A McCain Victory Wouldn't Mean Same Republican Economy 9 comments
Martin Hutchinson
- Visit Money Morning
-
- PremiumJim Rogers' 5 Best China Oil Plays
- Free Oil Profit Report
- Subscribe FreeGlobal Economic Trends Every Day
- Subscribe to RSS feed
- More articles
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
One thing is clear about John McCain’s economic policies: They won’t be a mere continuation of George W. Bush’s policies. They can’t afford to be. While Bush’s tax cuts have been highly beneficial both to the stock market and to investors directly, the Bush Administration has taken what was a $150 billion federal budget surplus and transformed it into a $400-billion-plus deficit. That’s at a time when stock markets and real estate markets have been ebullient, producing lots of bonuses and capital gains to tax.
Most of the deficit increase has resulted from sloppiness on spending; only about one third of the negative swing has been caused by the Bush tax cuts. Some of those cuts – most notably the 2003 cut in dividend taxes – almost certainly improved the economy enough to pay for themselves. Indeed, the 2003 dividend tax cut alone raised the theoretical value of the U.S. stock market about 10%, putting an end to a dangerously depressing downdraft after the 2000 tech bubble.
If a recession hits, the federal budget deficit is likely to hit $1 trillion, which will be very difficult to finance, forcing up interest rates, weakening the dollar and tending to “crowd out” the private investment that makes the economy grow. In addition, the current surplus on Social Security is likely to turn into a deficit by 2018, the point at which about half the baby boomers will have retired. The “bankruptcy of the trust fund” in 2041 or so isn’t a looming catastrophe, because the trust fund is just a bunch of government debt – the left hand lending to the right. Thus, the trust fund’s bankruptcy means either that Social Security will have to become self-financing (reducing real benefits by about 26% – to around their present level) or taxes will have to be raised. Leave that one to our grandchildren: The important lesson is that Social Security, which has provided more than $100 billion annually to make our budgeting easier since the 1980s, will shortly stop doing so.
The bottom line is that either presidential candidate will have to raise taxes. Democratic candidate Barack Obama will raise them because he wants to (or rather, because he has some “exciting” spending ideas that will require it) and McCain will raise them because he wants to keep the budget within shouting distance of a balanced position. Although McCain has suggested some tax cuts, one that suggested the elimination of the gas tax during the summer period, that proposal was met with universal derision by economists (because its benefit would go entirely to Saudi Arabia and other oil producers). Indeed it suggested that economics was not McCain’s strong suit or greatest interest. In any case, only draconian public spending cuts would save the necessity for substantial tax increases, and those do not seem likely from either candidate.
McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate late last week changes the position somewhat. There in Alaska, Palin has a tough reputation as a fighter against government waste. As McCain’s vice president, Palin would constitutionally have the responsibility to act as president of the Senate. Is it too much to hope that, whichever party controls Congress, Palin will be at least modestly effective in reducing the orgy of earmarked spending, agricultural subsidies, ethanol subsidies and other wasteful public spending that damages the economy and benefits only a few favored lobbyists?
Lower public spending would allow for modestly lower taxes: McCain has promised to keep dividend and capital gains tax rates at their current levels, and to eliminate the estate tax. Investors can at least hope that a combination of Palin, Republican fiscal doctrine and McCain’s self interest will push the political system towards modest tax cuts, or at least away from tax increases such as the draconian raises in capital gains or dividend taxes that would damage investors both directly in their pockets and indirectly through declines in stock values.
Palin’s other influence is likely to be in the energy area. McCain has gradually, under huge pressure from his Republican supporters due to high oil prices, been moving from his previous opposition to drilling in the offshore Continental Shelf and Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Currently, he favors offshore drilling, but not drilling in ANWR.
McCain also favors a very expensive “cap-and-trade” approach to the global warming problem, which involves a new bureaucracy figuring out what each major carbon emitter should be permitted to emit, and allocating permits accordingly, without charge. Obama’s equivalent scheme, which involves auctioning the permits, has two virtues: It leaves the allocation of permits to the free market rather than a government bureaucracy and it produces revenue for the federal government, which can be used to cut other taxes.
Palin is a breath of fresh air on the whole subject. She remains unconvinced that mankind has any significant effect on global climate, and like most Alaskans believes that oil drilling in ANWR and elsewhere represents the economic future of her state. How far she will manage to convince McCain of her position is doubtful, but her access to the ticket should mean at least more oil drilling and a less draconian cap-and-trade system than would otherwise be the case.
A further advantage of a McCain presidency could be the conclusion of more trade deals, and the consequent expansion of both world trade and of the economy in general. McCain is even more of a free trader than President Bush and has more credibility abroad; hence, it must be possible that he could make progress on the Doha Round of trade negotiations. That would be particularly important for the economies of emerging markets, which would be given greater access to the U.S. market, and reap rewards in the form of economic growth and corporate profits.
