The Econ Debate

I didn't realize it was starting so early in the afternoon. What are they thinking? I'll do a little liveblogging, but I might have to nip out and run a few errands before long.

Giuliani vs. Romney on tax cutting right now. Giuliani actually sounds more convincing. Romney sounds like he's trying to sell a used car. (Romney likes to talk about his tax cutting, but he raised fees.) Giuliani is saying the line-item veto is unconstitutional; he's emphasizing that he lowered spending, while Romney hiked it. Romney says this is "baloney" and claims he lowered taxes (but again, I think that omits fees). Romney's hitting back on the line item veto, which may be a good tactic -- heck, I like the line-item veto. Giuliani can't be winning any friends by ranting about how it's unconstitutional.

Now a question for Thompson, who can barely be heard trying to interject comments into the Romney/Giuliani fight. The question for Thompson is about the loss of U.S. manufacturing and the lower pay that manufacturing workers get when they find new jobs. Thompson is giving a very generic answer: most prosperous nation in the world, manufacturing is important, government is going to help manufacturing hire more people. The meat of his remarks is that we can help manufacturing by cutting taxes and regulations on manufacturers, which is sound enough, if not very specific. Duncan Hunter is rebutting with a protectionist argument about China undercutting American manufacturing with lower prices. (Oh, the horror! Lower prices!)

Question for McCain about single-income families. McCain says those days are gone. Cites people who make their livings off Ebay. Talks about "job retraining programs," community colleges, and other boondoggles. Uses the word "fix" a lot, and says "we have to go to the American people with clean hands" as far as spending is concerned. Mentions waste in defense spending, "which is the biggest part of our budget." Well, that's a good point.

Tancredo says that illegal immigration is the cause of the public's loss of faith in government.

Question for Romney about government borrowing and trade. Romney's rambling about trade agreements. Says he understands the business world because he spent his life in business. Talks about protecting intellectual property. Not a lot of specifics, and IP is always a problematic thing. He's bashing China, saying he's going to protect American workers. He wants to have it both ways: free trade and protectionist rhetoric.

Question for Giuliani about protectionism and national security. Giuliani comes off a knowledgeable about exports, knows specifically which trade agreements he's being asked about. Says that we need two categories of protection: economic protection, which he's implying he's against, and security protection, including IP as well as national security, which he implies he supports. But the weight of his remarks is about free trade, "entrepreneurial spirit." Says a Dubai company, if considered safe, should be allowed to own 20% of NASDAQ, but that this particular deal was done too quickly to tell whether they're safe. He too is trying to have it both ways: talking a big game about free trade, but qualifying it out of the game.

Paul says yes, a Dubai company should be able to own 20% of NASDAQ if they're not a threat ot security, and he sees no reason to think they're a threat.

Huckabee is making a protectionist case. McCain says Dubai deal is ok, criticizes protectionism and even says Smoot-Hawley contributed to World War II. Romney is also on the bandwagon, but with more generic remarks and he's also saying we have to make sure agreements are "in our benefit" -- yet again, he's trying to appeal to protectionism (the debate is taking place in Detroit) as well as claiming to be for free trade. Sleazy.

Thompson says yes, Dubai can own 20% of NASDAQ, which he says would in turn gain 30% of the Dubai company. Claims we should "look at these deals carefully," whatever that means. Hunter firmly says "No, because I don't trust them." He's a shameless protectionist, says that he thinks Dubai would provide the A.Q. Khan network with nuclear triggers. Attacks the trade deficit, says we have deficits with countries that have higher wages than the U.S. Says he would put mirrored tariffs against anyone with tariffs on us.

Brownback is speaking now. Vote him off the island! Let him get on with the business of reforming the family, or whatever the hell he says he's going to do. He's not adding anything, in the debates or in any other respect.

Tancredo is agreeing with Hunter; he's a protectionist. Notes he voted against MFN (which is no longer called MFN, but PNCR) along with Hunter.

CHris Matthews is asking about the alternative minimum tax, a really sadistic tax I must say. Thompson has a good answer: says that we don't need revenue-neutral tax cuts. Tax cuts that cut revenue are fine, he says, which is actually a good thing to say. Unfortunately, he doesn't sound like he has much conviction or enthusiasm. He sounds like he's reciting talking points, which of course he is.

Now a break for the debate, and a break for me.