|
 | 
Apr-16-2008McCain's Plan for Working Class Offers Plenty for Corporate World(topic overview)
CONTENTS:
- McCain spoke in Pittsburgh, and will pitch his ideas Wednesday at an economic summit in Milwaukee. (More...)
- FreeMoney -- the gas holiday works out to something like $1 on every 5 gallons of gas. (More...)
- ABC News's Bret Hovell, Tahman Bradley and Teddy Davis Report: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., laid out a strategy to address the struggling U.S. economy Tuesday, proposing to double tax exemptions for dependents, and to ask higher income retirees to pay more for their prescription drugs under Medicare. (More...)
- Despite the polls showing McCain running dead-even with Obama, I'd bet anything he gets hammered in November. (More...)
- The Savings & Loan scandal may have made a few people rich by jettisoning transparency in the markets, but at the end of the day tax-payers were stuck with a $120 billion bail out tab for the screw-ups of people like McCain. (More...)
- Some fiscal sanity needs to be brought to the table -- and part of that equation is cutting into that part of the budget called "defense spending" which accounts for close to 50% spending on all tax receipts. (More...)
- Bush doubled the child tax credit, providing $500 to every taxpayer with any at least that much tax liability. (More...)
- Let me see if I understand -- mccain is proposing following the same bush policies that created the economic disaster as the cure for the economic disaster. (More...)
- The one reason I like the Fair tax idea is that those that are truly a giant leech on our system end up paying something. (More...)
- This will be a good incentive for oil to raise their prices. (More...)
- McCain is turning out to be a McBush in every way, DAH. Looks like the Corporate Campaign Contributions have now started pouring in. (More...)
- We are getting less oil for our dollar. (More...)
- Unions, healthcare, worker pay, corporations paying their way not on welfare, workplace safety, housing costs, misleading advertising, our ecology, sustainability, & PEACE. Cap, cut or even end entitlement programs such as Social Security, Military pensions and benefits, Medicaid and other vital services, services that are wanted and paid for by taxpayers, ok so far. (More...)
- '''The next president should talk about what'''s good for American families ''' education, health care at reasonable costs, pensions that are secure, opening our borders to trade. (More...)
SOURCES
FIND OUT MORE ON THIS SUBJECT
McCain spoke in Pittsburgh, and will pitch his ideas Wednesday at an economic summit in Milwaukee. In a new television ad airing in Pennsylvania and Ohio, he promises to "take the best ideas from both parties. to ignite our economy." Like his Democratic rivals, McCain was vague on how he'd pay for all the goodies. Aides said that his proposals would cost $195 billion, but the total appears to be much higher. His chief economic policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, suggested that McCain's call to make President Bush's tax cuts permanent shouldn't be counted as a Treasury loss. "The senator is not planning to raise taxes," he said repeatedly. [1] Holtz-Eakin estimated the cost of the tax cut proposals would be $195 billion. McCain still intends to balance the budget before leaving office, he said. "I wouldn't say it's revenue neutral. I would say it's budget neutral,'' Holtz-Eakin said. McCain's figures, which don't include spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan or the cost of extending President George W. Bush's income tax cuts, were disputed by Democrats and their allies. John Irons, a tax and budget expert at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, a research organization aligned with labor unions, said the cost of McCain's tax proposals would exceed those enacted under Bush.[2] John McCain has variously promised to balanced by the by 2012, or by the end of his first year in office, or by the end of his presidency -- perhaps in 2016. "He is a fiscal realist and a man of action," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's chief economics adviser, on a conference call with reporters. "I wouldn't say it's revenue neutral, I would say it's budget neutral." Puting aside the Bush tax code, Asked by a reporter to square McCain's long-expressed preference for a balanced budget with the cost of his tax cuts and spending proposals, Holtz-Eaken blasted what he called the "fantasy land budgeting" that goes on in Congress. "That kind of budget assumes that we're going raise taxes automatically." He said that McCain proposed AMT fix would cost about $60b a year once it was fully integrated into the economy. (A temporary "fix" would cost more; if the AMT was fully repealed, the needed offsets would be much less.) It would be offset by $60b worth of earmarks that McCain's team has identified.[3]
The centerpiece of McCain's economic agenda remains a major cut in the corporate income tax rate, from 35 percent to 25 percent, a reduction that McCain says will end America's claim to having the second-highest business tax and "get rid of that drag on growth and job creation." He also repeated his desire to make permanent the tax cuts that President Bush championed during his two terms and that critics say largely benefit the very wealthy. He also went further than Bush in proposing a total repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which hits families who make more than $100,000. Those proposals together would cost trillions of dollars to implement and add to the growing budget deficits, a fact that McCain did not address in his speech. McCain repeated his vow to oppose congressional earmarks and promised a "top to bottom" review of all discretionary spending by the federal government. "Every program comes with a built-in assumption that it should go on forever, and its budget increase forever," he said.[4] McCain would also implement a one year moratorium on discretionary spending. That would save $15 billion for that year. McCain is also in favor of maintaining the tax cuts proposed and signed by President Bush, tax cuts he originally opposed. The campaign claimed that the cost of those tax cuts would not be taken into account, because they are not factored in to the current budget.[5]
You can go further and repeal the AMT altogether, but then you need to come up with another source of revenue for the government. Otherwise you've enacted a whopping $400 billion tax break, more than half of which goes to families earning more than $500,000. That's what McCain does. Taken together, these measures cost as much as the Bush tax cuts in their first ten years and are even more regressive. The only question is how McCain ended up with such a dreadful combination of bad politics and bad policy. As Jonathan Chait noted in The New Republic in February, the answer seems to be that McCain needed to win approval of the Republican anti-tax base after he opposed the Bush tax cuts. McCain's specific proposals for both expensing and full AMT repeal have long been pushed by anti-tax guru Grover Norquist. Not so coincidentally, Norquist used to call McCain a "nut-job" but now praises him for having "moved very hard and far" on taxes.[6] McCain's proposal drew a swift rebuke from the Center for American Progress, a liberal think-tank which has taken the lead for the Democrats in offering critiques of McCain's policy prescriptions. "The bottom line is that the McCain campaign estimates that all these tax cuts together costs about $195 billion a year," said James Kvaal, a domestic-policy expert with the liberal Center for American Progress.[5]
Today's speech also continued McCain's drift from straight talk to free lunch. McCain is now up to about $280 billion per year in tax cuts, far more than the Bush tax cuts in their first 10 years. (His campaign gets a lower number only by claiming that his corporate expensing proposal costs nothing over the long term. This is not a serious argument.[7] John McCain's speech today had few surprises. It continued the strange combination of tough talk about '''corporate welfare''' and $1.7 trillion in corporate tax cuts, complete with massive new corporate loophole. As we predicted this morning on TNR, McCain finally did offer a tax cut that benefits actual families, the doubling of the dependent exemption. The measure remains true to form: It is enormously expensive ($65 billion per year, per the WSJ ), and it is more regressive than similar proposals from Bush.[7]
I just got out of the media conference call with John McCain's top economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. I can tell you right now that the stories about McCain's economic speech in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and a bunch of other newspapers tomorrow are all going to conclude that his tax ideas will worsen the budget deficit. Although Holtz-Eakin outlined what the compensating spending cuts would be for McCain's new proposals, the reporters were not buying his approach that McCain does not need to justify paying for the Bush tax cuts, rather that Congress needs to justify getting rid of them. (Holtz-Eakin, a former head of the Congressional Budget Office, called the current way of calculating future deficits or surpluses a "budgetary fantasyland.")[8] ThinkProgress noted that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) economic advisers are abandoning McCain's earlier talk of balancing the budget. According to the New York Times, his chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, "said that if the war and the personal and corporate tax cuts that Mr. McCain advocated added to the federal deficit and debt, so be it." Holtz-Eakin added that he "would like the next president not to talk about deficit reduction." Apparently, no one gave the message to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who while cheerleading for McCain on Morning Joe today emphasized that "you can't keep on growing the deficit" and said McCain has "made it very clear he wants to balance the budget."[9]
What an interesting comment from a guy who thinks the Bush War in Iraq should go on for at least another 100 years. Since the Bushies keep their war "off-budget", McCain's proposal makes perfect sense - no need to even consider the billions being wasted every month fighting Iraq's civil war because it's not even a budgeted item. John Mccain was against Bush's tax cuts, now he's for them. He was supposedly against torture, now he supports it. He's flippin' and floppin' and singin' and dancin' just like GW Bush. There is no difference whatsoever between these two.[10]
Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, offered the broadest look yet at his economic policies Tuesday, calling for tax cuts, a freeze in discretionary spending for a year, higher premiums for better-off Medicare recipients and elimination of federal gas taxes this summer to reinvigorate the economy.[11] April 15 (Bloomberg) -- John McCain prescribed cutting taxes and reduced government spending to boost the sagging U.S. economy and ensure future growth, using the due date for federal income- tax returns to give the broadest outline yet of his economic policies. The Republican presidential candidate aimed much of his message at middle-income Americans. He called for suspending federal gasoline taxes for three months this summer as an immediate stimulus and for the government to make sure student loan money is available by the start of the next school year. He proposed doubling the tax exemption for dependents to $7,000 from $3,500 to reflect the rising cost of raising children, eliminating the alternative minimum tax and offering government-guaranteed mortgages to homeowners at risk of foreclosure.[2]
Beyond that, McCain'''s plan is an interesting mix of spending reductions and targeted federal assistance programs, including an expansion of the '''lender-of-last-resort''' capabilities of states and the federal government to ensure that student loans aren'''t affected by the current credit crisis. This would be accompanied by tax cuts for parents in the form of a gradual doubling of the personal exemption for dependants. To curb federal spending, McCain called on wealthier Americans -- couples making more than $160,000 per year and single adults making more than $80,000 per year -- to pay for their own prescription drugs by making them ineligible for Medicare drug subsidies.[10] By far the most politically explosive one would make older Americans who earn more than $164,000 a year pay more for prescription-drug coverage under Medicare. That brings up the specter of means testing for federal benefit programs, anathema to the politically powerful seniors lobby. Other proposed spending reductions include saving $60 billion by "budget scrubbing," or ending pork-barrel projects; $15 billion by freezing all nonmandatory government spending for one year; and $30 billion by closing unspecified tax loopholes. All would face fierce opposition in Congress. (EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE) In other new proposals, McCain would: _Ensure that state agencies can meet their obligations as "lender of last resort" for student loans, to ensure broad access during the credit crunch.[1] Holtz-Eakin was careful to point out that McCain's proposal would not bring in more money to the federal government. "I wouldn't say revenue neutral, I would say it's budget neutral," he said. Other proposals McCain laid out today include raising the tax exemption for each dependent child; offer tax-payers the choice of choosing a simpler tax system; require wealthier Medicare enrollees to pay a higher premium on prescription drug coverage; and suspend for one year all discretionary spending for non-military agencies. Schmidt began the conference call by again criticizing Barack Obama for comments he made during a fundraiser in San Francisco. Calling those comments "elitist" and "condescending," Schmidt said they "opened up a window into how Obama feels about this country."[12]
Aides said McCain would offset it by cutting federal spending. Medicare: He called for wealthier Medicare recipients to pay higher premiums for drug coverage. It would apply to singles earning more than $82,000 a year and married couples earning more than $164,000. It would affect about 5 percent of beneficiaries, about 1 million people, and net the government $2 billion a year, he said. Simplified tax system: He proposed a simpler tax code that Americans could opt into, with only two tax rates and a "generous" -- though unspecified -- standard deduction.[11]
The liberal Center for American Progress believes that about $150b worth of spending is not offset; McCain's campaign believes that the proposal to deduct investments in tech and equipment would be revenue neutral; the CAP believes it would cost $70b. Conservatives at some of the policy shops around town are pleased with McCain's proposal to begin means-testing for Medicare part D, and they like the reductions in the corporate tax rate. They don't like McCain's gas tax holiday -- they find it foolish and they wonder where McCain would find the money for it.[3] "In my administration, there will be no more subsidies for special pleaders, no more corporate welfare," McCain said. Much of what he detailed was a corporate special pleader's dream: a cut in the corporate income tax rate, from 35 percent to 25 percent, a proposal to allow businesses to write off the cost of new equipment and technology from their taxes, a ban on Internet and new cellphone taxes, and a permanent tax credit for research and development. He promised to remove the "myriad corporate tax loopholes that are costly, unfair and inconsistent with a free-market economy," but he offered no specifics. "I wish he'd be as aggressive with tax pork as he is with spending pork," said Leonard E. Burman, an Urban Institute tax policy analyst.[13] The corporate tax rate cut would cost $100b a year, which McCain would offset slightly by broadening the base of eligible companies and cutting $30b worth of special interest tax rates. (There's still a $60b gap here.) The DNC and the Clinton campaign are pulling the populist card on this one, with Clinton's policy adviser, Neera Tanden, estimating that Exxon-Mobil would see its taxes cut by $1.6b.[3] The corporate tax cuts would cost $100 billion a year, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior policy adviser.[13] A CBO report signed by McCain advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin shows otherwise.) Against these $280 billion in costs, McCain has still proposed to cut not a single specific discretionary program and not a single specific tax expenditure. His ballyhooed plan to hike prescription drug premiums will save $1 billion per year, again according to CBO.[7]
