The Presidential Candidates' Domestic Policy Plans

David Wessel On Tuesday the 29th of April, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, in association with the New America Foundation, American University and the Tax Foundation, hosted an event concerning the major domestic policy issues facing the nation before the upcoming presidential election. Focusing on the candidates’ policy proposals, the event featured four panels of policy experts. The first three—on climate change, health care, and tax reform—featured independent experts from across the political spectrum, expressing varied and often contradictory views on their issues of expertise. The final panel featured economic advisors from the campaigns themselves, who gave the audience a glimpse of the candidates’ views on these important policy issues.

The first panel, moderated by David Wessel of the Wall Nikki Roy and Robert McNally Street Journal, concerned climate change policy. The panelists, William Pizer of Resources for the Future, Nikki Roy of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and Robert McNally of the Tudor Investment Corporation agreed that all three candidates had promising positions on the issue from the perspective of an environmentalist. At the same time, all three expressed skepticism about the candidates’ commitment to the issue. Pizer pointed out that there are four major components to a national environmental policy—cost, competitiveness, allocation and treatment of preexisting state-level climate policies—that will make climate legislation difficult to design and equally difficult to move throug William Pizer h congress. Roy complained that none of the candidates were campaigning on the issue, despite supporting it on their websites. Without putting it out front in the campaign, he suggested, the candidates would not have the political capital to push legislation through once they are elected. McNally added that whatever legislation eventually passed would take years to do so, and that eventual success might have to be driven by a small energy crisis, such as widespread brown-outs in major cities. In the end, the panelists agreed that the scientific community had reached a strong consensus, but disagreed about whether the American public would continue to support climate change policy as it drives up energy bills.

The second panel, also moderated by Wessel, featured a discussion on healthcare reform from John Sheils of the Lewin Group, Joe Antos of the American Enterprise Institute, and Len Nichols of the New America Foundation. Sheils spoke first, discussing the employer tax exclusion for health insurance and the problems associated with it. In addition to costing around $250 billion in forgone public revenue, he explained, the exclusion is regressive and leads to over-purchasing of health insurance. It could be improved, he suggested, by replacing the exclusion with a standard deduction or tax credit. Nichols and Antos spoke next, taking turns discussing the good and bad parts of the Presidential candidates’ proposals. Nichols spoke favorably of McCain’s willingness to propose supply-side delivery system reforms and his decision to use the existing employer tax exclusion funds to subsidize individuals through a tax credit, rather than a tax Len Nichols and Joe Antos deduction. At the same time, Nichols expressed concerns that McCain’s proposal to allow insurance to be purchased across state lines would leave insurance inaccessible for some Americans, particularly the sick, and disappointment that McCain has not discussed covering all Americans as a goal. Antos liked that the Democrats focused on bringing down healthcare costs and included some elements of consumerism, and was also happy that neither was claiming universal coverage as a free lunch. At the same time, he felt their plans include promises which couldn’t be kept, such as universal coverage and insurance “as good as your Congressman’s,” while over-regulating, overspending, and providing a back-door to single-payer healthcare.

The third panel, on tax policy, was moderated by Rudy Penner of the Urban Institute. Penner gave opening remarks, and then handed the microphone over to Alex Brill of the American Enterprise Institute, Len Burman of the Tax Policy Center and Scott Hodge of the Tax Foundation. All three agreed that tax policy is reaching a crucial point, with the Bush tax cuts expiring, the AMT reaching millions of new taxpayers every year, and the costs of government rising. Both Brill and Hodge supported McCain’s proposal to lower the corporate rate, citing its positive effect on growth and American competitiveness. Burman had few kind words for the current slate of policies the candidates have proposed, Alex Brill and Scott Hodge reserving particular disapproval for McCain’s gas-tax-holiday proposal, which Clinton has since supported. Following their opening remarks on the candidates’ plans, the panelists discussed the potential for a value added tax (VAT) to help solve some of these problems. All three agreed that it could be a useful tool, with Burman suggesting that it might help pay for health care, and Hodge saying that it could cover some of the cost of lowering the corporate tax rate.

The final panel, also moderated by Penner, featured a discussion between the economic advisors of the remaining presidential candidates, including Brian Deese, Dan Tarullo, and Kevin Hassett of the Clinton, Obama, and McCain campaigns, respectively. All three representatives believed his candidate would be best for the economy, but set out Len Burman different economic goals. According to Tarullo, Obama’s policies will aim to foster a stable environment for economic growth, relief for the middle class, improved productivity, and a sustainable international economic environment. McCain, according to Hassett, would lower tax rates and improve the tax code to encourage economic growth and international competitiveness, while ensuring that lower taxes are accompanied by smaller government. Deese, finally, explained Clinton’s goals of addressing the “middle-class squeeze,” increasing the international attractiveness, restoring fiscal responsibility, and ensuring proactive and pragmatic executive leadership to address economic problems as they come.