Nico Pitney and Sam Stein note how many of the 300 Economists aren’t really happy with the McCain plan but end with the story of a British citizen who teaches economics at George Mason:
That is, except for Charles Rowley, a professor at George Mason University, who isn’t an American citizen. “I view my endorsement as an endorsement of the general economic principles so far outlined by John McCain,” he wrote.” Since Barack Obama proposes significant increases in the size of government, significant hikes in tax rates, ongoing toleration for pork-barrel legislation, long-term budget deficits and, most seriously, a significant shift towards trade protection, evidently, in terms of the general principles outlined in the letter that I have endorsed, I must prefer John McCain as a presidential candidate in an imperfect world. However, because I am a British citizen, I cannot vote in this election.”
I have no problem with the fact that Rowley is a Brit. Nor do I have problem with his free trade and fiscal discipline stance as I share these sentiments. And I have no real problem with his small government preference for spending cuts over tax increases to reduce our massive Federal government. But I do have a problem with the stupidity that the long-term budget deficit would be larger under Obama’s proposals than under McCain’s proposal. OK, Obama is likely proposing a bit more spending that McCain. But on net – Obama is proposing to raise more tax revenues. Perhaps not enough to really balance the budget. But McCain wants more (defense) spending and large reductions in the tax base. So why isn’t Charles Rowley blasting McCain’s proposed fiscal irresponsibility?