McCain'''s tax plan costs more than $2 trillion in the first decade by doubling the Bush tax cuts, obliterating prospects of a balanced budget. As Reuters observed, McCain'''s plan also leaves much unexplained, failing to explain "how he would rein in the health-care and retirement costs expected to swamp" as boomers retire, the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and interest on the $10 trillion national debt.[14] The national debt must be paid off eventually, either in the form of increased taxes or cuts in public services that Americans rely on. The cost of the Bush tax cuts going to just the richest one percent in 2008 (about $79.5 billion) is more than the entire budget for the Department of Education this year ($68 billion), almost twice as much as the entire budget for the Department of Homeland Security this year ($42.3 billion) and over ten times as much as the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency ($7.5 billion).[15] If only we can abolish the hated IRS and subject the useless peasants to a national sales tax we can double the Bush tax cuts, while making the 90% of Americans who are lower class degenerates pay an average of $4,000 a year more in taxes. The naves love the idea, they don't have to see deductions on their pay checks, they'll just cringe and grind their teeth every time they buy something. They are truly foolish enough to believe the truthyness we espouse to them through talk radio, and being such fools they will surly destroy themselves somehow.[15]
In a major economic speech Tuesday, the likely Republican presidential nominee also acknowledges economic distress among students and families. He plans to aid students caught in the credit crunch who may have trouble obtaining college loans and to call for another big tax cut -- this one helping families with children. The proposals, combined with those he has already put on the table, show the Arizona senator's mixed approach to economics. He pushes tax cuts, a traditional Republican favorite; government reforms, such as an end to pork-barrel projects; and new spending for those he sees as deserving, such as students looking for loans and homeowners who need to refinance their troubled mortgages. He hopes his new plans, along with a series of ideas already laid out, will persuade voters that he understands times are hard. Ahead of the speech, he said he believes the country is likely in a recession now and that it doesn't much matter whether the economy meets that technical definition. "The important factor here is that Americans are hurting," he said Monday. "They're hurting in the towns and cities across America."[16] For one reason or another, consumers aren't consuming, investors aren't investing, and employers aren't hiring. In such cases, presidents can work with Congress to stimulate the economy through a tax cut or even a "tax rebate" (lots of people get a check for a few hundred bucks), or through juiced-up government spending on one project or another. President George W. Bush shoved a Keynesian tax cut through Congress in 2001, though with this guy there's always an angle. In the midst of a strong economy in 2000, he ran on a plan to cut taxes. It wasn't until a recession was declared in 2001 that he used economic stimulus as a rationale.[17] The speech also included pledges to ban new cell phone and internet taxes, create a research & development tax credit, and lower Medicare premiums. The new policies outlined this morning come in addition to McCain'''s home mortgage assistance plan -- which was laid out last week, and would require the federal government to guarantee loans for qualified homeowners with at-risk mortgages -- as well as the candidate'''s regular calls for the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax, a ten point reduction in the corporate tax, a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts and the elimination of pork barrel spending.[10] "John McCain used to oppose the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans," Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic front-runner, told a union conference Tuesday in Washington. "He used to say that tax cuts in a time of war were a bad idea. Somewhere along the way to the Republican nomination, I guess he figured that he had to stop speaking his mind and start toeing the line, because now he wants to make those tax cuts permanent." Neera Tanden, Democratic New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's chief policy adviser, dismissed McCain's ideas as "a George Bush redux of corporate windfalls and tax cuts for the wealthy that will bankrupt our government and leave working families with the bill." ___ (McClatchy Newspapers correspondent Margaret Talev contributed to this report.) ___ (c) 2008, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.[1] Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief policy adviser, Neera Tanden, dismissed McCain's ideas as "a George Bush redux of corporate windfalls and tax cuts for the wealthy." McCain said his rivals would impose the single largest tax increase since World War II by allowing tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 -- which McCain opposed -- to expire. "They're going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars per year, and they have the audacity to hope you don't mind," he said, alluding to Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope."[11]
The campaigns of Senators Clinton of New York and Obama of Illinois said McCain was repeating Bush's policies and directing most of the benefits to corporations and upper income Americans. "It is a George Bush redux of corporate windfalls and tax cuts for the wealthy,'' Clinton policy director Neera Tanden told reporters on a conference call today. Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said McCain's proposals "could have been written by the corporate lobbyists who run his campaign, and probably was.''[2] As ABC News helpfully reminds us, April 15th is John McCain Tax Flip-Flop Day. McCain, as you'll recall, twice voted against President Bush's budget-busting tax cuts for the richest Americans who need them least. Having undergone a supply-side conversion on the road to the White House, John McCain now wants to make them permanent.[14]
PITTSBURGH -- Mixing austerity and tax cuts, Sen. John McCain is laying out an economic plan that includes increased Medicare premiums for wealthy seniors and a one-year freeze on spending along with a proposal to review a vast swath of federal programs.[16] McCain addressed taxes, federal spending, trade, health care, education, business expenses, unemployment insurance and energy policy. McCain, who previously has said that economics isn't his strong suit, embraced a series of tax cuts and policies beyond his previous proposals.[2]
Tax cuts, mostly for corporations and wealthy individuals, remain the centerpiece of McCain's economic agenda. He said his support for making Bush's tax cuts permanent would benefit people from all income levels by making sure that taxes on dividends and capital gains stay low. Most lower- and middle-income investors have the vast majority of their stock and bond holdings in retirement accounts that are exempt from federal taxation.[13] Late payments are merely signs of family economic problems and should be taken into account in allowing a refinance, but should not be used as a sole reason to deny refinancing. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES, should the Bush "HELP THE WEALTHY TAX CUTS" be made permanent and are the very reason this government is running a substantial deficit and HAVE CAUSED the working poor and middle class to subsidize those tax cuts. If anything McCain needs to be determining how he can lower the tax burden placed on the working poor and middle class by making the wealthy actually pay their fair share of taxes in this country.[4] McCain's tax cuts for corporations are too much. 60% of corporations pay no taxes at all, and that includes some with billions in profits. The same people who have denied workers a share of the doubling of productivity in the last 30 years.[4]
We are no longer hearing promises to raise the taxes on most of us.' No longer hearing the promise to let all the Bush tax cuts expire.' Instead we hear some talk of cutting taxes. The economy is in a funk.' And these candidates know that raising taxes on a slowing economy is not too smart. They also know that a lot of voters understand this. They also know that by mid-summer we may be in a recession.' And that they would be regarded as idiots if they told us the cure for recession is raising taxes. So, they have to change the message.' They begin by promising more fairness.' They begin by saying the tax cuts never benefitted most Americans.' (They did.)' That the time is ripe to shift those tax cuts to all those other Americans who were slighted. Where will they go from here?' They will go wherever the economy goes. Hey, by October they may be promising to cut our taxes. For the moment their talk of cutting taxes for 'working Americans' and for 'fairness' and for '150 million workers' is to appeal to voters who think they are getting screwed by the tax code. They want to pit those who feel they are not rich against the rich. Their talk is not yet about how tax cuts will improve the economy.[18] We wouldn't have half of this problem without the Bush/McCain dirty invasion of Iraq that is on the way to costing trillions. What expenditures are to be cut (surely not defense) to pay for this silly "gas tax holiday" for Americans who still pay among the lowest gas prices in the world. McCain has his head in the sand just like Bush, while the American economy flatlines. It's long past time to call the Republican Party on the enormous damage its "Don't Tax and Spend" policies have wreaked on the American economy.[4]
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers told ABC News that the Arizona senator's proposal would begin to be phased in for seniors making $80,000 or more. McCain also proposed a gas tax holiday between Memorial Day and Labor day of this year, eliminating the 18 cents per gallon federal levy that consumers pay for a gallon of gasoline during the busy summer travel months. That is expected to cost between $8 billion and $10 billion dollars, but would only be a one time expense.[5] Taken as a whole, McCain'''s economic plans ''' which include ending the alternate minimum tax, reducing the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, and implementing first-year expensing of new equipment and technology -- would cost the federal government, according to the McCain campaign, $195 billion dollars in revenue.[5] Corporate tax rate: Lower it from 35 to 25 percent, meaning $100 billion in lost revenue. Like his rivals, McCain was vague on how he'd pay for his plan. Aides said that his proposals would cost $195 billion.[11]
The proposal is similar to a controversial one put forth by President Bush last fall, in which married retirees who make more than $160,000 a year would pay increasingly higher costs for the newly established Medicare prescription drug plans. "When we added the prescription drug benefit. we included a lot of people that can well afford to pay for their own prescription drugs," said Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO and a top McCain adviser, boasting "that reform alone saves billions of dollars."[19]
Yep, that's what I need $5 extra every time I fill up my car. That will for sure pay for war in Iraq with no end, help me out with my health insurance premiums, and pay for our failing transportation infrastructure. When are we going to actually start paying for any of the stupid Republican policies, rather than foisting off the costs on my little kids? Oh well, if McCain and Bush give out more free money maybe we won't notice that they are bankrupting the next generation to pay for corporate welfare and inept foreign policy. They must really think the people of the USA are idiots? Please tell me we'll prove them wrong come November.[4]
Take it a step further- why not pay Americans to buy fuel? Maybe $2 per gallon could be paid by the federal government directly to the oil companies for each gallon they sell. The big picture is, We are the Worlds protectors, we are THE superpower, even if you don't like it, it's the way it is. We must have the most powerful military in the world, no president is ever going to change that. weather you like it or not! I am a republican, I'm don't agree with all of McCain's issues, but more than this Osama person, and personally I don't think this Country or the rest of the world to have Hillary as the President of the Unites States.[4] Where is the budget discipline. Utilize the removal of the gas tax for alternative fuels research and replace the loss revenue by having the Iraqi's pay for their reconstruvction and future part of our military bill and put an excise tax on the profits of oil companies. We are policing their civil war. This won't work because the Republican lobbyists and special interests wont make any money on it. Hey Bill and Hillary does McCain still have a free pass for his Commander and Chief test. All this is is PANDERING to the popoulace as a whole and to his special interests it solves nothing.[10]
All of the tax cuts McCain mentions are cute. How are we going to pay for all of McCain's wars with these tax cuts? I guess we'll have to get rid of all those domestic programs like education and infrastructure.[4] By the logic McCain now applies to all other tax questions, doesn't that make the expiration of the gas-tax cut a massive tax increase? So I say, let's run with the right's crazy-ass logic and tell it like it is: John McCain has just proposed the biggest gas-tax increase in American history. That's 18 cents per gallon, and 24 cents per gallon on diesel, that John McCain wants to raise in taxes.[7] Sen. Barack Obama: "John McCain used to oppose the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. He used to say that tax cuts in a time of war were a bad idea. Now he wants to make those tax cuts permanent."[11] In a DNC-sponsored conference call, economists Jeffrey Liebman and Laura Tyson criticized the economic plan McCain unveiled today, calling it an extension of President Bush's fiscal policies (for championing tax cuts favoring the rich, not paying for the tax cuts, and favoring an open-ended military engagement in Iraq).[10] I only read the headline here, but maybe it's an incoherent disaster because every single domestic policy plan from McCain is an incoherent disaster, check the 2000 campaign. Under Bush's tax cuts for the rich we have seen the Federal deficit soar from 5 trillion to approaching 10 trillion this year.[6]
McCain would reduce the corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and let companies write off the entire cost of many investments immediately, rather over several years. These tax cuts total $2 trillion over a decade.[6] Sen. McCain has already proposed a variety of other tax breaks, including reducing the corporate tax rate to 25% from 35% at a cost of about $100 billion per year. He also proposes to eliminate the alternative minimum tax altogether, going beyond congressional Democrats who want to spare the middle class from the AMT.[16] Holtz-Eakin estimated a cost to the Treasury of $60 billion a year. The true cost would be $180 billion a year, according to the Tax Policy Center, run jointly by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, both center-left research centers in Washington. It also was unclear how McCain would pay for his proposed gas-tax holiday, which would run from Memorial Day to Labor Day.[1] For instance, McCain proposes to eliminate the alternative-minimum tax, which Holtz-Eakin estimated would cost the federal government about $60 billion in lost revenue.[12]
