Edward Lotterman is a Twin Cities-based economist who writes a smart column for the Twin Cities Pioneer. Earlier posts have referred to his thoughts on the addictive nature of governmental subsidies and the market’s superior ability to react to OPEC’s attempts to manuever the market to its advantage.
In this article, Mr. Lotterman addresses the candidates’ statements regarding economic policy, and he finds little to be enthusiastic about in either candidates’ positions:

This election, most economists are dismayed by the economic positions espoused by Republican President Bush and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Their campaign ads and stump-speech clips frustrate most of us. Many of their proposals would make our nation worse off, rather than better. Still, there are differences in how each man’s proposed policies are harmful.
In 2004, Kerry is wrong on many different economic things, including trade, employment, Social Security and health care, among others. Bush is wrong on one enormous thing: tax cuts and their effects on budget deficits and the national debt. Bush’s positions on some other issues are more pleasing to economists than Kerry’s, but often skirt core questions to focus instead on peripheral matters that have great symbolism but little import.

First, Mr. Lotterman examines the candidates’ positions on Social Security reform:

In response to news about Social Security, Kerry recently thundered, “When I am president there will be no decrease in Social Security benefits and no increase in (Social Security) taxes.” This stand is just another way of saying, “I am a coward who is going to push this issue forward into someone else’s presidency, even if it means any eventual solution will be much more difficult.” I know of few economists who could endorse Kerry’s position.
On Social Security, Bush advocates personal accounts as a panacea for all problems. Many economists see some form of mandatory personal accounts as one component of a reformed retirement system. But the economic arguments for personal accounts are subtle. Moreover, they would do next to nothing in solving the most pressing problem, the impending retirement of tens of millions of baby boomers.

Turning to health care, Mr. Lotterman also does not much like what he hears:

On health care, Kerry says he will do great things: lower health care premiums, cover all uninsured households and lower drug prices. But he presents no realistic plan for financing these expensive options. He implies these are freebies that will spring from reductions in “waste and inefficiency” in health care.
He doesn’t say how he will eliminate such “waste and inefficiency.” This position is as intellectually bankrupt as those borrow-and-spend Republicans who say they will close deficits by eliminating “waste and inefficiency” in government. Somehow, no one ever seems to do it.
Bush wants to broaden health care savings accounts and limit damages in malpractice lawsuits. A majority of economists probably would endorse these measures. Even so, most would see them as tangential to more fundamental factors driving health costs.

And on issues of free trade and environment? Again, Mr. Lotterman is skeptical of the candidates’ positions:

On trade, a strong majority of economists would opt for Bush’s espousal of trade liberalization over Kerry’s implicit protectionism. Yet, many are skeptical of the president’s true commitment to opening trade, given his quick resort to steel tariffs in his first term and their doubts about his willingness to confront domestic sectors such as cotton and sugar that will be hurt in any serious new trade agreements.
While Bush claims credit for much environmental improvement, most objective observers are critical of his administration’s record. Even Russell Train, a Republican who headed the Environmental Protection Agency under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, has come out against him for this reason. Environmental economists also would fault his heavy reliance on poorly targeted subsidies to traditional energy sources. And, like his father, George W. is passing up the opportunity to shift pollution control from command-and-control regulation to widespread use of emissions taxes or tradable permits.
Kerry essentially promises more of the same regulatory approach that has prevailed in the past four decades. His environmental and energy platforms contain many glowing promises, but no policy specifics. Moreover, when he makes sweeping promises like, “As long as I am president, there will be no nuclear storage at Yucca Mountain,” he is just pushing a growing problem onto someone else’s watch — at a cost to society as a whole.

So, is this a Presidential election in which there is a viable candidate for sound economic policies? Or are we simply left with evaluating which candidate is “less bad” in terms of economic policy?