If you read only one article today (Obamanomics)

A prominent economist runs the numbers on Obama's economic policies. Verdict: not even remotely good.

I really like Obama's newness, breath of fresh air, and some of his policies, such as getting the US out of Iraq. I really want to vote Obama (and did in the primary), but his policies for business and the economy completely negate the positives.

(I'm indirectly saying that the economy is a more important issue than Iraq. To me, it is not even close.)

I hoped - and keep hoping - that Obama will seek more mainstream policies and tilt towards the center, if not the right. I really thought his positions would moderate after the primaries, but he is obstinate in pursuing higher taxes, protectionism, and increased regulation.

I'll leave the gory details to the article in today's WSJ editorial "Obamanomics is a recipe for recession," but suffice to say, it's an economic policy akin to shifting from 5th gear to reverse. (Or, given today's economy, from 2nd gear to reverse. No, we're not in recession, I'll probably expound on this in another post.) After reading the article, you'll see that everyone's taxes will be rising. This is certainly not a plan that only affects "the rich."

In addition to the economic points in the article, I'm also dismayed by the philosophy underlying the proposals. I have yet to see Obama offer the rationale that suggests these policies will grow the economy more than current policy. All I ever hear as rationale for rolling back NAFTA or the tax increases is "fairness," and occasionally admissions that the additional tax revenue is necessary to pay for expanded government programs.

Select quotes from the article:

On NAFTA, after a litany of statistics: "it would be hard, on balance, for any objective person to argue that Nafta has injured the U.S. economy, reduced U.S. wages, destroyed American manufacturing, harmed our agriculture, damaged Mexican labor, failed to expand trade, or worsened the border environment"

In summary: "History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression."

Environment meets energy meets tax policy

Larry Kudlow blogs to comment on McCain's recently announced carbon cap and trade platform (he doesn't like it, nor should you). What caught my eye was hearing that intelligent people (Greg Mankiw and Al Gore to name a few) are suggesting a carbon tax with proceeds to defray federal income and/or payroll taxes in lieu of the cap and trade system.

I LOVE this idea! Here's why:

-tax efficiency: fundamentally, a carbon tax is a consumption tax, while income is, well, income. When you tax something, you get less of it - shouldn't we create incentive to consume less, and remove disincentives to generating more income?

-transparency: directly taxing carbon will give us all a direct and greater understanding of the cost and environmental impact of all economic activities.

-feasibility: a stand-alone carbon tax would never fly - no one wants to vote for a new tax - but substituting taxes could fly. Likewise, there's no chance that either the payroll or income taxes are spontaneously reduced or eliminated on their own.

-economic impact: just a guess on my part, but I think that a payroll or income tax cut will have a net greater positive on the economy than a tax on carbon consumption.

-and finally, this idea works because frankly, cap and trade - already in use in europe - DOESN'T WORK!