High oil costs are a chronic condition, thus solutions must be long term. Long term solutions require leadership, leadership that would be at odds with the energy monopolies in this country. No such leaders will ever arise. Such is capitalistic democracy. The relieving of fuel tax would be presumably followed by their reenactment later in the year, when things could be much worse for the economy. The resulting backlash could spell the end of federal fuel tax, or its significant reduction, at the peril of our already increasingly decrepit transportation infrastructure. John McCain, pandering politician, yes, visionary leader, of course not. such is not possible in our present form of capitalist democracy.[4] PITTSBURGH (Reuters) - U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain will outline economic proposals on Tuesday that would increase drug costs for wealthy seniors and freeze billions in government spending for a year.[20] John McCain cares about as much about our health as Adolph Hitler did about the health of the German people in the early 1940s. That's why he says he perfectly content to leave our sons, daughters and grandchildren in Iraq for the next 50 to 100 years. His other economic proposal today is pure Bush: eliminate the gasoline tax this summer.[19] Although you may have heard John McCain insisting that Americans have become better off under George Bush, John really understands that a lot of people are worried about the economy right now. Did you know John McCain is a war hero? It may be a few years since he rode the old horse, but let me tell you - between friends - John keeps up pretty good with current thinking in tactical air operations. That recession hasn't got a chance. Should the recession persist in its refusal to disarm, then yes, all nuclear options are on the table. and John McCain will not flinch in his duty to protect Americans from the menace of Islamo-stagflation. Because he is resolute, damn it.[4] There's a shorter, simpler way for America to implement McCain's policies. Just gather all your kids and grandkids together in one place, and unleash your bloated, black hole moneypit military on them directly. My friends, John McCain understands that the American people want change; they want a new direction. That's why John is planning a new and completely different set of wars.[4]
The New Republic Johnny-Come-Lately by Robert Gordon and James Kvaal There's no way John McCain will succeed in selling his atrociously conceived, wildly irresponsible tax plan to the American people. He'll probably change course--again.[6] In an interview U.S. News & World Report recently conducted with the director of economic policy for John McCain's presidential campaign, the adviser took several opportunities to rail against Congressional earmarksspending that legislators allocate to specific entities, including colleges, through a noncompetitive process. Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has been a vocal and long-time opponent of earmarks and wants to abolish them. "Earmarks have led to the undeniable perception that Congress is interested in taking care of their friends and not the nation, and have led to political corruption and in some cases criminal corruption," said Mr. McCain's economic-policy director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. He brought up the issue in response to a question about whether the nation is headed toward a bigger government, citing earmarks as one reason that American people seem to have lost trust in their government to "pursue genuine national priorities."[21] Douglas Holtz-Eakin is the director of economic policy for Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. He's also a former director of the Congressional Budget Office. I recently caught up with Holtz-Eakin at McCain campaign headquarters and chatted with him a bit about taxes, the size of government, and energy policy. (To get his take on Clintonomics and the 1990s, see this.)[22]
One reporter traveling with McCain admitted the traveling press corps was confused by the whole thing, including Holtz-Eakin's line-by-line explanation of the tax cuts and corresponding spending cuts. In the tax policies he put forth today, Senator McCain demonstrates an appreciation for the burden taxpayers face and the potential for increased economic growth when government interference in the private sector is restricted to a minimum. We encourage Senator McCain to apply these same principles across the board, especially when dealing with the current housing crisis.[8] A vast number of federal programs from education to food inspection to homeland security would see flat funding -- effectively a cut when inflation is accounted for -- while a McCain administration evaluated each. The programs affected account for a total of $490 billion of annual spending, and the one-year freeze would save about $15 billion, said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, his top economic adviser.[16] Holtz-Eakin and another economic adviser, Carly Fiorina, former chief of Hewlett-Packard, said McCain will propose reducing spending in the federal government's Medicare prescription drug program. He would require older couples making $160,000 to pay higher premiums for the benefit if they are enrolled in the program.[20]
To offset the costs, McCain called for a one-year freeze on federal discretionary spending, excluding the military and veterans programs, which would amounts to about 18 percent of the current federal budget, and for other, unspecified budget revisions. He also vowed to veto any legislation that includes special congressional spending projects known as earmarks. To save money, McCain proposed charging affluent Americans more to participate in Medicare's prescription drug program, a plan that his advisers said would affect married seniors who earn a joint income of at least $160,000 -- or half that for singles.[2] Not a spending plan but still potentially costly, McCain called for a summer vacation from all gas taxes, calling on congress to suspend the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and the 24.4 cent diesel tax '''from Memorial Day to Labor Day.''' The total cost of such a holiday (something that Bob Dole proposed in 1996) is unclear, but (as mentioned earlier) it has the potential to diminish funds used for highway and public transportation infrastructure.[10]
In a speech billed as the most comprehensive summary of McCain's economic vision to date, the candidate proposed to eliminate the alternative minimum tax, slash corporate income tax rates and offer a grab bag of other business breaks. His most direct proposal for relief to working-class voters was a call to suspend the federal gasoline tax for the summer driving season. "The effect," he told an audience at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, "will be an immediate economic stimulus, taking a few dollars off the price of a tank of gas every time a family, a farmer or trucker stops to fill up." As the U.S. economy slides toward a possible recession, McCain has struggled to find the right pitch for his economic proposals. When he first suggested the government should not rescue speculative lenders or reckless home buyers, he was greeted with withering criticism from Democrats who accused him of insensitivity in the face of a housing crisis. When he tacked to the left to suggest he did favor government intervention, he was called a flip-flopper. In yesterday's speech, McCain played to his maverick image, taking corporate chieftains to task for their "extravagant salaries and severance deals." He even called out by name Angelo R. Mozilo, the chief executive of imploding mortgage giant Countrywide, and James E. Cayne, former chief executive of Bear Stearns, which was bailed out by an emergency line of credit from the Federal Reserve Board.[13] This is simply Bush III, a continuation of Bush/Cheney policies, tactics, and misdeeds against the citizens on behalf of corporate donors, wealthy benefactors, friends and associates. Why lower the corporate tax rate when they use our tax laws to avoid paying any taxes already and are being subsidized by the ATM which is sticking up those taxpayers making $100,000. Stop telling citizens this lie about "spurring business growth" when corporate profits are higher than ever and you continue to support the exportation of our jobs overseas by these corporations to exploit foreign labor markets. This joke about a gas tax holiday is just as bad as the tax rebate to give pennies to the taxpayers while sticking them up for more money than ever between the Social Security/Medicare/Health tax, the ATM and the high tax rates for the majority of low-income, working Americans. Do you really think this tactic is helping families by giving them a couple of days of deducting the federal tax amount being paid on a tank or two of gas at the pump - SPARE U.S., PLEASE, nobody is that ignorant to believe that will help families buying gas at least once a week. When are you going to create "real" foreclosure assistance programs for homeowners who have been late, but have struggled and managed to make their mortgage payments for substantial periods of time, not merely priority bailouts and usurpation of our tax dollars for irresponsible corporate lenders.[4] We must add the Rep. Geoff Davis types as well. These are people who are just like Hillary and Bill Clinton. These types of people will abuse, lie, cheat, and steal in just about any form to get their fix for themselves. It seems, this is what happens to Americans who lose their jobs, homes, health care. They cling to these feelings for the rest of their lives and they teach them to their children. We'll get an $18 cent tax savings while the administration allows gas prices to rise to $4.00 and beyond!!! I might just be able to retire! Also, since I'm sure there isn't anything to counter balance that tax cut it means that the road work and bridge inspections that are paid from those taxes will also get a funding cut endangering our families as we drive around.[10] As many of you scramble to get your taxes done before tomorrow's deadline, Citizens for Tax Justice, a Washington-based advocacy group, has released a new report showing just how much love the Bush administration has shown to the richest one percent of Americans. literally at the expense of the rest of us. Not that we didn't already know this, of course, but somehow seeing it all laid out in black and white brings it home all the more clearly. According to the report, in 2010, when all of the Bush tax cuts will finally have taken effect, the richest one percent of American familiesthose earning $1.6 million annuallywill receive, on average, a $92,000 tax cut. As a share of the population, these families will account for an estimated 53 percent of all tax relief, while the poorest 60 percent will be on the receiving end of just 12-15 percent of tax cuts.[15] Among the benefits for business, McCain proposed a new, permanent research and development tax credit equal to 10 percent of a company's wages spent on research. He again called for lowering the business income tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent and making permanent the almost $2 trillion in income tax cuts for individuals that Bush pushed through Congress in his first term. McCain opposed those tax cuts when they were proposed and now says that letting them expire on schedule at the end of 2010 would amount to a tax increase.[2]
McCain "offers no change from George Bush's failed policies by going full speed ahead with fiscally irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans," said Bill Burton, a spokesman for Sen. Barack Obama.[13]
Like McCain, Dole had a record of rejecting anti-tax dogmas that drew attacks from the Republican party's anti-tax wing. (Newt Gingrich called Dole the "tax collector for the welfare state.") As an election year ploy, Dole proposed a huge across the board tax cut and chose supply-sider Jack Kemp as his running mate. His stance as a tax cutter never seemed natural, and polls found that voters viewed the whole idea with skepticism. Having secured the Republican nomination, McCain now also seems uncomfortable with the huge tax cuts he proposed months ago, and the campaign seems to be searching for a course correction.[6] " hat's my goal. It has to be our goal, because we'''re mortgaging these young people'''s future," he said in February. Now, McCain'''s advisers are abandoning this tough talk. He also said that if the war and the personal and corporate tax cuts that Mr. McCain advocated added to the federal deficit and debt, so be it.[14] Populist? A tax holiday. It's tokenism. At least he got you to right a lauditory and misleading headline. It's rather difficult to be a populist when you want to cut corporate taxes almost 30%. Hopefully sometime in the future McCain will find a way to pay for these types of promisees. Just cutting out port won't do the job, but - hey - maybe he'll just print more money to pay for everything. It's rather difficult to be a populist when you want to cut corporate taxes almost 30%. Hopefully sometime in the future McCain will find a way to pay for these types of promisees. Just cutting out port won't do the job, but - hey - maybe he'll just print more money to pay for everything.[4] A massive rate cut, enacted without a commitment to take on special-interest tax breaks, simply hemorrhages money to corporations. Another problem with the corporate proposal: letting companies deduct the entire cost of many investments, while also retaining the deduction for interest they pay on their debts, would create a new generation of tax shelters. Companies borrowing money to invest will be able to double-dip, deducting both the full cost of the investment and the interest on the loan. This means they'll get extra tax breaks they can use to shield other income from taxes. That's an invitation for companies to engage in economically useless activity designed to lower their tax payments.[6]
Let's repeal ALL usuary laws. How's McBomb going to pay for the next 4 years of war in Iraq and the new war he wants to start with Iran? More tax cuts ought to stimulate the economy enough to pay the several trillion dollars the wars are costing. That and more loans from Communist China.[10] Raising taxes will hurt the economy.' You may even talk about cutting taxes.' Because cutting taxes, you will tell us, will help the economy. No matter how they dodge that question, I hope they leave the tax cuts in place.' We pay enough taxes now.[18]
FreeMoney -- the gas holiday works out to something like $1 on every 5 gallons of gas. What McCain isn't saying is that the gas tax holiday is really like one of those "pay no interest until January!" type deals. Unfortunately, in the case of McCain's deal, the interest will kick in on this one immediately and won't be paid off until about 50 years from perhaps even much longer from now than that by our country's grandchildren and great-grandchildren with an additional interest penalty of about $3 dollars for every $1 tax dollar deferred. The only way that the kids end up OK is if the currency continues its devaluation relative to the world and inflation continues to outpacing the growth of interest rates. [4] Low-income families will get little or nothing. McCain also suggested a temporary gas tax holiday, to expire before he could become president, that would save drivers some money but drain $11 billion from job-creating investments in crumbling bridges and roads.[7] "But they don't like McCain's gas tax holiday -- they find it foolish and they wonder where McCain would find the money for it." Obviously, he can't be president until 2009, so what he thinks about what should happen in summer 2008 is thoroughly irrelevant. It's a stupid pander that doesn't actually commit him to doing anything.[3]
