"Why Obamanomics Isn't Rubinomics"

[villager]

Why Obamanomics Isn't Rubinomics
Brian Wingfield

WASHINGTON, D.C.--Is Obamanomics Rubinomics redux?

<snip>

Then there are the other folks on the team. He nominated University of California, Berkeley, economist Christina Romer to be director of the Council of Economic Advisers, the panel that helps the president prepare his annual economic report (released in February) and examines the performance of the administration's spending programs.

Romer, who has studied business cycles in the post-World War II era, is well known in economic circles. Her selection seems to lend credence to the belief that Obama intends to implement tax increases on some individuals at some point. In a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in October 2007, Romer and her husband, fellow economist David Romer, aimed to debunk the conservative theory that tax cuts lead to a shrinkage in government by reining in government spending.

"At the very least, policymakers should be aware that the historical experience suggests that tax cuts tend to lead to tax increases rather than to spending cuts," they wrote, examining the effects of tax cut legislation in 1948, 1964, 1981 and the early 2000s.

<snip>

"The crisis we face makes Rubinomics irrelevant," says Robert Borosage, co-director of the left-leaning Campaign for America's Future. "Deficit spending must go up, finance must be re-regulated, trade imbalances must be reduced and manufacturing can no longer be scorned."

Christian Menegatti, lead analyst for the RGE Monitor (an economic news site run by Forbes.com columnist Nouriel Roubini), says the cost of this stimulus "is going to be higher public debt in the future and higher debt service in the future."

<snip>

http://www.forbes.com/business/2008/11/24/obama-economy-rubin-biz-beltway-cx_bw_1124obama.html

Well, let's hope so...!

[wyldwolf]

1. well, #1, its harder to pronounce