplish that is to have the Administration and Congress be from the same party. If the goal is to implement either of the aforementioned policies, then supporting Bush in this election is the only way to accomplish this in the next presidential term, given that Congress is republican.
While George Bush has passed horrendous economic policy, John Kerry has continued to say that the benefits (spending) are not enough and that he will increase the benefits that Bush currently has in place. In this writer's opinion, it seemed that both debaters would prefer to see their candidates pass better policy and not just cut taxes but also cut spending. It seemed quite clear that Kerry's plan is not much more than election hype because it is fiscally impossible to support an increase to Bush's bad economic policy without increasing taxes or the deficit.
There are many aspects, outside economics, to consider in the presidential campaign. Professor Kroszner seemed to argue quite effectively that Kerry is definitely not the best candidate for the presidency from an economic perspective. Kerry's economic policy discussion focuses on the negatives of George Bush rather than clarifies Kerry's own plan: a plan that seeks to add costs to the current George Bush plan without disclosing where or how the revenue will be generated to cover these costs.
George Bush: 1 - John Kerry: 0.