McCain is not a populist (man of the people type, friend of the poor) but a multi-millionaire Republican who is a trusted friend of the oligarchy who really run the country. His gas tax holiday will cause the gas companies to raise their prices to equal the tax saving and will also add to increased oil use.[4] We should take whatever taxes are lost and charge the oil companies a windfall profits tax to make it up. That would only be a drop in the bucket compared to what Exxon Mobil, Shell, Conoco, and the rest have stolen from our pockets for the last few years, but if McCain is really serious about helping out American workers, he should start by taking back some of that ill-gotten fortune from the oil industry. Mcain is one of the best,the very brave americans neede ast such times.He commands the respect on both sides of the aisle and not oo partisan to get work done.His economic theory loks mature.[4] If you really want to help American businesses jettison our private insurance health care model. One of the biggest sources of weakness in competition vis a vis Europe is the fact that Europeans get a substantially better return on their single-payer health care model than we do with private insurance. Some of these companies pay higher taxes, but those health care taxes are still lower than the skyrocketing health care premiums that employers cover. The problem with McCain's economic policies is that they just continue the Bush approach to economic policy with a skewed distribution of economic growth where the benefits gush upwards -- while simultaneously fueling artificial growth with massive debt spending.[4] McCain economic advisers told reporters in a conference call on Monday that the Arizona senator will make the proposals in a major economic speech in Pittsburgh that will emphasize a conservative point of view toward repairing the U.S. economy. In Washington, McCain said he believes the economy is in a recession, and regardless of the technical term, many Americans are hurting. McCain, accused by his Democratic rivals of lacking a strong understanding of the economy, will give what economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin called a "big and ambitious" speech that will touch on taxes, spending, trade, health care, education and energy issues.[20] Cutting government spending will take money out of the economy and leave us with crumbling roads, bridges, and a lagging education system. 1 - 1 = 0. Sounds like McCain doesn't know much about economics after all if this is his "economic stimulus" plan.[4]
Discretionary spending is a broad term and could include things like health and human services and education. Do Americans really want to freeze those, especially since there's a health care crisis? Of course, military spending is not included; a warmonger like McCain will protect that at all costs. This is where the media could go a better job of analysis. If more people understood what was included in discretionary spending, they might not be so eager to cheer McCain on.[10] I may not like some of McCain's other policies, but with all of the summer travel that I do with my family - this is a proposal with which I can agree. A one year freeze on discretionary spending except the military and veteran's programs? He's not in favor of a G.I. bill and has voted against veterans every single time.[10] In it, aides said McCain will also call for "a pause" in discretionary spending increases to allow for a "top-down review" of all government programs and agencies except veterans benefits and military spending. That proposal also mirrors the freeze in discretionary spending that Bush has had in place for the past several years.[19] On federal spending, Sen. McCain would freeze for one year all discretionary spending except for military and veterans programs. Entitlements such as Social Security wouldn't be affected either.[16]
The one year discretionary spending pause would save $15b a year, and a combination of economic growth and a budgetary scrub of discretionary spending programs would account for the rest, at least through the green eye shades of the McCain economic team.[3]
The idea would cost the federal Highway Trust Fund _ already at risk of going broke next year _ billions of dollars. "That takes $11 billion away from infrastructure spending on roads and bridges, which are badly in need of help as we saw with last summer's bridge collapse," said James Kvaal, domestic policy adviser for the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund, a Washington research group. (EDITORS: BEGIN OPTIONAL TRIM) Holtz-Eakin said money would be taken from general funds to ensure that the Highway Trust Fund didn't run short.[1] "We would put the number closer to $300 billion a year." The key difference between McCain's estimate and the one prepared by the Center for American Progress is that the Arizona senator has estimated that there would be no cost associated with his corporate investment incentives while C.A.P. estimates that it will cost $75 billion per year.[5] The campaign estimates that doubling the dependent exemption would cost about $65 billion annually. McCain's proposed changes to Medicare would require higher-income seniors to pay more in Medicare premiums for their prescription drugs. That plan is estimated by the campaign to save about $400 million dollars each year.[5]
Learn how to maintain seamless business continuity while migrating from traditional voice mail, to unified communications. In his most detailed speech on the economy yet, McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, called for doubling the personal exemption for dependents on income taxes from $3,500 to $7,000, at an annual cost to the Treasury of $65 billion. "The truest measure of prosperity in America is the success and financial security of those who earn wages and meet payrolls in this country," the Arizona senator said. "Many are waiting for their first homes. their first big break. their first shot at financial security. Helping them will be my first priority in setting the economic policies of this nation."[1] Under current law, a host of Bush-era tax reductions are scheduled to expire in 2010. Congress must change the law to make them permanent, at a projected annual cost to the Treasury of $100 billion. McCain reiterated his proposed permanent repeal of the alternative minimum tax, which threatens to ensnare 25 million families.[1] Tax exemptions: McCain, speaking in Pittsburgh, proposed raising the tax exemption for each dependent child from $3,500 to $7,000 at an estimated $65 billion annual cost.[11]
_Lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, yielding $100 billion in lost revenue. McCain's Democratic rivals pounced on his economic plan.[1] "There is no reason why anyone would want to raise taxes," said Holtz-Eakin. "That is the mistake the Democrats are making." He said, McCain's plan would focus on the tax code and offset any revenue loss with cuts in spending.[12] This, my friends, is actually a flip/flop. Though the term is often overused, here I think it shows its original flavor. McCain promised to balance the budget because he's ostensibly a "fiscal conservative". As the reality of "conservative" Voodoo economics takes hold his advisers are at least honest enough to let us know that the pledge has been dropped. He panders to those who appreciate fiscal conservatism and then he drops support when it becomes politically expedient so he can pander to the tax cut and deregulation crowd.[9] One of the best outfits for crunching numbers on who benefits from tax cuts is the group Citizens for Tax Justice. Their name suggests an edge (though I don't think "Justice" implies a bias we should be worried about), but their reputation for purity in how they go about their analysis is stellar. The poorest group of families, those in the bottom fifth of the income scale (average income: $11,300), ended up with less than a hundred bucks from the cuts. Middle-income families, in the $40K range, ended up with about $700; and those at the top end, with an average income of about $1.5 million, well, they came away from the table with $52,000 in tax cuts. Bill Clinton had a better record in this regard. In his first budget, for example, he raised taxes on the wealthy and greatly expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). That's a wage subsidy for low-income workers, but it works as pure income redistribution through the income tax system. This was kind of a Robin Hood moment, in terms of the president's redistribution mode.13 But lest you think this stuff always follows a partisan pattern, note that President Reagan also championed a big boost in the EITC.[17] Full repeal of the AMT would cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years, assuming the extension of Bush's tax cuts.[13] Even if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of 2010, as they are schedule to do under current law, interest payments would continue to cost us about $1.5 trillion during the 2011-2020 period. (This is not included in the $5 trillion cost of extending the tax cuts. These costs should not be written off as some abstract or distant problem.[15]
George W. Bush has many faults, but he deserves credit for this: The man knew how to sell a tax cut for the rich. In his 2000 campaign, he carted out families like Mark and Vicki Skiles of Pleasant Hill, Iowa, who Bush said would get $3000 from his plan. He even gave their kind a name--"tax families"--and after his first tax cut passed, hosted a "tax family reunion" on the White House lawn.[6]
Put the money to work ! The wealthier don't mind to pay a little more if the nation gets something back for the money ! We all live in America. Man, where has this guy been? I've been waiting for a leader of this magnitude, with this sort of vision for America; his strength in the eye of the storm is amazing. Our country is not already in enough debt that McSame wants to drive us even deeper in debt to China by giving tax cuts out like they are candy.[10] The national debt is the number one security risk in America, and every day that the war in Iraq and the Bush tax cuts go on, the more debt we pile up and the less secure our country becomes.[4]
What ever happened to tax increases?' They seem to have vanished. For the last two years we heard a number of politicians promise to raise our taxes.' They vowed to raise taxes on most Americans.' Oh, they did not say 'raise taxes'. They said they would let the Bush tax cuts expire.[18] The dumbest thing we could do would be to rescind Bush's dividend and capital gains tax cuts (see Obama's plan).[4]
McCain proposes "temporarily" cutting the federal gas tax to zero. His proposal calls for the cut to expire, and the tax to be reimposed on Labor Day. (Nice touch, that.)[7] In a speech this morning in Pittsburgh, McCain sought to tap into the growing angst about rising prices, failing mortgages and the loss of jobs, declaring that "millions of working men and women in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and beyond can tell you how urgent is the work before us." To that end, he said government should declare a "gasoline tax holiday" this summer by declining to collect federal gas taxes as a way to lower fuel prices -- a proposal similar to the one backed by GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole in 1996.[4]
In the space of a week, Bob Novak proposed lower payroll taxes; Bill Kristol, higher hedge fund taxes. Without going that far, McCain may well remedy the shortcomings of his existing proposals with broad new tax relief for the middle class, financed by a sweeping initiative against corporate tax loopholes.[6] McCain correctly notes that the United States has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. Actual corporate taxes paid--after all the loopholes, shelters, and special tax breaks--are among the lowest in the world as a share of GDP. A somewhat lower corporate rate makes sense if we clean out these special tax preferences in equal measure.[6]
McCain offered no details about a plan to create a simpler alternative tax system, other than saying it would have two tax rates and a more generous standard deduction, and taxpayers could chose whether to use it or the current system. McCain's friend and former rival for the Republican nomination, Fred D. Thompson, proposed just such a system, with no AMT and a 15 percent tax rate and 25 percent tax rate. Because taxpayers would be allowed to choose whichever system gave them the lowest tax bill, critics estimated that the cost to the Treasury could be in the trillions of dollars.[13] How many Americans make $160K a year or more? Very few. McCain, being a Republican knows the fat cats are out there, so he wants to tax them a bit more, but not very much so the rest of us will pay through the nose.[19] Fiorina said seniors would still be able to choose whether to participate in Medicare "Part D," which provides subsidized drug benefits. Under McCain's proposal, affluent seniors would pay higher premiums than retirees who are less well off when they join. That idea has been part of President Bush's budget submissions for the past two years, and has been greeted coldly by both Congress and the AARP, which complains that it erodes the delicate deal that Republicans brokered in creating the popular prescription drug benefit in 2003. Last October, Bush signaled he would try again, working with Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), who has been a champion of the idea. "I will be looking constantly for ways to put this before the Senate," Ensign said at the time.[19] Grow the deficit? That's an odd phrase. President Bush and his Credit Card Republicans have been running our country on plastic and now the chief economic advisor to John Sydney McCain III says they plan to continue to Borrow & Spend in a McCain presidency.[9]
I like the expensing a lot but I'm not a fan of the R&D; tax credit. Any tax reform with alternative systems means two layers of tax calculations for many people and would probably reduce the tax benefits of raising kids if it's like the House GOP plan that Thompson endorsed earlier. My take: It looks as if McCain has been able to pull together both conservative economic camps with his proposals.[8] As for McCain's economical program: lets face it, most old school military men like Sen. McCain know nuts about economics. He has always been about Vietnam and the term "never surrender". Economics is just about a question mark in his mind. When his deficit and spend budget maths don't add up, hey its not expected. What shouldn't be unexpected as well, though, is that on the basis of overall policy proposals offered by all three, McCain is sure the weakest one, and based on that assessment, he shouldn't be elected as President.[14] McCain's chief economic policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said money would be taken from general funds to ensure that the Highway Trust Fund didn't run short. Its budget deficit is already projected at $500 billion.[11] Now, McCain's top economic adviser is admitting that McCain will essentially run away from the $400 billion budget deficit as president.[14]
Look at our current tax code, and the striking number is the one that came out of the president's tax reform panel. Take a comprehensive measure of the costs of administration, compliance, and economic distortions--it's $140 billion a year. That is a seriously large number, just wasteful.[22] On taxes, Sen. McCain will propose doubling the exemption for dependents from $3,500 per dependent to $7,000. That would cost $65 billion per year, the campaign said.[16]
"What we need is a simpler, a flatter, and a fair tax code.'' McCain blamed the slowdown of the nation's economy in part on bankers and lenders who "forgot some of the basic standards of their own profession,'' leading to the current crisis in housing and credit. He singled out James Cayne, 74, chairman of hobbled securities firm Bear Stearns Cos., and Angelo Mozilo, 69, chief executive of Countrywide Financial Corp., which lost $704 million last year.[2] Currently, upper-income seniors pay higher premiums for the doctor program known as Medicare Part B, but everyone pays the same for prescription drugs. "People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't need their prescriptions underwritten by taxpayers," Sen. McCain said in remarks prepared for delivery. "Those who can afford to buy their own prescription drugs should be expected to do so." Sen. McCain would apply higher premiums to the same wealthier seniors for both programs, specifically, couples earning more than $160,000 per year, or singles who earn more than $80,000.[16] "My administration will change that way of thinking." McCain vowed to "work with every member of Congress -- Republican, Democrat, and Independent" to reform Social Security and Medicare, but he offered few details about how he would do that or what sacrifices might be required. He did suggest that affluent retirees be required to pay higher premiums for the government-sponsored prescription drugs they receive. "People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet don't need their prescriptions underwritten by taxpayers. Those who can afford to buy their own prescription drugs should be expected to do so," he said.[4]
