Bloomberg.com reports that while economists have overwhelmingly ridiculed the idea of suspending the gas tax over the summer, Hillary Clinton has continued to stick to her guns. Clinton, after hearing that the economists thought the idea was ridiculous, stated:

I’m not going to put my lot in with economists

Ya know, it’s perfectly fine to say that you’re not going to listen to a consensus of football players giving you advice on filling out your taxes. Or a large group of lawyers giving you advice on how to paint your house. But generally, if you’re untrained in a subject, and practically an entire professional field gives you advice on the subject they specialize in, you should probably listen. And if you’re not going to listen, you’d better have a darned good explanation beyond “I know where you’re coming from, small folk,” for why you’re deviating from trained professionals. So Hillary (and Mr. McCain): if it makes sense to suspend gas taxes, please come forward and explain why rather than giving the same old pandering political speeches about how you’re trying to help “the little guy.” Call me an elitist, but I would rather that economic decisions follow the advice of trained professionals than “the little guy,” who hasn’t learned a thing about economics in his entire life.

I have no idea who I am voting for in this upcoming Presidential election, but I’m certainly looking more favorably upon Barack Obama after reading his reactions to John McCain and Hillary Clinton’s populist attack against gas taxes. From the New York Times:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton lined up with Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, in endorsing a plan to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for the summer travel season. But Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton’s Democratic rival, spoke out firmly against the proposal, saying it would save consumers little and do nothing to curtail oil consumption and imports.

I wholeheartedly agree. And so does one of today’s brightest economists, Greg Mankiw:

I don’t know any prominent economist who favors this McCain-Clinton proposal.

First, we have to realize that the increased gas prices are, although inconvenient in the short run, somewhat of a blessing. People are quickly starting shift away from driving larger cars, which will lower gasoline consumption in the long run. Additionally, if gas prices remain high for a long period of time, economic theory tells us that people will start taking larger actions to lower their gas prices, such as telecommuting or living closer to where they work. Additionally, this shifts more demand toward alternatives to gasoline-powered vehicles, such as electric cars, that don’t pollute and are by nature more efficient per mile than gasoline cars.

So today on the radio I hear someone talking about how he thinks that Hillary Clinton timed her surge perfectly, and now she has the “momentum” to carry her to victory.

Does anyone else think this statement - not just the one I heard on the radio - but the general idea of “momentum” and “surges” in politics is so stupid?

I mean, seriously, are we talking about running?  When I think of “timing a surge,” I think of the tenth mile of a half marathon where my opponent is tiring out and I want to surge to drop him.

When people vote I sure hope they are not voting for someone because they won the previous primary.  I can see  voting for someone because they have exposed problems with the other candidate, or persuaded the public on issues, or whatnot, but for momentum?  Sadly, I really think “momentum” has an effect on the way people vote.

There is nothing different between the two candidates’ political platforms from when they started the campaign and now.  So if you vote for people purely based on the issues,  you’re probably not going to change your mind about either of them as the primaries come and go.

Please note: This is not an endorsement of Barack Obama.

I’m tired of hearing the argument from Clinton and now McCain that you should not vote for Barack Obama because he lacks “experience.”  The argument is simply not persuasive.

This argument assumes that the more time you spend being a politician, the more fit you are to act as President.  I don’t buy it.  In fact, because of the nature of politics in this country, often politicians become less fit to act as President the longer they are involved in politics.

To be successful in American politics, one must be willing to do what it takes to make and keep powerful friends.  These friends can be interest groups, individual businesses, fellow politicians, political parties, or many other entities.  These friends can provide a politician with a needed vote, verbal support, or, often most importantly, money.  But there is no such thing as a free lunch.  If a politician wants to make and keep these powerful friends, he or she needs to give something in return.  Often it is a vote or a series of votes in return.

The President of my Alma Mater, Gene Nichol, resigned recently after a short two years or so at the helm of William and Mary.  Over his presidency, he was involved in a number of different controversial events, the most notable being the “Wren Cross Controversy.”

I do not intend to discuss whether or not he made good decisions.  I just want to point out the obvious reason he got fired and why small schools should be worried.  Gene Nichol was fired because major donors threatened to withdraw donations from a school that is not very wealthy.  Small schools should be worried because they typically only have a small group of large donors and generally have a greater need for each of these donors to keep contributing, so each of these donors have a huge amount of power over the small schools.

William and Mary would be gravely injured if a multi-million dollar donor stopped donating.  The College had a choice - do what the donors wanted or lose a ton of money.  Whether or not Nichol was the right man for the job is irrelevant.  It’s whether Nichol was someone with whom the donors were willing to put up with.