OBAMA VS. OBAMA'S ECONOMIC ADVISERS

As Obama Meets With His Advisers, Will He Take Their Positions Or His?
______________________________________________________________________

AT ODDS WITH ECONOMIC ADVISERS ON REDUCING THE BUDGET DEFICIT

Obama's Advisers Advocate Deficit Reduction, But Obama Is Committed To Deficit Spending:

Obama Advisers Robert Rubin And Larry Summers, Both Former Clinton Treasury Secretaries, Backed President Clinton's Policy Of Reducing The Budget Deficit. "Rubin and Summers promoted President Bill Clinton's policies of ... reducing the federal budget deficit." (Julianna Goldman and Matthew Benjamin, "McCain, Obama Put Economy's Strains At Center Stage In Campaign," Bloomberg News, 7/28/08)

Robert Rubin: "Large structural deficits can also diminish confidence in our economy and currency abroad, impair the ability of the federal government to serve the purposes the American people wish it to serve (including Social Security and Medicare), and undermine our resilience in dealing with future recessions or emergencies." (Robert Rubin, In An Uncertain World, 2004, p. 363)

"Not Only Does Obama Say He Won't Eliminate The Deficit In His First Term, As McCain Aims To Do, He Frankly Says He's Not Sure He'd Bring It Down At All In Four Years, Considering His Own Spending Plans."

Nedra Pickler, "Analysis: Obama Won't Try For McCain's Budget Goal," The Associated Press, 7/8/08

Obama Told Reporters He Won't Promise To Reduce The Deficit By 2013. "'I do not make a promise that we can reduce it by 2013 because I think it is important for us to make some critical investments right now in America's families,' Obama told reporters this week when asked if he'd match McCain's pledge." (Nedra Pickler, "Analysis: Obama Won't Try For McCain's Budget Goal," The Associated Press, 7/8/08)

Obama Also Said He Wouldn't Be Able To Eliminate The Deficit In Eight Years. Obama: "Now I want to go ahead and tell you the truth, which is, we will not eliminate the deficit or the national debt in the next four years, or even in the next eight years." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Fairfax, VA, 7/10/08)

AT ODDS WITH ECONOMIC ADVISERS ON FREE TRADE

Obama's Advisers Supported President Clinton's Free Trade Policies, But Obama Said He "Never" Thought NAFTA Was "Good For America":

Rubin And Summers Supported President Clinton's Free Trade Policies. "Rubin and Summers promoted President Bill Clinton's policies of free trade ... Union officials said that's a Rubinomics approach that favored Wall Street at the expense of American jobs sent overseas." (Julianna Goldman and Matthew Benjamin, "McCain, Obama Put Economy's Strains At Center Stage In Campaign," Bloomberg News, 7/28/08)

Rubin Was The Clinton Administration's "Most Vocal Advocate Of Free Trade." "The Clinton administration has strongly supported

NAFTA, and Rubin has been the administration's most vocal advocate of free trade." (Charlene Oldham, "NAFTA," Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 2/7/99)

Summers Said "NAFTA Has Been A Great Success." Lawrence Summers: "You know, NAFTA has been a great success. NAFTA has produced a substantial increase in U.S. exports to Mexico." (CNN's "News," 1/4/95)

Obama Adviser Paul Volcker Also Backed NAFTA. "Former U.S. central banker Paul

Volcker threw his support behind the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying the accord would improve Mexico's environmental and labor standards. Speaking to a group of Mexican bankers in Puerto Vallarta, Volcker attacked NAFTA critics who say the accord will hurt American workers." ("Business Briefs," [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 9/7/93)

"On The Record So Far, Mr. Obama Is The Most Protectionist U.S.
Presidential Candidate In Decades."

(Editorial, "Change You'll Have To Pay For," Wall Street Journal Asia, 5/28/08)

Obama: "Well, I Don't Think NAFTA Has Been Good For America - And I Never Have." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Loraine, OH, 2/24/08)
Obama Pledged To Renegotiate NAFTA With The Threat Of A "Potential Opt-Out." NBC's Tim Russert: "A simple question. Will you as president say to Canada and Mexico, this [NAFTA] has not worked for us, we are out?" Obama: "I will make sure that we renegotiate in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about, and I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced." (Sen. Barack Obama, MSNBC Democrat Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)

Obama Told Members Of The AFL-CIO That He Opposed NAFTA, CAFTA, The South Korea And Colombia Free Trade Agreements, And Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. Obama: "But what I refuse to accept is that we have to sign trade deals like the South Korea Agreement that are bad for American workers. What I oppose - and what I have always opposed - are trade deals that put the interests of multinational corporations ahead of the interests of Americans workers - like NAFTA, and CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with China. And I 'll also oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement if President Bush insists on sending it to Congress..." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks To The AFL-CIO, Philadelphia, PA, 4/2/08)

AT ODDS WITH ECONOMIC ADVISERS ON FUNDING HIS PROPOSALS

Obama Adviser Gene Sperling Criticized Obama's Funding Mechanisms For His Proposals; Questioned His Fiscal Responsibility:

Before Serving As An Obama Adviser, Sperling "Took The Obama Campaign To Task" For Claiming They Could Pay For Proposals By Shifting Iraq Spending, When That Money "Should Be Considered Emergency Spending." "For example, Clinton economic adviser

Gene Sperling, in a conversation with CNNMoney.com earlier this year, took the Obama campaign to task for proposing that money saved by drawing down troops in Iraq could be used to pay for some of Obama's proposals. That's money that should be considered emergency spending, Sperling said. 'When Iraq spending goes away, it goes away. You don't use it as a pay-for,' he said. 'We're assuming that will bring the budget down.'" (Jeanne Sahadi, "Fuzzy Math On The Campaign Trail," CNNMoney.com, 5/6/08)