ABC News's Bret Hovell, Tahman Bradley and Teddy Davis Report: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., laid out a strategy to address the struggling U.S. economy Tuesday, proposing to double tax exemptions for dependents, and to ask higher income retirees to pay more for their prescription drugs under Medicare. [5] While originally proposing a balanced budget by 2012, Holtz-Eakin later conceded that McCain's tax plan " will make deficits expand up front." When asked last week about the budget, "McCain did not explain how he plans to balance the budget, but spoke generally about hoping to stimulate the economy," the Times observed.[14] Holtz-Eakin has said that McCain "is by no means done making tax proposals." Even some conservatives are urging McCain to add some populist planks to his tax plan.[6] As Holtz-Eakin himself admitted, McCain's tax plan " will make deficits expand up front, no question."[9]
McCain called for higher tax deductions for children. He repeated his plan for federally backed loans to help some homeowners who face foreclosure. McCain's speech was heavily laced with the populist themes that have become popular this campaign season. He praised "workers and entrepreneurs" and criticized "lobbyists and special pleaders" who toil in Washington. He took special aim at chief executives of failing mortgage companies and other big businesses. "Americans are also right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEOs -- in some cases, the very same CEOs who helped to bring on these market troubles -- bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders," he said.[4] There are virtually no middle-class families who benefit from the tax plan John McCain announced in January.[6] Money magazine reports John McCain proposes to repeal the gas tax to help the middle classes.[6]
Could anything be more counterproductive in 2008 than a "gas tax holiday"? Forget every bit of lip service McCain pays to the subject of global warming. He's a typical Republican, more than happy to encourage gasoline consumption and line the pockets of industry while the planet burns. The Post identifies this bit of irresponsibility as "populist."[4] Lowering federal revenue and its tax base does not help the problem. Can't McCain get the simple fact that we cannot afford the war in Iraq? It's not whether it's right or wrong, left or right, up or down - we can't pay for it. It is making our dollar worth less than toilet paper.[5] Reducing the corporate tax is refried trickle-down (read voodoo) economics. Both these policies are cutting federal revenue from sources that really don't need the relief. McCain proves once again that economics is not his forte.[4]
Meanwhile the gasoline tax that goes into a transportation fund to build and repair roads, bridges, and etc. would cause the transportation fund to have to borrow money from the federal budget to continuing fixing bridges and roads. Yes, our federal deficit would increase to borrow more money from countries like China to fund this tax break. Begging the Rich to pay for their prescriptions is not an economic plan.[10] "Break" from the gas tax for the summer is EXACTLY THE WRONG THING TO DO! The efforts should be on figuring out ways to REDUCE our use of oil, not INCREASE it. It will be at least an $8-10 billion drain on the Federal budget, let alone almost four time that amount for the states. This is a PANDERING move on his part, and it is a terrible suggestion. Maybe he is having more than senior moments, maybe it is more serious than that.[4] To offset that, McCain has identified $60 billion in cuts in the federal budget.[12] The one that is going to be getting attention is if we cut the corporate income tax from 35 percent to 25 percent--which is a competitiveness must--you, in some static sense, lose $100 billion a year ballpark. That's real.[22] A worker with income between $50,000 and $75,000 got an average tax cut from the dividend and capital gains changes of $43. Those with incomes over $1 million saved $37,962 on average, according to the Tax Policy Center.[13] McCain's proposed "middle-class tax cut" -- a full repeal of the alternative minimum tax -- stretched the definition of middle class.[13] Roads, bridges, and levees have been failing across the country. McCain wants to cut a whopping 18 cent tax that was used to fix these things.[10] To give gas tax cuts in a country that is in the massive financial debt we are in, is irresponsible.[4] Ahahhhh! so McWar proposes more tax cuts for the rich, and a 100 year ocupation of Iraque! So, let someone else pay for the folly of this generation!!! There goes the dollar guys.[4] Well, if you don't renew tax cuts you automatically raise taxes. Other politicians actually talked openly of hiking taxes. They said they wanted to tax the rich more and redistribute that money to the ailing middle class.' As well as to the poorer classes.[18] Enactment of these dramatic tax cuts will free up money so employers can start hiring again. It's the best long-term solution.[4]
Principle #3, trade-offs matter, is in play here. You can give tax cuts for people who don't need them, though they really do want them.[17] Lately we have not heard much about tax increases. We have not heard much about letting the Bush cuts expire.' If you go to candidates' web sites you won't find much about this. These days we get promises to repair the economy.' We get promises to rescue people who were conned by mortgage lenders into taking out loans they could not repay.[18]
Senator McCain's position is that there is a role for government, and the primary thing is that you identify government's role and make sure that it does it well. The striking thing that has come out of the campaign is the degree to which the American people have lost trust in their government to pursue genuine national priorities, and there are three instances in which this gets voiced pretty clearly; probably the most vivid is the immigration debate, where people simply did not believe that the federal government. so Senator McCain made it his commitment that he will secure the border and have the governors of the border states certify that it is secure before any other steps on immigration are taken. Earmarks have led to the undeniable perception that Congress is interested in taking care of their friends and not the nation, and have led to political corruption and in some cases criminal corruption. The third is trade. where the perception is that trade deals are no better than earmarks, and that is really troubling and you have to fix that before you do anything else as far as getting the government's role in the economy correct. want it to work, they really do.[22] I live in California. The Economic Laws that McCain is proposing if passed will probably be followed like the McCain Finegold Law; which have been ignored, for convenience, as it appears McCain has done in this campaign. If it came out tomorrow that McCain's preacher was anything like that nut that Osama calls his friend and mentor the Democrats would crucify him. The man is friends with some of the most evil and disgusting people in the world and he's got countless Americans fooled into thinking that he's a great leader. McCain says - Americans are also right to be offended when the extravagant salaries and severance deals of CEOs -- in some cases, the very same CEOs who helped to bring on these market troubles -- bear no relation to the success of the company or the wishes of shareholders," he said.[4]
Clear and Simple. Mr. McCain and all other presidential contenders should be given and asked to try and live just on unemployment income (approx $300 per week) for 3 months without any aid from family and friends, no planes, choppers, cars, etc etc and prove to the American people that he even understands their pain before even coming up with these crazy ideas benefiting their corporate sponsors and donors.[4] "Something is seriously wrong when the American people are left to bear the consequences of reckless corporate conduct, while Mr. Cayne of Bear Stearns, Mr. Mozilo of Countrywide, and others are packed off with another 40 or 50 million for the road." Um - where was the federal govt during all this? Oh yeah, getting rid of any regulations that might have helped control the lenders. Well, gee, too bad McCain wasn't in the Senate where he could have stopped this. oh wait, he WAS a senator and he did nothing to end it.[4]
Unfortunately, a generation of self-identified "fiscal conservatives" have grown up thinking that "tax-cuts" are some universal panacea for all kinds of economic ills. They don't talk about spending -- and when they do -- it's usually increasing spending and increasing bureacracy -- it's just bad policy and it's hypocritical. If people want a 3rd G.W. Bush term they have a great choice in McCain. The differences between him and Bush are entirely linguistic -- in economic and foreign policy they are one and the same.[4] The budget deficit already is projected at $500 billion. "I think we're hearing a lot of promises that may not be viable when the rubber hits the road," said Rudy Penner, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. (EDITORS: END OPTIONAL TRIM) Penner, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, said a grim budget outlook would dampen the spending plans of all three presidential candidates: "Those deficits are going to look awfully big as the new president takes office, and it will be very hard to do what President Bush did. claim the budget balances in 2012, or maybe ever again if you do honest projections."[1] Sense and sensibility. McCain's plan is fantasy- having served both in government & as a government contractor for the past 25 years- it is clear that EVERYTHING except defense spending/security discretionary government spending has been on a starvation budget for years now, starting when Al Gore "reinvented" government. Few government agencies have anything left, & costs are actually going up as many functions have been transferred to "more efficient" private contractors who must add and grow their profits.[4] Earlier this year, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) proposed a deficit-reduction plan in which he would balance the budget by 2012. ''' hat'''s my goal. ''' It has to be our goal, because we'''re mortgaging these young people'''s future,''' he said in February.[14] Now talk about irony. He doesn't see that it is his party who has mortgaged our children's future. I can't see any way that McCain can win this election. With 61% of the people in this country against the occupation of Iraq and 81% think our country is going in the wrong direction, how can he possibly win once people meet the real John McCain, not the mythical creature they are being given by the MSM. It's too bad posts like this never make it out of the blogisphere.[14]
I don't see the problem with having someone just like Bush for another 4 or hopefully 8 years. If Barack Obama wins the election this country is doomed. For the guy who said that McCain should live on unemployment for 3 months, how about you live as a POW for however long it was that he was held against his will? I'm sick of people in this country expecting to have things given to them.[4] Yah - 100 years is hardly "forever," is it, you maverick, you? I'd just like to give your big, chubby jowls a little pinch. Throw out some pocket change, John, and steal it back from somewhere else. (I suggest health care for children - what do they contribute?) You've already got the dimwitted ones doing back flips. Bill from Rochester What could the media POSSIBLY have to gain from hiding those facts about McCain if they were completely true? Are you serious? The media would eat it up because people wouldn't be able to click the headline or buy the paper up fast enough. The reason the "media won't tell you" is because it's complete crap. McCain isn't against the GI Bill, he isn't against veterans, he's against people who use good causes to further personal gain. It's a political move by other politicians to load up bills so that when he votes down the sour half, they can say, "Oh, he must be anti-American."[10]
If you really believe staying in Iraq is a must then PAY FOR IT. Don't give lip service and pass the bill to the next generation. That is NOT leadership. McCain doesn't understand economics, he shouldn't open his mouth like this. but it is an election year. you can't fault him for trying.[4]
Right now the income gap means that for every dollar being made by the working poor and middle class, the wealthy class is making over $150,000 or more. As for earmarks, the truth is that McCain isn't going to do anything as no one else has or ever tried to change this age-old money pit to congressional districts. We have already gotten stuck up bigtime with the double Social Security/Medicare/Health taxes and they will only go up higher if Congress gets hold of them when they should never have been increased to pay into a pot that has been siphoned off to pay for other government debts and bills.[4] McCain proposed doubling the tax exemption for dependents, to $7,000 from $3,500, which could lower taxes on a large swath of the middle class. "Mothers and fathers bear special responsibilities, and the tax code should recognize this," said McCain.[5] Expand the child tax credit is worth $500, for everyone who owes $500 in income taxes." By contrast, he added, "when you expand a deduction or an exclusion, which is what Sen. McCain has done, it's worth much more to people in higher brackets. This is a proposal that is worth more than twice as much to someone earning a million dollars, more than twice as much to Carly Fiorina," "as it would be worth to her secretary."[5] By doubling an exemption rather than a credit, McCain provides far more to taxpayers in higher tax brackets. His proposal provides more than twice the benefit for his CEO advisors ($1,225 per child) than their secretaries with average incomes ($525 per child).[7]
A McCain summer gasoline tax break would mean you save $2.75 per week. This means for the summer driving season from May 31st to September 1st, the average American would save about $35 in total.[10] My fellow Americans, the McCain summer gasoline tax suspension may sound good let's provide a cost-benefit analysis to McCain's gasoline tax.[10]
McCain asking for a tax reduction on the gas tax will ruin our infrastructure. Why doesn't he ask for regulation on the oil companies to drop their gas prices by a commensurate amount? With the oil company profits, this should not be hard.[10] The oil companies still make the same amount of money. Has anyone noticed that McCain might have some buddies in the oil industry? Certainly, the only people served by such a proposal would be those that profit from oil.[3] What a great idea! The highway infrastructure certainly doesn't need the money, and we definitely need to do all we can to consume more oil and encourage people to drive. The guy is brilliant!! And less taxes on the oil companies profits from this too.[4]
Where are the economy IDEAS? How about a winter vacation break also, for heating fuel. How about telling these big oil companies to lower thier profits. These sales tax breaks will not work for new yorkers nor the west coast, becasue we have the highest sales tax for importing fuel into the states.[10] If you ever wondered how Bush got to be President, that's how. This will get rid of the huge federal surplus, and ease the burden of the War Tax the wealthy and the oil companies have been paying.[4]
C.A.P.' s Robert Gordon criticized McCain's doubling of the tax exemption for dependents, saying that it was a less progressive approach than the one pursued by President Bush.[5]
