Listening to John McCain's acceptance speech last night, I found myself asking the question that others have been asking me for the past year: Who is John McCain really?
Is he the McCain of 2000-2003, who blasted both wasteful government spending and the unaffordable Bush tax cuts? Or the McCain of 2008, who not only wants to extend President Bush's tax cuts but expand them without coming close to paying for this largess? Is he the supporter of limiting offshore oil drilling and requiring tradable credits for carbon-based fuels–which would sharply raise the price of oil and gasoline? Or is he the new darling of the “drill baby drill” crowd?

When it comes to taxes, Sarah Palin turns out to be an intriguing mix of Barack Obama and John McCain. Like Obama, she favors a tax rebate for consumers funded by a windfall profits tax on energy companies. But, like McCain, she also backs a gas tax holiday.

Barack Obama gave four speeches last night. The first was the same optimistic cry for change that has carried him so far in this Presidential season. The second was a tough, frontal attack on the economic and foreign policies of both George Bush and John McCain. The third was a (Bill) Clintonesque bit of social policy triangulation—we can all work together to find solutions to such hot button issues as abortion, guns, gay marriage, and immigration. The fourth was a recitation of his economic agenda—a long list of promises that is familiar to readers of TaxVox by now.

Barack Obama has raised the ante on economic stimulus. Just two weeks ago, when I left for vacation, the Illinois Senator was talking about a $50 billion plan. I barely unpack (and yes, I had a nice time, thanks for asking) and learn he is now considering a $115 billion boost. That, at least, is what an Obama aide told the Wall Street Journal yesterday.

When the Tax Policy Center reported last month that Senators Obama's and McCain's tax proposals would both reduce federal revenues by trillions of dollars over the coming decade, both campaigns complained that TPC was using the wrong baseline to measure revenue changes. Instead of measuring revenue against current law, they asserted, analysts should assess the plans against “current policy.” In fact, the choice of baselines is in some sense irrelevant as a gauge of our fiscal problems.

After I posted a tongue-in-cheek suggestion that, if he is elected president, Barack Obama should hire Doug Holz-Eakin to be his budget director, self-styled progressives have gone nuts. The Obamaites are up-in-arms because Holtz-Eakin happens to be John McCain's chief economic adviser. Could I have struck a nerve?

If Barack Obama gets elected President, the first thing he should do is hire Doug Holtz-Eakin to be his budget director. A highly-respected non-partisan budget wonk, who is leaning Obama’s way in the election, threw out this seemingly crazy idea at lunch the other day. And the more I thought about it, the more sense it made.

Liberal bloggers have taken to ganging up on the Blue Dogs—conservative Democrats who tend to go their own way on fiscal and foreign policy issues. Smelling victory in November, some on the left would like to find a way to take out these lawmakers, who mostly represent southern and midwestern swing districts.

To paraphrase the oily Captain Renault of Casablanca fame, we in Washington are shocked, shocked to find that deficits are going on here. To listen to the cries of outrage and dismay, one might think the Bush Administration’s latest projection of nearly $400 billion in red ink for the fiscal year ending on Sept. 30, and almost $500 billion for next year was unexpected.

Barack Obama’s fiscal policy can be summarized pretty simply: Cut taxes for low- and middle-class Americans, boost spending for education, health care, and alternative energy, and pay for much of it raising taxes on the rich. That’s not the only way he’d finance his ambitious plans, of course—he’d also have to borrow $3 trillion and get some money from ending the war in Iraq—but he hopes to generate nearly $300 billion over the next decade just from rolling back the Bush tax rate cuts on high-bracket taxpayers.