Print
E-mail
Share
digg
Newsvine
Facebook
Stumble
Technorati
reddit
Fark
twitterBeneath the primary’s ‘anti-tax victories’
Friday, Aug. 15, 2008 | 2:01 a.m.
The cry has gone out across the land, at least on the right side of the map: The conservative, anti-tax movement is ascendant in the Nevada GOP.
Tuesday’s erasure of three Republican assemblymen has the right wing soaring, with declarations that anyone who doesn’t hew to the anti-tax orthodoxy will crash and burn. But has anyone stopped to consider that these just might be flights of fancy?
Before the conservative editorialists, bloggers and politicians whip themselves into a frenzy, allow some facts to get in the way of their good story.
Francis Allen, Bob Beers and John Marvel lost for very different reasons in very different districts and anti-tax mania is responsible for only a part of their defeats. State Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio, arguably as moderate or more so than those three, survived despite having voted for the largest tax increase in history, despite being challenged by a well-known anti-tax movement leader (Sharron Angle) and despite having been endorsed by the bete noire of the right, the state teachers union.
In politics, as in life, things rarely are as simple as they look. Concluding that trio lost because they were not anti-tax enough is the same kind of one-dimensional thinking that might lead a tunnel-vision-impaired leftie to believe that Gov. Jim Gibbons, whose policy vocabulary contains three words, has a 30 percent approval rating because all he can say is “no new taxes.” There might be, ahem, a few other reasons.
Each Assembly race had its own dynamic.
Yes, Marvel also voted for that 2003 tax increase, so the tax issue was a significant factor in his loss. But his opponent, Don Gustavson, is a former assemblyman who benefited from running against a man who had served three decades in the year that term limits became a huge issue. And by focusing on the populous urban area of the district, Gustavson was able to pummel Marvel outside his base.
So now Marvel’s entire career is tarnished because a one-note candidate, a former backbencher who makes Angle look like Margaret Thatcher, erases all of his good works. Perhaps he should have retired voluntarily, but it is sad nonetheless.
In the two races down here, Allen and Beers were done in less by not passing any conservative litmus test than they were by their own amplified idiosyncrasies. Neither Allen nor Beers had much support, outside of boilerplate rhetoric, from the party’s leaders, who implicitly condoned insiders helping the challengers.
Allen was beset by problems, most of them self-inflicted, including that sensational fracas with her husband. Beers was a classic accident of history, a man who used the familiar name of a state senator to win office two years ago and then proceeded to marginalize himself upon his arrival in Carson City.
Another factor that can’t be ignored is that the turnout was so low Tuesday that to draw any conclusions applicable to the general election is silly. Do I believe that 20 percent or so of GOP voters care only about a no-tax pledge and are led like sheep to the polls if the mail and robocalls tell them what to do? Sure. Just as a small percentage of the extreme left is narrow-minded and easy to motivate.
But it is the inflexible and ideological voters who turn out in primaries, and they ended the political lives of Marvel, Allen and Beers. The only way to combat that phenomenon is money, which explains why Raggio survived against Angle, who is a former assemblywoman, erstwhile congressional hopeful and property tax revolt leader. Raggio raised 10 times as much campaign cash as Angle and that allowed him to retain Billy Rogers’ microtargeting operation, which drove up turnout and saved him.
Nevertheless, we did have to witness the grotesquerie of a legendary legislator begging for votes by declaring he won’t raise taxes — the same man who said he would never sign silly no-tax pledges. That goes to show that a minority, if vocal, can scare anyone, especially in unpredictable primaries.
The general election, though, is a different animal. The turnout likely will quintuple with the presidential race driving voters to the polls and diluting the impact of those who ousted the Assembly trio. That doesn’t mean the extremes on either side can be ignored, but they will not be the dominant part of the electorate, as they were Tuesday.
Most voters are less susceptible to button-pushing than those who cast ballots this week, so I am sure candidates will provide more thoughtful solutions for a state in crisis when they campaign during the next 80 days. Or is that just a flight of fancy, too?
Discussion: 53 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Live Blog: Pacquiao wins by TKO in round twelve
- Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Manny Pacquiao: The only fight fans want to see
- Police seek man who stole $2,000 worth of clothing
- Bruised and battered, Cotto says he will fight again
- Boulder City struggles with shocking allegations
- Ensign Federal Credit Union fails
- Live game blog: Rebels open season with 91-52 victory against Pittsburg State
- Construction goes bust, equipment goes on auction block
- Temperatures plunge in Las Vegas
- At halfway point, NFL is all about the quick change
Blogs
The Greene Room
MWC Winners and Losers: Week 11
Elsewhere
Dana White continues to push for event in Abu Dhabi
Politics: Ralston's Flash
Harry Reid is powerful for Northern Nevada, too!