What's the mindless, Republican answer to everything. What's the answer that has the U.S. economy in shambles? Read my lips! No new taxes! Next McCain will attack the "jack-booted thugs" who took children away from their bizarre cult, fundamentalist, bare-foot and pregnant demanding parents. He's looking more and more like a Bush everyday.[4] Democrats accused McCain of offering "nothing new" in the way of cures for an ailing economy. "His answer for people struggling with skyrocketing drug prices is to make some people pay more?" asked Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, after the aides finished a conference call with reporters Monday evening.[19] Not surprisingly, the "friends" of the working man, the Democratic party are opposed to McCain's idea of a three-month gas holiday. Now, I realize that this is a gimmick, but at least it's a highly progressive way to put some money back in people's pockets and to stimulate the economy.[4] McCain's plan will either eliminate money for roads or increase the cost of oil. This is the preview of the types of policies we will get from a man who knows nothing about the economy. It is rhetoric until a plan is put into action.[4] The plan, which was announced at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pa., was billed by McCain'''s campaign as a longer-term strategy for helping Americans hurt by the slowing economy. It comes less than a week after McCain proposed some shorter-term economic goals in a speech in Brooklyn.[5] McCain is throwing the kitchen sink at the economy. I think his plans are a bit scatter shot and sound more like rhetoric than any solid economic plan.[10]
To coincide with John McCain's speech on the economy today, campaign aides Steve Schmidt and Doug Holtz-Eakin, chief economic adviser, held a conference call with reporters to promote the senator's proposals.[12] John McCain's third speech in three weeks on the economy tomorrow will be an opportunity for him to clarify the tone and theme of his fiscal policies. Though McCain did not change his position, he certainly changed his tone, so much so that a a comparison of the two speeches, side by side, is bound to produce some whiplash. Conservatives who praised McCain in March were quick to condemn him in April. McCain's first speech, (3/25) in which he struck a classic modern conservative pose, had this as a most memorable line. I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.[23]
Define "deserving" narrowly enough and it turns out you don't have to do all that much -- but it sounds sort of good till the details emerge. Still, it is a distinctly different approach than the one he proposed a couple of weeks before -- as in fact many people in the press reported. Now John McCain swears he hasn't changed his position, and I'm even willing to believe that he believes that. McCain may well have convinced himself that everything he says is true, even if it is different from what he said yesterday. That doesn't mean the press, even or especially the authors of "reported blogs" need to share that delusion.[23] As Human Events has reminded us, there used to be a guy named John McCain who worried about tax fairness and fiscal responsibility. We're sorry to see him go.[7] OK, I was on the fence, but I definitely won't be voting for McCain now. This gas tax break is a shortsighted move, John.[4] Gas-tax holiday: McCain urged Congress to institute a "gas-tax holiday" by suspending the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day.[11] Can you see the folly here? McCain proposes reducing the federal tax on gas. That means federal funds must come from another source (that source is of course the taxpayers).[3]
McCain made a pitch for free trade and passage of an accord with Colombia that is being held up by the Democratic majority in Congress. He criticized Obama and Clinton for their opposition to such accords, saying they "preach the false virtues of economic isolationism.'' He said there should be a permanent ban on Internet and mobile-phone taxes and said the tax code should be simplified. "It is not enough, however, to make little fixes here and there in the tax code,'' McCain said.[2] McCain wants to repeal the alternative minimum tax, which was designed to ensure that wealthy taxpayers don't escape taxes through deductions and exemptions.[2] McCain flopped on tax breaks to the ultra rich and don't forget reductions in inheritance taxes. I guess elitists figure they should not have to work if daddy leaves them an inheritance.[4]
McCain talks about discretionary spending as being the bogeyman -- I think spending 8 cents of every tax dollar on interest on our national debt is one huge piece of poor.[4] Our reliance on borrowing from abroad to fund out undisciplined spending habits at home is a ticking time bomb. Republicans used to ridicule the Democrats for their inclination to "Tax and Spend", but what do they offer instead? "Don''t Tax, and Spend Somebody Else's Money", leaving our children and grand children with a massive burden of debt which will one day have to be repaid. That's not just bad economic policy, it's immoral.[4] Think of all the folks that will benefit!!! Except, of course, all the folks who drive on roadds and bridges that are in terrible shape or work in the construction industry, which is "fueled" by that tax. His economic policy: the bigger the debt grows, the larger the deficit spending gain, the better.[19]
McCain aides said tonight that the drug benefit changes were part of a desire on the part of the all-but-certain GOP nominee to control government spending. They said the specifics of exactly who would pay more, and how much, would be worked out later. "You could make this as aggressive as you want to get more savings," said Doug Holtz-Eakin, McCain's top policy adviser.[19] Generally, economists worry about the lack of spending restraint by presidents and other elected officials, and government spending has a pretty bad rep. While presidents can hurt the economy by spending too freely, especially when they don't pay for it, the converse is also true. By neglecting productive investments or spending on services that people really want and need, like health care, it's possible to retard growth.[17] If you look at the last full fiscal year, close the books on 2007, we raised 18.8 percent of GDP in and spent a bit more than that, and we ran a modest deficit by postwar standards. You roll the clock forward and you see the spending part of the budget explode, real pressures, and there is no way you can tax enough to meet those pressures--and if you tried, you would do such harm to the economy that it would ultimately fail.[22]
We are spending $341.4 million dollars a day on the war effort, which means a surcharge of $1,721 per person. We will add this cost to your annual tax bill. This surcharge will continue for as long as we stay in Iraq.[4] All Americans must be willing to pay for and sacrifice if we are to succeed in Iraq. We should not place the burden of this war on military families and future generations. Therefore, I am proposing an Iraq tax, a surcharge to be paid by all Americans, to cover the costs waging this war.[4]
Vote McCain and the U.S. deficit (largest deficit on earth)will continue to grow to ultimately bankrupcy! His proposed taxcuts will cost the U.S. government trillions of dollars, continue the war in Iraq will cost trillions more so that will be the end. I'm going to Europe if he wins and start to make euros.[4] McCain's economic speech hews closely to the traditional Republican lines of small government and reliance on the private sector to provide economic growth, plus the war in Iraq, vs the Democratic view that government should play a role in leading the country towards energy independence, healthcare reform + getting out of Iraq.[3] Dr. Paul understands the ravaging force of inflation, fiat monetary systems, uncontrolled credit expansions, supply-side economics, sound currency, and works to pass legislation that favors economic growth. McCain has admitted that he knows very little about economics (which makes sense because he fails to understand that our current recession is linked to our foray into Iraq).[4]
Despite the polls showing McCain running dead-even with Obama, I'd bet anything he gets hammered in November. He has no plan. He complains about pork, lectures his peers about victory and is condescending about his experience, but he has no plan. Obama is labeled the empty suit, but listen to McCain's ideas about foreign policy and economics and tell me if he's talking in anything more than platitudes. It's empty rhetoric and poorly cobbled together ideas from Grover Norquist and Neil Bortz. It's a joke. [7] McCain's plan sounds somewhat like Jimmy Carter's zero based budgeting idea, from back in the seventies. That was also supposed to stop entrenched federal programs from going, and going, and going.[10] The existing student-loan program provides that a state agency be a "lender of last resort," Mr. Holtz-Eakin said. Sen. McCain will propose that the federal government be prepared to fund loans issued by these agencies in case students need to turn there. "By summer's end … millions of college students will be counting on their student loans to come through - and we need to make sure that happens," he said in his remarks. "These young Americans … are among the many citizens whose ability to obtain a loan might be seriously hurt by faraway problems not of their own making."[16] "Senator McCain's position is that there is a role for government, and the primary thing is that you identify government's role and make sure that it does it well," Mr. Holtz-Eakin said. In response to another question about why it was important to get rid of earmarks, he added: "You cannot go to the American people and when they believe someone else is getting theirs on the side.[21]
The Savings & Loan scandal may have made a few people rich by jettisoning transparency in the markets, but at the end of the day tax-payers were stuck with a $120 billion bail out tab for the screw-ups of people like McCain. [4] The focus on the Democratic side is covering everybody. That's a laudable goal, but the reality is even if you were to snap your fingers and cover everybody who was uninsured. and in exchange for their insurance you had them pony up $3,000 apiece, you would raise $150 billion, which is a lot of money, and now everyone would be in the system and given 6 to 8 percent cost growth a year, you would chew up that $150 billion within a year, and now everybody is in and it's getting more and more expensive every year and that is why companies drop insurance and people can't buy insurance.[22] To then bankruptcy of Medicare yes but not to the cost of drugs. Some method of recapturing the tax money spent on basic drug research which is now done primarily by academic and government supported labs which provides the drug companies their new products must be found. This is despite the pharmaceutical industries outrageous squealing about socialism. Few new antibiotics are coming on line because they are by nature used in a limited fashion.[19]
A summer gasoline tax holiday would cost the Treasury roughly $9 billion.[13] The cost: By some estimates, the government would lose about $10 billion in revenue. Its prospects: The plan is likely to face opposition from Congress and states.[11]
Did he mention how he will get the $2 billion a week needed to stay in Iraq? If not then he is all talk and no plans.[4] Let's see, there are alot of McCain haters. Who are all you voting for? Obama, gimme a break, CHANGE, he has no plan to change anything in Washington. He just wants to make history and be the first black president. Granted he is good speaker, but president, no way.[4]
Of course, with 70% of the National Debt having been accumulated under presidents Reagan, GHW Bush, and GW Bush that tool has been rendered worthless. just like the GOP. Yeah, that $2,000,000 we send to inner-city parks and rec departments for programs that keep kids out of gangs and violence, those aren't really all that necessary and should be cut.[10] Ain't gonna' happen. He won't touch defense, and he can't touch interest payments. The Dems won't let him gut the safety net programs. That leaves us 18% of a $3 trillion budget which represents everything else, or about $540 billion. Since we've got about a $500 billion annual deficit (counting the surplus money taken from Soc Sec and Medicare and turned into future obligations. i.e. debt), he'd have to cut over 90% of the non-trust fund, non-defense, non-safety net budget to get it to balance.[3]
Interestingly, simple proposals fly on two wings: exceptions that will chip away at the simplicity and give more to corporate interestes and, a need to cut more social programs to support what is left out. Another republican means to chip away at all that supports the needy.[10]
McCain's second proposal, repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax, sounds good on the surface. Everyone hates the AMT, and McCain describes its elimination as "a tax break for 25 million families." In fact Congress has regularly exempted all but two to three million of those 25 million families.[6] McCain'''s '''simpler'''flatter'''fairer tax code''' would be optional, essentially creating two tax systems. In his speech, McCain described the alternative system as '''a vastly less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction period,''' but numbers for the new system were not available.[10]
I like the increase in the exemption, which will boost the tax relief associated with a typical child to about $2,000 from $1,500 at present. Doing it through a larger exemption is somewhat of a waste as higher-income people get more (their tax rate is higher) and they are the ones not affected by the /Medicare bias against raising children.[8] Let's make sure it is pro-growth and competitive. In 2000, he ran on a march to a flat tax, from the bottom up, and that signals how simple he would like things to be if he could get there. The earmarks are not about the numbers; they are about the message you are sending to the American people. You cannot go to the American people and when they believe someone else is getting theirs on the side.[22]
You also hit the seniors often. Take the tax off of the social security and let people breathe and not have to look at the back of a greeting card to see what it costs before they buy it. I watched my Mother do this and it is very disturbing. Let everyone live out their last years with some dignity.[19] Obama was not, as you and your bosses on Obama campaign tried to make your readers believe, endorsing Thomas Frank's thesis. He was endorsing Herbert Marcuse. If you go with the theory that senators in office can actually accomplish something, you can't say that McCain couldn't do something about gas prices this summer. Unfortunately, his proposal is an obvious campaign ploy aimed at those people who would take a price break on gas at any cost.[3]
Fiorina and Holz-Eakin said McCain will propose greater transparency in government by posting the results of the reviews in "plain and simple English" on the Internet. He will again call for a freeze in adding to the nation's strategic petroleum reserves to ease pressure on gas prices. He will also reiterate his plan to help struggling homeowners by allowing some access to federal mortgage assistance, they said.[19] I especially like that John SIDNEY McCain doesn't have any plan for balancing the budget other than charging high income Medicare recipients for their drugs.[4] Just like Bush. Look where it's gotten us. John McCain shouldn't be allowed in any office where he has any control over public financial policy. He should've been thrown in prison with the other Keating Five.[4] Vote for McSame if you want a second saving and loan collapse. I actually like John McCain, but this newspaper should at least try to paint the picture of objectivity in the news section. It can do whatever it wants in the editorial page, of course.[4]
We can't afford John McCain as President. McCain is a senile old nut, I certainly hope he does not make ir to the White House. To once again see this crotchety old right-wing Republican trot out the GOP's false populism is risible.[4] Deficit reduction also requires a President with a long view. John McCain is none of those things.[14]
John McCain believes that with American optimism and can-do spirit, we can reach out and grab hold of a bigger dream.[4]
McCain aides defended the speech as a comprehensive vision for the country's economy that balances the challenges facing struggling workers with the need to help companies be more competitive and hire more workers. Faced with recent attacks suggesting he is detached from the concerns of average Americans, McCain sought to tap into growing angst about rising prices, failing mortgages and the loss of jobs. He declared that "millions of working men and women in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and beyond can tell you how urgent is the work before us."[13] If you want to deal with entitlements and the broader spending problems, you need to get the high ground. Hillary Clinton says she can manage the economy better than McCain.[22] Unfortunately, the Bush/McCain team cut taxes and increased spending (Iraq) when the economy was hot. Because of this, we can't afford a true "stimulus" package now that the economy has faltered.[4] The Bush/McCain team should have raised taxes and limited spending when the economy was hot, then cut taxes and increased spending when the economy started to falter.[4]