Sperling Said There Was A "Significant Gap" Between Clinton And Obama On Fiscal Responsibility, Noting That Clinton Had Actually Provided "Realistic Ways" To Pay For Her Proposals. "[Sperling] says the key difference between the two candidates' proposals is that Clinton has been more conscientious and rigorous about finding specific, realistic ways to pay for her plans. 'There is a significant gap between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama on the fiscal responsibility of their proposals,' says Sperling. 'She felt very much that when you're talking to people you need to be able to look them in the eye and tell them very specifically where's the beef.' Sperling notes Obama estimates it would cost about $85 billion a year to deliver the three tax cuts he's proposed that Clinton hasn't - for seniors, for payroll taxes, and another that would allow a mortgage-interest tax credit for non-itemizers. The cost of Obama's tax cuts has raised eyebrows not only in Clinton's camp. Leonard Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center in Washington, a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, says he is concerned that both candidates have promised too much at a time 'when we know our fiscal situation is bad and getting worse.'" (Elizabeth Auster, "Clinton, Obama Plans Are Similar," [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 2/24/08)

Obama's Economic Policy Director, Jason Furman, Said Obama Hadn't Been Specific About Funding Certain Proposals:

"Obama 'Hasn't Been Very Specific About How He'd Pay For A Pretty Ambitious Tax Plan,' Furman Said." (Sarah Liebowitz, "Democrats' Plans Have Sizable Costs," Concord [NH] Monitor, 12/9/07)

Furman Said Edwards And Clinton Had Been More Specific. "In terms of tax plans, Edwards and Clinton have 'more clearly specified where the money's coming from and going to.'" (Sarah Liebowitz, "Democrats' Plans Have Sizable Costs," Concord [NH] Monitor, 12/9/07)

AT ODDS WITH HIS ECONOMIC DIRECTOR ON A SECOND STIMULUS PACKAGE

Obama Has Called For A Second Stimulus Package, But His Economic Director Previously Opposed A Second Package:

"Obama Also Renewed His Call For A

$50 Billion Economic Stimulus Package That Would Include Another Round Of Rebate Checks Mailed To U.S. Taxpayers." (Michael Bender, "Drilling Futile, Obama Insists," Palm Beach [FL] Post, 6/21/08)

Before Joining The Obama Campaign, Furman Opposed Doing A Second Stimulus Bill. Furman: "The goal of the stimulus bill was to increase the deficit to expand overall demand. ... I don't think we should do another stimulus bill for the sake of the aggregate economy." (Sue Kirchhoff and Barbara Hagenbaugh, "Economy Gets Its 'Booster Shot,'" USA Today, 2/14/08)

Furman Said U.S. Politicians Needed To Be Patient And Let The Stimulus Checks Boost The Economy. "Jason Furman, of the Brookings Institution, an adviser to Bill Clinton's White House, says US politicians may have to be very patient as they wait for the giant dose of medicine to take effect. 'The cheques [from Bush's emergency tax-rebate package] won't arrive until May or June, and the evidence is that people will not spend the money straight away, but I do think it will kick-start the economy by the second half of the year,' he says. 'This is a substantial amount of monetary easing. We have never seen rates cut this much, this quickly.'" (Heather Stewart and James Doran, "US Voters Fear Nation Is About To Hit The Skids," The Observer [England], 2/10/08)

AT ODDS WITH HIS ECONOMIC DIRECTOR ON WAL-MART

During The Presidential Campaign, Obama Has Engaged In "Wal-Mart Bashing":

The San Diego Union-Tribune: Obama Engaged In "Wal-Mart Bashing." "With his opposition to many trade deals and his Wal-Mart bashing..." (Editorial, "Obama Vs. History," The San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/19/06)

Obama: "Wal-Mart is making enormous profits, and yet it
has chosen to go with low wages and diminished benefits."

(Barney Gimbel, "Attack Of The Wal-Martyrs," Fortune, 12/11/06)

Obama's Economic Director, Jason Furman, Defended Wal-Mart And Said Wal-Mart's Low Prices "Are The Equivalent Of Higher Wages":

Furman Wrote A 2005 Paper "Defending Wal-Mart Against Attacks By Labor Activists." "Furman's most notorious foray so far into the political battleground is a 2005 paper he wrote defending Wal-Mart against attacks by labor activists, arguing that Wal-Mart's dismal treatment of its employees might be acceptable as a trade-off for the obvious benefits it brought to low-income consumers with its discount prices." (Darrell Delamaide, Op-Ed, "Obama's New-Old Economic Guru," Dow Jones' "MarketWatch," 6/11/08)

Furman Estimated That Wal-Mart's Discounting On Food Alone Saves American Shoppers At Least $50 Billion A Year. "[J]ason Furman, an economist who advised the Kerry/Edwards campaign, estimates that Wal-Mart's discounting on food alone saves American shoppers at least $50 billion a year, and possibly five times that much across all retail goods it sells. Using federal anti-poverty programs as a point of reference, in 2005, food stamps were worth $33 billion, and the earned-income tax credit was worth $40 billion." (Gary Gaddy, Op-Ed, "America's Best Anti-Poverty Program," Chapel Hill [NC] Herald, 1/3/08)

Furman: "Lower prices are the equivalent of higher wages. ... So, for the 150 million Americans who shop at Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart's being there is the equivalent of giving them a pay raise." (Niall Stanage, "Pols Hate Wal-Mart, But Consumers Don't," The New York Observer, 5/1/06)

PDF Format