The Kats Report
New face of Monte Carlo includes all the faces of Caliendo
The Greene Room
Predicting this weekend's Mountain West football slate (2 Comments)
Top Chef: Las Vegas
Top Chef Episode 11: Child's play
Miech Again
UNLV prez Smatresk is ready for some basketball (14 Comments)
Calendar »
- 16 Mon
- 17 Tue
- 18 Wed
- 19 Thu
- 20 Fri
-
Actor's Expo at Rave Motion Pictures
Rave Motion Pictures Town Square 18 | 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.
-
Lily Tomlin at the Hollywood Theatre
Hollywood Theatre at MGM Grand
-
Neil Sedaka at the Orleans
Orleans Hotel-Casino
-
Supernatural Santana – A Trip Through the Hits at The Joint
The Joint
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
Jon - If the anti-taxers cut enough, could the state fall so far behind in federal benchmarks — miss SO many federal standards for performance in education, health care, whatever — that it risks a takeover by D.C.?
If so, what a great legacy that would be for Jim Gibbons and Chuck Muth!
Nevada is ranked at the bottom of getting Federal tax dollars for k-12 education.
We get half of what New Mexico gets.
We would be nice if Reid could do something about that.
Nevada is ranked 21st in the nation in getting state tax revenue for k-12 education.
But that would mean we would be gorging on federal tax dollars.
I thought you were against that sort of thing.
Are you turning into a closet Democrat, nance?
Liberal Massachusetts has a ballot measure from the citizens this year to abolish the state income tax. Even in Mass, home of tax them hard Ted Kennedy the taxpayers have said NO MORE. The only way to stop the spending is to stop the income. Elected officials all have a special project they think will get them re elected and trade projects around until we pay for them all. Only one Senator has never asked for an earmark, John McCain. Only one Senator requested over a Billion in earmarks in 2 years, Sen. Obama. Who do you trust with our money?
People complain like every two seconds that we are rank on the bottom of spending on k-12 education.
The problem is not state tax dollars (21st in nation) but the lack of federal dollars (51st in the nation).
We get less than 50% of our sister state New Mexico.
That is no where near Nevada's fair share.
Yes, in the real world thre is this game of collecting taxes shipping them to DC and then try to get them back to Nevada.
It seems Reid spends a lot of time on MoveOn.org issues and not Nevada's needs.
One thing is clear: Nance supports millions or even billions in new earmarks. While Obama and McCain will struggle to constrain earmarks, Nance is arguing in favor of more of them.
Seems awfully hypocritical to whine about the deficit while simultaneously supporting earmarks for more spending.
Nance doesn't want accountability in schools, he wants to raise taxes so that Nevada gets even more money, even though are test scores are far from the best in the nation.
Nance thinks throwing money at the problem will help. Without accountability, the earmarks Nance supports won't do any good.
Nance supports more money to Nevada for schools, which will be used to pay for teachers' salaries, and those evil unions. Nance wants more money for the unions.
neiman1: John McCain has definitely requested, supported and voted for earmarks.
Keep drinking the kool-aid.
So let's take a look at the earmarks Obama has supported, shall we?
$5 million to the Illinois Red Cross for disaster preparedness
$1.75 million to Benedictine University for a First Responder Program
$500,000 for the Children's Advocacy Center's child abuse support services
$3 million for a Children's Memorial Hospital Intensive Care Unit
$1 million for a law enforcement communication system
$65 million to Metra, to expand and improve service, the largest commuter rail system in the country (more public transportation = less oil)
Clearly, his priorities are atrocious! Supporting intensive care facilities for children? Law enforcement communication systems and first responder programs? Disaster preparedness?
No, I think he should be supporting more tax breaks for oil companies like John McCain. Clearly, that's a higher priority!
Did not Obama vote for Bush's Energy bill that included tax breaks for oil companies?
From a request dated October 9, 1992
"Accordingly, I would like to request that EPA either reprogram $5 million out of existing funds, or earmark the amount from an appropriate account, to meet wastewater treatment needs at the Nogales plant."
"Sincerely, John McCain."
Yeah, McCain's NEVER requested earmarks.
