Before I start, I want to say that if there was one bit of advice I could give Barack Obama for the final debate, it's to note that Gabby Hayes does not understand that the current economic mess is not a consequence of corruption. His simple-minded, self-righteous clichés are not the change we need. On the corruption front, the problem is not the violation of laws. The problem is what is legal. End of advice.

Hey all you media people -- David Broder, Brian Williams, Jim Lehrer -- who think the candidates are now obliged to detail a medley of painful spending cuts and tax increases, will you please shut your stupid face? You have no idea what you are talking about.

In 1980, Jimmy Carter's last year in office, the ratio of Federal debt held by the public to GDP was 26 percent. By the end of Ronald Reagan's terms in 1988 it was 41 percent. Republicans say economic growth in the 80s was great. In Bill Clinton's time in office it was as high as 49 percent, and Democrats said it was a fabulous decade. Now it is 38 percent. If tomorrow the debt went up by $1 trillion, the ratio would be 45 percent. We have lived with this before and we will live with it again.

The annual cost of servicing another $1 trillion forever would be about $60 billion. Federal outlays are currently $2,931 billion (FY '08). This year that $60 billion would be less than half a percent of GDP. In five years it would be .3 percent of GDP. A fixed trillion-dollar addition to the public debt of this magnitude is not a problem.

Of course, thus far we have not added $1 trillion to the debt. And whatever is added, the outlays are not committed all at once, and they are gross of the returns to selling the assets acquired.

The traditional economists' animus towards public debt is that it crowds out private investment by raising interest rates, or it displaces investment by absorbing savings as consumption. These days interest rates are determined in global capital markets and the world's governments are coordinating a reduction in interest rates. Regarding the redirection of savings, in this case it isn't happening; the outlays are going into the capital markets.

The other concern about borrowing is not the level but the trend. The Federal debt inspires worries not because of this year's level, but its growth in the absence of policy change. A one-shot increase in debt is no issue in this context.

In a business cycle downturn, of course austerity via spending cuts or tax increases is counterproductive. Obama has not committed to austerity measures during the downturn. McCain seems to think his proposed, albeit unspecified spending cuts are not an issue in this context. Of course he is as clueless as our media elites.

A spending increase in health care can be appropriate with regard to both the short and the long run, if the object of health care reform is a reduced rate of growth of health care outlays, Medicare and Medicaid. This will require some additional spending up front.

The New York Times columnist Russell Baker once said, "Beware of calls for sacrifice from the rich." The current delusions have taken on a religious character. There is a generalized notion that we are guilty of the sin of gluttony and repentance requires fasting. This is also the analysis of the president of Iran. Beware of religious explanations of economic phenomena. Also, beware of calls for sacrifice from the rich. And beware of economic nostrums from idiots. The more highly placed they are, the more idiotic they seem to be.