The McCain campaign says that that total would be offset by spending cuts and the elimination of pork barrel spending.[5] To offset lost revenues, McCain offered a grab bag of nonspecific spending cuts.[1]
Spending $120 billion to bail out reckless and corrupt bankers in the 1980s was a form of wasteful spending -- but McCain is inconsistent and uses the term too restrictively.[4] The net loss is $40 billion, and we think we can get 40 more in spending. He believes it can be fixed without raising taxes. If you just do you can fix it over the long haul, and he is perfectly willing to have personal accounts be part of this as long as they are not a substitute for fixing the basic challenges facing the system. When he becomes president, he will ask Congress to do it. He will send them a bill, up-or-down vote, let's go.[22] Investing some of that $3 trillion is another way presidents can affect the economy, often well down the road, by spending money on potentially productivity-enhancing projects that the private sector is unlikely to embrace.[17] Let's commit to getting the economy growing, and the revenue will be there. This is not a revenue problem; this is a spending problem. It's not that complicated. He wants to repeal the. That's about $60 billion in additional revenue losses.[22]
We have $60 billion in discretionary spending that was sourced to earmarks. He believes that should go away.[22]
Some fiscal sanity needs to be brought to the table -- and part of that equation is cutting into that part of the budget called "defense spending" which accounts for close to 50% spending on all tax receipts. [4] No gas tax holiday and instead McBush agrees to repair all the broken highways & bridges.[4] Taxes have already been reduced far below prudent levels, primarily for the ultra-wealthy & for most corporations, which the middle class taxpayers are already unknowingly subsidizing through reduced deductions, tax credits & increases in the AMT. The next president, no matter who or what party, will have little choice but to raise taxes. It is absurd that somebody with any intellect can promise to cut them.[4] Stickety -- lower taxes for corporations to 25% might not be a terrible idea -- especially considering that some companies pay NO taxes aside from the payroll tax.[4] As for the "gas tax holiday" idea -- well, y'all enjoy driving on potholes, unstable bridges and degraded roads; road & highway infrastructure is what that tax pays for.[10]
Picking up the mantle of some of GOP primary opponents, McCain also proposed the creation of an '''alternative tax system''' -- an idea that originated with Steve Forbes''' presidential bid and was picked up again by Rudy Giuliani.[10]
Vote Republican. Borrow so much money that when the Dems get in they don't have money to do anything. It worked with Reagon & Bush I. After all this talk about "bitter," the Gallup daily tracking poll for April 15, reports that Senator Obama has increased his lead over Hillary to 11% points among Democrats nationally, and both lead McCain by 2 points.[4] McCain sounds like he wants to beat all Reagan and Bush records for deficit-building. He wants to prove he's the truest conservative, and building deficits is what conservatives do.[4]
McCain's rivals and Democratic critics pounced on the speech, calling it a rehash of President Bush's economic policies.[13] Voodoo economics only work out when you have a fiscally responsible administration following along to clean up the mess. That's why the house of cards Reagan and Bush I built didn't completely collapse on our heads: Clinton's people and their economic wherewithal were able to bail them out and regenerate the economy. Trouble is, the cycle went a little faster this time around, and instead of being functional after 12 years of mismanagement, the wheels are coming off after only 7. No doubt part of that was Reagan having to fight an opposition Congress, while Bush II has had a free ride down his hill.[4] Jared Bernstein is a senior economist and director of the Living Standards Program at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, DC. A leading authority on issues of labor and income inequality, he frequently testifies on Capitol Hill and advises members of Congress on economic policy. Co-author of eight editions of The State of Working America, he is also the author of All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy. He is a weekly commentator on CNBC and a regular source for media outlets such as NPR and the New York Times.[17] Virginia, presidents do matter when it comes to the economy--in fact, they matter a lot more than most economists like to admit. It's de rigueur to dismiss all the usual presidential bluster on the economy as just that. Presidents do have a way of crowing about how their fingerprints are all over positive economic developments while nowhere near the scene of lousy economic outcomes.[17]
The big story regarding presidents and the economy, however, lies elsewhere, deeply embedded in our power and trade-off principles (#'s 1 and 3). Specifically, where presidents flex their economic muscles is in the nuanced area of setting spending priorities and the resultant redistribution of power, resources, and opportunities.[17] Modern presidents do have a major effect in a few key areas: fiscal stimulus, or giving the economy a jolt when it needs it; setting spending priorities; and good old power dynamics. The first part, what is often called Keynesian stimulus, after the great economist who legitimized such actions, is less common, because, thankfully, we're not usually in recession.[17] Constraining spending is another way in which presidents can influence the economy, for better and for worse.[17]
Invest money more wisely in the U.S. economy for a change. The Interstate Highway Act in the 1950s and the GI Bill were major spending programs, but they also provided a huge return on investment.[4]
The democrats' plans will blow our wad too - more spending. At least, as we're going broke, we'll have some healthcare and we'll be blowing our wad here at home. McCain's short term Medicare 'fixes' do nothing to solve its insolvency in the coming years.[5] Why must the people of this country continue to be looked upon as wanting everything, while McCain feels that it is alright to continue to increase spending in areas that the people do not want.[10] ''''''Discretionary spending''' is a term people throw around a lot in Washington, while actual discretion is seldom exercised,''' McCain said.[10]
How on planet earth these contrived Ronald Reagan musings can be considered "populist" is beyond me. McCain would do well to explain how people in small town America are not bitter, but happy that the good times never "trickled down" to their level 25 years ago.[4] FYI, I make between 40,000 and 50,000 a year. My though is if we're going to give anyone tax breaks than we need to give them to those that have the least among us, not the most. HUH, so we are going to spend approx. 3 TRILLION on a war that can NOT be won. but can not come up with something better than saving 18 cents on gas? That is a whopping 3.00 every time I fill up.[10] Now seems like a good time to start, after a seven year 'tax holiday' for the rich. Let's tax them again to begin getting us back in the black.[4]
Lifting the gas tax is typical Republican energy voodoo. It's time we faced reality and get innovative in confronting our (latest) oil crisis.[10] Good-bye fair and honest media. May your stockholders choke on their devalued dollars. The oil companies will simply adjust their prices up accordingly. Of course, they'll be some excuse. refinery overhaul, some third world conflict, etc,etc. A three month tax holiday simply puts a bandaid on the serious question of extremely high profits of oil companies. Of course, the Republicans don't want the public to ask those questions. The oil companies will simply adjust their prices up accordingly. Of course, they'll be some excuse. refinery overhaul, some third world conflict, etc,etc. A three month tax holiday simply puts a bandaid on the serious question of extremely high profits of oil companies. Of course, the Republicans don't want the public to ask those questions. The oil companies will simply adjust their prices up accordingly. Of course, they'll be some excuse. refinery overhaul, some third world conflict, etc,etc. A three month tax holiday simply puts a bandaid on the serious question of extremely high profits of oil companies. Of course, the Republicans don't want the public to ask those questions.[4] Federal funds will continue to come from the taxpayers or the country will continue to go deeper in debt. The oil companies will continue to make their normal huge profits.[3]
Our gas costs are tethered to a shrinking dollar. Eventually, if the trend continues, oil companies heavy in liquid capital will opt to merge rather than see their personal stock holdings become worthless.[4] You've been suckered, my friend. I remember when Jimmy Carter was President and he was laughed at for pushing energy conservation. The country dumped him and elected Republicans who would shield us from having to confront the real cost of energy. decades later we are fighting wars to protect our oil supplies.[10]
The American Public voted in a President and Vice-President who were ex-oilmen. It's no surprise that gas is now $3.39 gal and oil over $113. a barrel.[4] "Sure, we'll fund the war in Iraq, if you make all of the causes we need to get re-elected part of the deal." When the President vetos, they scream "He's against the American people!!!" And guess what? The DEMOCRATS who control both sides of Congress kept funding the war, and which party looked bad? Not them, that's for sure.[10] If all of that came from wages, then for single people it would take an average wage of $224 an hour to make it into the top one percent, and $722 an hour to become an average member. For two-earner couples with both spouses working full time, it would take an average wage for each spouse of $112 an hour to get into the top one percent and $361 an hour each to be an average member of the top one percent. However unlikely it may be, membership in this elite club is something many Americans believe to be a realistic prospect. According to a 2000 opinion poll, some 19 percent of us believed we were already members of the top one percent, while another 20 percent said they expected to get there someday.[15] How about a "public transportation holiday" where all rides on commuter buses and trains are free? Oh yeah, that would be a "wasteful government subsidy." All this talk about wanting something for free is pitiful. Agreed, some Americans need to get up off their asses and work for a living. If you don't have an education, you gotta do what you gotta do and if it's earning $3.50 per hour, so be it.[4]
" Bill Gates and Warren Buffett don't need their prescriptions underwritten by taxpayers,'' he said. To ease the burden of energy costs, he proposed a "gas-tax holiday,'' scrapping the 18.4 cents-per-gallon federal levy from Memorial Day to Labor Day this year. Similar proposals from other lawmakers in the past never made it through Congress. He also said the government should suspend purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to ease pressure on supplies.[2]
I think a better Idea is to crack down on medical establishments and insurance co. That over charges the poor and needy. I think it's sick and if The medical establishments made health care more affordable then many people won't be in the mess they are in financially. It's sick for people to give up nessessites Just so they can get prescriptiions. I know they are working on it. Having wealthier people pay more for their part D insurance has no relevance to the cost of drugs.[19] Broad and simple ideas, no details, a bone for the people, and all temporary. How can anyone call this a plan? A freeze can't happen with the trading treaties we have and the money we have borrowed from China. This is an election proposal and nothing but an attention getter.[10] Plus all of the corporations funnel all the money out of the country. It is a losing propostion not only for our country but for theirs as well. Of course, the only winner in this game is the Big Corporations, like that is major surprise. Another case of how can we stick it to the little guy without him knowing. At the rate of job loses no one in this country will be able to afford buying the products that they are selling.[14]
Eliminate all forms of personal income & property tax and have only corporate tax with no loopholes.[4] Hey Pam, Ron Paul wants to abolish the IRS like all the other elitist income tax haters, (Hukabee & even Gravel too for some reason). I did think I heard Ron talk about how great he thought the 'fair tax' was somewhere, but that brain fart has been around longer than any presidential candidates have been talking about it.[15] Former Bush economist Greg Mankiw says a carbon tax would be far simpler and transparent. The carbon tax is never going to look like anything that Greg Mankiw draws up in his blog. It will be a real-world carbon tax, which will have the same complexities and issues that a cap-and-trade system does.[22] One candidate promises tax relief 'for 150 million workers'. Says the Bush tax cuts were not enough for them.[18] Smacks of Bush tax cuts for the rich, which McPops also wants to keep. These are bones to be thrown at the voter.[4] Democrats complained--correctly--that the families disguised the Bush tax cuts' overall tilt to the wealthy.[6] And, in fact, later Bush tax cuts that occurred outside of recession had other rationales.[17]
I'll be quite frank, nothing would give me more joy than to see massive tax cuts followed by massive cuts to our education system. On large scales, it's a total flop. Why don't you ask yourself why such a large number of jobs that require technical competence are filled by foreigners.[4] Now we even get some promises of tax cuts for 'working Americans'.' Tax cuts!' From the folks who just a few months ago cursed the tax cuts we already have.[18] Tax cuts, followed by tax cuts, and if that doesn't work, some more tax cuts.[4]
Give Michael Shear a break. The idiots on cable news are saying he's gonna cut the price of gas by 20% because the tax is 18-19 cents a gallon.[4] Think about it, the more money that is taken out of the private sector, the less money the public has to spend and the less money business has to hire new workers. In fact. if the Obama or Hillary gets their way and taxes go up, corporations will leave and take the jobs with them, small business will have to cut expenses and lay off people and the folks will have less to spend and business will have to cut back even more.[5] Now that's an inspired idea cut federeal taxes on gasoline -- which is 18.4 cents a gallon. Which means that anytime anyone filled their 20 gallon tank they would save $3.68.[4]
Bush doubled the child tax credit, providing $500 to every taxpayer with any at least that much tax liability. [7] Wow, that gas tax repeal will do wonders here in California where we're paying $4 a gallon.[4] As oil reaches $115.00 United States dollars, I doubt tax rebates will stretch too far into the summer.[4] Of the 4 million taxpayers paying the AMT, 93 percent earn between $200,000 and $1 million, according to the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.[13]
Not middle-class families. McCain's January plan is such a dud, both politically and on the policy merits, that he will begin rewriting it in the speech on economics he plans to deliver in Pittsburgh at noon today.[6] "Economic policy is not just some academic exercise, and we in Washington are not just passive spectators,'' McCain said at Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh.[2]
