An election should be decided on issues and ideas, and the problem with Mitt Romney is either (A) he has been on all sides of an issue or (B) he has refused to state what his position is on an issue. This latter problem has been particularly severe with respect to Mr. Romney’s economic policy. He just refuses to give any specifics.
So Businessweek has a short excerpt from an interview with Gelnn Hubbard, former Bush economic advisor (okay, not the best of credentials), current Dean of Columbia Business School (okay, better credentials) and economic adviser to the Romney campaign (no problem on credentials, doesn’t need them for that job). Mr. Hubbard strongly responds to the lack of specifics in the Romney agenda.
It means tax reform that could raise long-term growth over the next decade by about half a percentage point every year. It means entitlement reform that removes the chance of large tax increases. It means getting federal spending down to its traditional share of GDP. It means getting regulation that actually passes cost-benefit analysis, something this administration has not done. And free trade.
Wow there it is, tax reform, that will mean a one half of one percentage point increase in the growth rate, entitlement reform and cost-benefit regulations. Those are specifics you just cannot get from anyone else.
What does this tell us, it tells us that like Mr. Romney, Mr. Hubbard is absolutely clueless in what policy would be implemented in a Romney administration. Remember that word ‘clueless’, it will be around a lot if Mr. Romney wins.