Monday, January 14, 2008


Obama strategy seems to be to strut down the primary runway with new fashioned economic policies. But the new is mostly the old Democratic economic garb.

The following information is from Crains Chicago Business.

"For all his rhetoric about moving beyond partisanship, his economic policies hew closely to classic Democratic lines and differ little from those of his primary opponents. Except for a few business-friendly wrinkles, he mostly caters to the party's traditional base."

"Mr. Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, close corporate tax loopholes, raise the tax on capital gains and dividends, give unions more organizing power and and make employers pay for health care one way or another. He'd give a big tax break to the middle class while slapping labor and environmental conditions on trade deals."

My old Professor, Austan Goolsbee seems to be helping the spin unfortunately. (This is the same professor who penned the following for the New York Times Irresponsible' Mortgages Have Opened Doors to Many of the Excluded. I wonder if he plans to pen a new article based on more current data?)

"He has a bit of an eclectic approach to economic policy, not an old-style liberal Democratic approach," Mr. Goolsbee says, offering as examples Mr. Obama's support for a market-based method to reverse global warming and for eliminating capital gains taxes on investments in start-up companies.

Mr. Goolsbee, who's known for his columns in the New York Times and his research challenging conventional arguments for tax cuts, claims little credit for the Obama economic platform. He describes his contribution as "separat(ing) bad ideas from good, innovative ideas." One element he added was a proposal to eliminate the need for millions of taxpayers with simple finances to fill out tax returns."

"Mr. Goolsbee says the biggest philosophical difference among the Democratic contenders is that Mr. Obama puts more faith in market-based solutions and incentives than his opponents do."

"From a corporate perspective, that's a distinction without much of a difference. All three would make companies "pay or play," imposing a tax on firms that don't provide health coverage to their employees."

Don't believe the eye candy. Is bad for your economic health!

No comments: