McCain on Jobs

I've just been watching the McCain campaign's video about their candidate's jobs plan. One thing that jumps out as amusing is during the discussion of energy policy, when the text on the screen talks about the genius of a gas tax holiday but Doug Holtz-Eakin, who's trying to provide the voiceover while maintaining his reputation, doesn't actually say anything about it, sticking instead to some good points about ethanol -- an issue where McCain is definitely right and Obama is definitely wrong.

The overarching frame of the video is the assertion that John McCain "looks at every policy, everything his administration will do, through the lens of providing Americans with the jobs they need." Running through the whole thing, however, two things become apparent. One is that this assertion is an effort to kind of distract you from the fact that John McCain does not, in fact, have a jobs policy. Instead, he's taken a miscellaneous group of other policy measures and labeled them his "Jobs for America" plan. The other is that it's clearly not the case that McCain "looks at every policy, everything his administration will do, through the lens of providing Americans with the jobs they need." After energy, the video leaps to McCain's longstanding passion for porkbusting and Holtz-Eakin reiterates McCain's vow to veto any appropriation with an earmark attached. You can say what you will about this pledge, but it's certainly not a jobs plan -- people are hard at work on those earmarked projects as we speak.

Wouldn't real straight talk be for McCain to just admit that conservatives don't really believe in labor market interventions and economic stimulus? Yes, that would be a losing election strategy, but the McCain brand is supposed to be about telling the truth no matter what the political price.

Comments

As is true on most topics, McCain's mavericky cred on ethanol is overrated. His stance depends on his proximity to Iowa.

2007: May 13, 2007: Meet the Press with Tim Russert:

RUSSERT: In 2007 you go to Iowa and say this: ‘I support ethanol. I think it's a vital alternative energy source, not only because of our dependence on foreign oil but because of its greenhouse gas reduction effects.’

Is the switch because you're entering the Iowa caucus?

MCCAIN: When oil is $15 a barrel, ethanol does not make sense. When oil is $60-plus a barrel, then ethanol does make sense.

RUSSERT: So you've changed your mind.

MCCAIN: No, I haven't. I have adjusted to the realities of the world we live in today.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/12/512797.aspx

Posted by Jeff S. | July 10, 2008 10:34 AM

At least he doesn't own a blog like a trollop, you cunt.

Oh and you're all invited to my next press beat, where we will beat some Iranians... hahaha get it?

Posted by John McCain | July 10, 2008 10:51 AM

Could you clarify the position that McCain holds that's 'definitely right' vs. Obama's that's 'definitely wrong'? Because...I found this from McCain

John McCain believes alcohol-based fuels hold great promise as both an alternative to gasoline and as a means of expanding consumers' choices. Some choices such as ethanol are on the market right now. The second generation of alcohol-based fuels like cellulosic ethanol, which won't compete with food crops, are showing great potential. Unfortunately, today isolationist tariffs and wasteful special interest subsidies are not moving us toward an energy solution. We need to level the playing field and eliminate mandates, subsidies, tariffs and price supports that focus exclusively on corn-based ethanol and prevent the development of market-based solutions which would provide us with better options for our fuel needs.

and this on Obama's

# Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
# Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.

And...I don't feel like they're that different. At least, not enough for one to be definitely right and one to be definitely wrong...Obama focuses on doing the refining where the product is grown while McCain focuses on reducing tarrifs. I admit, I didn't watch the video (I'm at work, and they get pissy about streaming videos), so maybe there's other points there.

Posted by Bryna | July 10, 2008 11:10 AM

If John McCain's primary goal was "providing Americans with the jobs they need" he wouldn't have corporate hack scumbags like Phil Gramm dictating his economic policies.

Posted by jbentley | July 10, 2008 11:34 AM

This is why I have little respect for liberal bloggers (compared to libertarian bloggers at least). I've often read silly posts by Matt and then a day later Meghan totally rips him a new one.

Matt's error here is to say that certain economic plans are "job plans" whereas others like pork-busting are not "job plans". That's just not true. The fact is any government change will result in a change in jobs for better or worse.

If we want a jobs plan, we could just hire people to play video games. They'd at least have jobs then! This may sound silly but this is the exact logic Matt suggests when he indirectly says McCain's pork-busting would cause job losses.

Just like we don't want to pay people to play video games we don't want to pay people for building a bridge to nowhere. It's not a job at that point, it's just welfare.

Posted by Ajay | July 10, 2008 11:59 AM

"Wouldn't real straight talk be for McCain to just admit that conservatives don't really believe in labor market interventions and economic stimulus?"

My understanding is that conservatives prescribe tax cuts for economic stimulus.

Posted by S.P. Gass | July 10, 2008 10:55 PM