I'm Smarter Than a Fifth Grader

Just under a month ago, I commented on John McCain's loony idea to give the Federal gasoline tax a summer vacation. Since then, the people in Hillaryland decided to support the same nonsensical idea. The Obama campaign, on the other hand, came out in strong opposition to the temporary gas tax hiatus. They cite, among many other excellent reasons, the fact that most mainstream economists do not support the gas-tax hiatus because it makes virtually no economic sense as a basis for their position.

What disturbs me most about the current debate between the Obamites and the Hillaranians, though, is the Clinton campaign's constant dismissal of economists' ideas. (See this excellent post on the Freakonomics blog.) Economists, the Clinton campaign opines, tend to be the sort of people whose incomes make the whopping $30 savings insignificant and unimportant. As the Freakonomics folks note, this is probably true, given that the average economist makes about 85% more than John Q. Employee.

If these economists were taking their positions based solely upon their individual self-interest — that is to say, if economists oppose the gas tax hiatus because their individual financial circumstances make the cost (fewer dollars in the hands of the government for infrastructure) higher than the gain ($30 that would otherwise have paid for gasoline) — then the Clinton campaign's logic might hold. But these economists believe, based upon their apolitical economic analysis, not through an analysis of their personal finances, the broad macroeconomic impact of this absurd gas tax hiatus will have a bigger negative than positive impact. So, in essence, the Clinton campaign discounts the ideas of highly-trained experts (economists) not because their actual economic analysis is somehow flawed or incorrect, but rather because the experts themselves happen to be more affluent than the average person.

That some voters go along with this logic is also worrisome. Of all the people who could make a high-impact decision, a qualified expert in the field — say an economist, in the case of tax policy — seems to me the best choice. Some voters, however, appear to believe someone less-qualified, but more amenable to throwing a backyard barbeque, is the best candidate. By that logic, it would make more sense for a law firm to take a fifth grader, rather than me, as an intern, because the fifth grader is cuter and somehow friendlier. Does this make sense? I think not.

Addendum: Perhaps my favorite politician, Michael Bloomberg, chimed in with an astonishingly insightful analysis of the gas tax holiday: "Michael Bloomberg said giving drivers a break from the gas tax is 'the dumbest thing I’ve heard in an awful long time.' "