If John Sidney McCain III is elected and his chief economic adviser is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, America is screwed.[14] The candidate's chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said the plan wouldn't add to deficits because it would close "loopholes,'' reduce government spending and bring in revenue by charging affluent senior citizens more for prescription drugs.[2] The U.S. government does not have a revenue problem it has a spending problem with the bulk of the money going to Federal workers, contractor, politicians and yes a lot of corrupt Rezko types.[5] What's the solution? Stop spending so much money from a government level - I'm not talking about just "pork" or "discretionary" funds. Listen to the head of the GAO - even if you eliminate these things completely we'll still go broke.[5]
Even the Presidency of Jimmy Carter showed more fiscal constraint than the Presidencies of Reagan or either Bush. Bush has reigned over the largest increase in government including both discretional funds and military spending. He has mortgaged this country to our grandchildren since he is unwilling to make any sacrifices today.[9] You can funnel spending projects to your friends. No politician is blameless in this game, but just to take a pointed example from current events, let's look at the George W. Bush record.[17]
George H. W. Bush turned the peace divided into a recession. George W. Bush has married those two ideas together and now McCain's senior advisors are promising more of the same.[14] McCain needs to run his economic ideas by Ron Paul to see if they make good fiscal sense.[5] Some politicians never learn. At least McCain was being honest when he said he didn't really understand economics. His policies have been an absolute disaster for ordinary Americans.[4] "Something is seriously wrong when the American people are left to bear the consequences of reckless corporate conduct, while Mr. Cayne of Bear Stearns, Mr. Mozilo of Countrywide, and others are packed off with another forty- or fifty million for the road,'' McCain said.[2] The real question is what will be effective regulation of financial markets going forward. Senator McCain is a very practical person and he likes to get things done, and so his approach, for example, on the mortgage crisis has been fundamentally pragmatic: Let's target the assistance. You don't want to have some poor American taxpayer reach into their pocket and help someone who was just flipping houses in California. When we do this, let's do it in a way that helps us not return here again. Both lenders and borrowers should have to give up a little bit to get some taxpayer help. I like to think that the debate has come where he is.[22] Sensible regulation also makes sense. The problem with people like McCain is that he creates catastrophes.[4]
There is a six month lag from field prices to pump so guess what, gasolene will be very expensive just in time for the elections. I doubt McCain ever had an orginal idea in his life. Maybe he should "punch out" while he is ahead. This is just another temporary fix for the short-term not addressing these problems like a real Rhodes Scholar, Economist and Diplomat.[4] I hope McCain loses just for that dumb idea and we'd have no federal funds for highway repairs left.[4] President McCain will expand the federal deficit while Vice President Romney will contract it. When things come to a head, McCain's temper will flair up and he'll beat up Romney and call Anne a c^nt.[9]
Remember, McCain strongly opposed the Clinton health care plans proposed in the early 1990s. If they had passed, we'd all be a lot better off, but McCain and his corrupt Republican buddies opposed them so they died.[19] From NBC/NJ's Adam Aigner-Treworgy PITTSBURGH -- Revisiting a topic that has been a source of criticism for him throughout this campaign, McCain spoke at Carnegie Mellon University here this morning and laid out his plan for the future of the economy.[10] Any proposes by McCain may not latter be adhered to by McCain and may not be taken seriously. McCain supported GWBush's corrupt Medicare drug plan enthusiastically, but now he wants some changes, but the changes are cosmetic.[19] Please email us to report offensive comments. "Affluent retirees should be required to pay higher premiums for the government-sponsored prescription drugs they receive" -- that does it -- I am not voting for John SIDNEY McCain now.[4] You think three wars is too many? Unlike some, John McCain is not a man who sells America short.[4] Veterans, don't be fooled. John McCain is not your friend. the media will not tell you this.[10] Get used to hearing "Independent" John McCain. If he tries to run on what he said, he will get hammered.[7]
Let me see if I understand -- mccain is proposing following the same bush policies that created the economic disaster as the cure for the economic disaster. [4] The Bush and Reagan years have shown that supply side economics does not lead to balanced budgets.[4] More Republican "fuzzy math". He'll promise the moon and the stars, and it will be 4 more years of borrow and spend. That's the Republican way. Look at this pie chart showing where the budget goes. Soc Sec and Medicare are cash flow positive today, so touching those so he can "borrow" more of their revenues for the general budget would be nothing more than an added tax on the middle class.[3] Instill greater budget discipline -- including a draw down in Iraq which is eating up a huge chunk of tax revenue -- not one cent of which has been paid yet.[4]
Just showing support for the most simple and best tax plan presented to the U.S. congress. Except that the topic of this thread has to do with the federal budget deficit and the national debt, which your little tax plan will do nothing to alleviate. Therefore, you are off-topic.[9] Just showing support for the most simple and best tax plan presented to the U.S. congress. Yeah, it's almost like you have an agenda.[9] The U.S. has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate. That is fact, just like the sky is blue.[4] Anybody who knows a thing about economics realizes that our corporate tax rate is terrible for business and forces jobs overseas.[4]
_Introduce a simpler tax code that Americans could opt into, with only two tax rates and a "generous" _ though unspecified _ standard deduction.[1]
McCain's second speech, widely seen as more. human. was written with the major contribution of chief policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. There is nothing more important than keeping alive the American dream to own your home, and priority number one is to keep well meaning, deserving home owners who are facing foreclosure in their homes.[23] '''I would like the next president not to talk about deficit reduction,''' Mr. Holtz-Eakin said, "until after he's elected. Then he can tell the American people to buzz off."[14] '''I would like the next president not to talk about deficit reduction,''' Mr. Holtz-Eakin '''The next president should talk about what'''s good for American families - opening our borders to trade. Not only have we lost millions of jobs from this, the countries that we plunder are hurt. We go into these countries, the workers are paid sub-standard wages, they end up being worse off than when we came there.[14]
" I would like the next president not to talk about deficit reduction," Mr. Holtz-Eakin said at a symposium sponsored by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.[14]
Let me hit you with what I consider a pretty big number: $3 trillion. That's just about the size of the most recent U.S federal budget, and it amounts to about a fifth of the economy.[17]
Let's raise taxes, reduce profits and jobs, run the economy into the gutter, and then we can default on all foreign debt - yeah that's it, that's the alternative.[4] Ah good, another politician who is planning on selling out younger generations in order to buy votes from selfish or stupid adults. Someone who, despite his proclaimed conservatism and pro-environmentalism, is willing to reduce taxes while maintaining an absurd level of spending thus creating more and more debt, much of which will make us indebted to'strategic competitors' like China.[4] The plan is centered around a one-year freeze in discretionary spending -- with the exception of military and veterans programs -- to allow for a '''top-to-bottom review of the effectiveness of federal programs.'''[10] In addition to reduction in spending revenues, have to increase restoring the value of the dollar, remember our deficits ? At the same time real economic growth (and not war time profits that do not contribute to the GDP) will provide revenues if One-Percenters are not heavily favored for political gains.[4]
John needs a fiscally responsible plan. "BITTER what is he talking about racist grammom what is he talking about typical white people what is he talking about,proud of america for the first time what?????? " Pretty articulate for a republican.[10] The republicans have been the party of IDEAS for the last 15 years or so." BARACK OBAMA. What was he talking about.BITTER what is he talking about racist grammom what is he talking about typical white people what is he talking about,proud of america for the first time what?????? kenn (Sent Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:34 PM) Well, aren't you just a precious little ball of hate.[10]
The one reason I like the Fair tax idea is that those that are truly a giant leech on our system end up paying something. [5] "As tax breaks for families go, a highly regressive tax break," said Gordon. "It compares unfavorably with President Bush's expansion of the child tax credit.[5] When President Bush's tax commission proposed allowing immediate expensing, it also found it necessary to repeal the deduction for interest, to avoid exactly that scenario.[6]
This will be a good incentive for oil to raise their prices. How is this. [4] What a sleazy bribe the gas tax holiday is. Surely King Abdullah has agreed to pump a little harder for the GOP this summer anyway.[4]
Eliminating the gas tax will either require not paying for roads or borrowing more money.[4] If I was not willing to HELP, I would not be so quick to condemn IDIOTIC Stunts like Redoing Bad debtors Loans with Government Money, Instead of making Mid-Term Loans to catch up on payments while selling, or idiotic garbage like trimming the few Pennies on Multi-Dollar/Gallon Gas needed for Roadways.[4] Yes I guess if someone has a retirement of $160,000 a year it is alright but why not add the senators and government officials to it. It just seems like it is like penalizing just one group that was successful.[19] We can't spend $400 billion a year on imported oil and finance Hugo Chávez. so let's get serious.[22] Twenty years later thanks to an opaque regulatory framework for the banking sector we are once again looking at YET another tax-payer funded bailout of reckless business interests to the tune of another $100 to $200 billion of tax-payer funded handouts.[4] Well, paying $400 billion a year in interest on the existing debt isn't causing enough pain.[14] At 3-5% interest the American taxpayers are paying 300-500 billion dollars each year to just pay off the interest on the debt.[6]
Right now Americans are not paying for the Iraq war. We are borrowing money from foreign countries to pay for it, placing the burden on future generations to ultimately pay for this war. I believe this wrong.[4] Good job McCain. Ending the Iraq War wouldn't enter his mind - he's got his legend to finish.[10]
Newsweek'''s Daniel Gross noted, '''McCain'''s fiscal program is either a joke or a fantasy.''' Like McCain, his fiscal program is a nightmare.[14] Observing how McCain's budget numbers simply don’t add up, Newsweek's Daniel Gross noted, "McCain's fiscal program is either a joke or a fantasy."[14]
McCain is turning out to be a McBush in every way, DAH. Looks like the Corporate Campaign Contributions have now started pouring in. [4] In March, McCain says clearly no government assistance except to prevent (sic) systematic risk to the banking system.[23] In substance, McCain's current plan represents reasonable ideas given unreasonable form.[6] McCain's drug proposal is one part of a broader speech that aides described as "big and ambitious." He will deliver it at Carnegie Mellon University this morning.[19] Yeah-By the proposal Mitt Romney suggested that eliminates Capital Gains Taxes on Income Earners of less than $300,000.[4] You can count on some economic feedback, some 30 percent. That gets you to $60 billion.[22] We can just borrow more money from China to make up the $10 billion short fall.[4]
I know every $3.68 helps, but assuming The average vehicles travels about 15,000 miles per year and gets an avarage of 15 mph that about 50 tanks of gas which totals about $184.00.[4] PS. The last day of the Clinton Administration the price of gas was $1.49 gal. and oil was $39 a barrel.[4] Maybe if the Liberal tree huggers would get out of the way and allow us to drill for oil in Alaska we wouldn't be paying $4 for a gallon of gas. Instead they find it more important to protect the precious muskox or whatever it is they don't want harmed.[4]
We are getting less oil for our dollar. Maybe a no brainer for those of us that pump our own gasolene into the tank. We are not all priveledged to ride in the backseat like Dick what's his name. [4] This will go over like a lead balloon, right now he is getting a free ride since Obama and Clinton are tearing each other apart, but promises of doubling down on Bush's disastrous handling of the economy will collapse come the summer. Saying Bush did not go far enough to help the rich is so ludicrous on its face I am sure he is just doing it to pacify the right wing so when he drifts left he will say to them he doesn't really mean it, and point to this garbage as evidence.[7]
Unions, healthcare, worker pay, corporations paying their way not on welfare, workplace safety, housing costs, misleading advertising, our ecology, sustainability, & PEACE. Cap, cut or even end entitlement programs such as Social Security, Military pensions and benefits, Medicaid and other vital services, services that are wanted and paid for by taxpayers, ok so far. [4] Cut off funding for everything except the war, the one thing that 80% of the country wants to stop? Wow, that takes "out of touch" to a whole new level.[10]
My friends, I truly believe that we must succeed in Iraq if the United States is to be free from terrorism. This is not a short-term commitment; it is one that will last for many years. I also believe that this commitment should not only be borne by the military families, who so bravely defend our country, but by all citizens.[4]
'''The next president should talk about what'''s good for American families ''' education, health care at reasonable costs, pensions that are secure, opening our borders to trade. [14]
SOURCES
1. McCain economic plan offers goodies to middle class
2. Bloomberg.com: Worldwide
3. Marc Ambinder (April 15, 2008) - McCain's Economy: Where Will The Money Come From?
4. McCain Offers Populist Message, Corporate Tax Cuts | The Trail | washingtonpost.com
5. Political Radar: McCain Fleshes Out Tax Proposals
6. Johnny-Come-Lately
7. THE NEW REPUBLIC | Blogs
8. Look for the Media to Attack McCain Tax Plan - Capital Commerce (usnews.com)
9. Think Progress
10. McCain unveils his economic plan - First Read - msnbc.com
11. McCain offers to put brakes on gas tax this summer
12. McCain Conference Call - Real Clear Politics - Elections 2008 - TIME
13. McCain's Plan for Working Class Offers Plenty for Corporate World - washingtonpost.com
14. Think Progress
15. MotherJones Blog: Happy Tax Day to The Richest One Percent!
16. McCain Economic Plan To Show a Mixed Approach - WSJ.com
17. Presidential Power To Influence the Economy
18. The Evening Sun | What ever happened to tax increases?
19. McCain Proposes Medicare Drug Benefit Changes | The Trail | washingtonpost.com
20. McCain would hike drug costs for wealthy Americans | Politics | Reuters
21. Campaign U.: McCain's Economic Adviser Says Earmarks Erode PublicTrust - Chronicle.com
22. A Q&A; With McCain Adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin - Capital Commerce (usnews.com)
23. Marc Ambinder (April 14, 2008) - Which McCain Will Talk Money Tomorrow?
GENERATE A MULTI-SOURCE SUMMARY ON THIS SUBJECT:
Please WAIT 10-20 sec for the new window to open...
You might want to EDIT the default search query below:
Get more info on McCain's Plan for Working Class Offers Plenty for Corporate World by using the iResearch Reporter tool from Power Text Solutions.
 |
|  |
|