There are two areas where McCain is less good news for investors and the U.S. economy than Obama. One is monetary policy. Obama is advised by former “tight money” Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, and hence understands the inflation-fighting benefits of higher interest rates. He will also want to make a change at the Fed, where the Democrats have not appointed a chairman since Volcker himself in 1979.
Conversely, McCain will be more likely to extend the term of current Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke (which expires in January 2010), thereby producing an additional extended period of excessively low interest rates. While beneficial for the stock market in the short run, low interest rates in the current environment will produce accelerating inflation, which will require a much more seriously damaging period of much higher interest rates to sort out. Low rates also will accelerate the process of outsourcing U.S. industry to low-wage countries, which do not suffer their normal “cost of capital” disadvantage when global money is cheap.
The other downside is in security policy. McCain is likely to keep troops in Iraq longer than Obama, and is more likely to engage in military operations elsewhere (though under either candidate some step-up in Afghanistan seems probable). That costs money, increases the budget deficit (or raises taxes) and leads to slower economic growth and higher inflation over the long term.
A McCain presidency would be good for defense stocks, as defense spending would be higher. It would be good for the large, patented pharmaceutical stocks, as they would not be subjected to price controls as the Democrats currently propose. It would also be very good for domestic oil companies, which would expand their operations in offshore oil, unconventional oil sources such as shale and possible drilling in ANWR. It might also be good for “new energy” companies, although it is less clear than with Obama where a McCain/Palin administration might end up on that issue.
Related Articles
|
Find People on SA
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largest
increase in followers
in the last 7 days-
1
David Fry
-
2
Philip Davis
-
3
Tyler Durden
-
4
Bill Gross
-
5
TraderMark
Fastest Climbers » -
1
-
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 9 comments:
The Bush presidency was a train wreck. Do you really believe we would be facing this credit crisis ig the regulators hadn't been asleep at the wheel? You correctly acknowledge the Bush deficit, but should note that a big part of that is the money we tossed down the Iraqi rat hole. That war is VERY expensive and Obama has pledged to end it. Not only has it meant massive, illegal profits for Bush friends (Halliburton), but, after 5000 American lives, it appears Bush has allowed Malaki to sell oil to rogue nations, like China, before Iraq has even begun to repay its debt to US! This is utterly astounding.
You are misinformed about ANWR. I recommend listening to Diane Rhem's interview yesterday with Republican oil man T. Boone Pickens. Although he also favors drilling, he dispels any notion that it will have much impact on our supply. I would say, the risks exceed the benefit and most people agree with me.
With regards to Palin, she ran her town into debt in Alaska. And her failure to grasp global warming simply means she should go back to high school and try to learn something, if she can stop having babies long enough to manage that.
The Economic and Tax Policy Institute compared both candidates policies and concluded that McCain's would add about $100 billion more to the Nation Debt. And this figure did not take into account either further war spending or the $100 Billion cost of finishing Yucca Mountain which would be needed for his additional 24 Nuclear plants.
McCain's ideas of deficit reduction initiatives don't add up. He can line-item veto until he's blue in the face but it won't finance all his promises. At least the Democrats have instituted "pay as you go rules." Meanwhile, McCain would cut Corporate taxes even more, even though 61% of Corporates pay no tax at all, and many of these multi-nationals are shipping American jobs overseas at accelerated rates. McCain's plan would result in the middle class paying an even larger share of the total tax burden(it was increased under Bush too). How are workers earning half or even two thirds of what they used to make and paying higher taxes for Corporate welfare suppose to continue buying? Not a good prescription for stock prices when the U.S. economy depends on consumer spending. Prediction - If McCain expands free trade as he has promised under current trade policies, the trend of the shrinking middle class will accelerate as more college -educated workers join the plight of high school graduates.
I don't like taxes as much as the next guy. But to talk about tax cuts, when our debt-induced inflation is already crashing the economy, is simply irresponsible.
Say this three times:
Commander-in-Chief Sarah Palin
Commander-in-Chief Sarah Palin
Commander-in-Chief Sarah Palin
You would be a better Commander-in-Chief because the odds are that YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT G-D IS FAVORING US IN THE IRAQ WAR.
(Isn't he the same G-d, the Muslim's pray to? Does he give our prayers priority?)
Is it possiable that the only thing that Oboma has going for him is the anominity of blogers on the internet. Anyone can say anything they want without proof etyc. including myself. This is however my opinion but it includes an observation... that is the tremendous flood on the internet blogs of anti McCain comments. When I was a little boy I was tought that when I came to an intersection I should; STOP, LOOK, and LISTEN. It seems to me that very little of this is being done here.
McCain does have a plan, Does have somthing to offer and certinaly deserver the same credit from Obamas supporters that he (McCain) has given and continues to give Obama.
Bottom Line look very close at the team and their ideas, they are redy and have a correct read on the situation.
Disclamer: I am 60 yrs old and have been a devout Democrat all my life...This year I SHALL vote for McCain/Palin. Good Day God Bless