Our state budget was in crisis mode. We cut deep into all budgets but one budget.....the Unions got their 4% COLA.
Most state workers got betwen 6% and 10% raise...some got over 10% raises.
The Democrats have the Unions for their master.....not the taxpayers.
So you are confused, then? Because you're simultaneously demanding earmarks for education, which would also fund the unions, and criticizing the state for giving more money to the teachers, which would also give more money for the unions.
I never pegged your for a huge union supporter, Nance... but your rhetoric proves otherwise.
When all 435 congressmen just ask for a few million and each of 100 senators just want a couple billion. Pretty quick we are talking about some REAL money and we are borrowing it all from China and MidEast. NO earmarks and NO more money for foreign oil when we could have our own if Congress would just get out of the way
I guess Democrats are OK with being 51st in getting Federals dollars for K-12.
Two thumbs up for Democrats......they rather raise tax Nevada business then trying to get Nevada's fair share of Federal K-12 Education spending.
Also, Democrats choose union pay raises over the rest of the budget and taxpayers.
"Reasons for Nevada being a donor state in terms of federal funding might have more to do with 87 percent of the land being in federal control and the state's rapid population growth rather than the ability of the congressional delegation to bring home the bucks."
"A Tax Foundation report released last year showed Nevada received only 73 cents in federal spending for every dollar that its residents paid in federal income taxes, based on 2004 numbers. Foundation officials cited the federal ownership issue as one reason for Nevada's ranking, along with a high per capita income."
"Other reasons cited for Nevada's ranking include a low rate of obtaining federal grant funding and the fact that federal funds often come in the form of retiree benefits that states cannot control."
"The ranking is not new. Nevada has typically come in at the low end of the states for various reasons, officials said."
Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about.
And wait, now you're against the union again, when you were just arguing an hour or so ago that you were pro-union.
At this rate, you're on course to out-flip flop McCain by next year. Not an easy task, as you know.
thebs,
Nance obviously loves government spending. But like most Republicans, he prefers to further inflate the national debt and make future generations pay for it.
I guess you are right...Reid being the second most powerful Democrat means absolutely nothing in DC.
The only Reids that get anyting done in DC are the lobbyists Reids that millions each year.
You are also right about increasing education spending in Nevada. If we did get Nevada's fair share of Federal K-12 spending then it would go right into the Union member's pockets.
Is that why McCain's "Wealthy First" lopsided tax policy is going to raise the national debt to 5 trillion?
You may be onto something, Anonymous Guy!
Obama capital gain tax increases will inflict harm on businesses trying to raise investment money to generate jobs in Las Vegas.
So you would rather borrow trillions more from China and Dubai?
Are you always complaining about buying "foreign oil?"
What's the difference?
You can reduce the size of the government.
I am sure that Obama is not working on doing that.
He promises this new program, promises new program and using the same tax increases to fund all them over and over over again.
His so called, "Health savings" money has been laughed by all in the industry.
The national debt will be 50% higher with John McCain as President than with Obama.
You're against foreign oil to put in our cars, but not foreign funding for our government?
I guess you're happy to sit back and watch China, Dubai and Saudi Arabia buy up the U.S.
That's the Republicans' plan: finance trillions more in deficit spending and more wars with foreign money.
This is where, if I were a Republican, I'd question your patriotism.
Four legs good, two legs bad!
Four legs good, two legs bad!
I think it is obvious John McCain's tax plan is unfair.
He saves the biggest savings for the wealthy, and offers next to nothing for working families.
And if his tax laws increase our debt even more, I doubt our children will ever be able to recover.
We have had eight years of awful fiscal policy from the republicans. We can't afford four more!
The conservatives are only conservative at saying NO! No taxes, but more spending!
No taxes, but more wars!
If we choose to give John McCain the national credit card, it nearly ensures our bankruptcy!
What kind of business leader would increase spending without regard to revenue?
I guess that's why the republicans aren't very enthusiastic about voting for McCain.
Sorry, thebs! Just in case you thought otherwise, my Orwellian reference wasn't aimed at you. :)
Obama health care plan will drown us in debt because his so called "health care savings" is so bogus that the experts think it is the biggest joke ever.
Good thing George W. Bush left us in such great financial shape. Otherwise we'd really be in trouble once Obama takes office, huh?
It's fun to watch Nance scramble and try to change the subject when he knows he's losing the argument.
"Um, um, let's talk about Reid!"
"No?"
"Um, um, Obama's health care plan is expensive!"
Nance, the 150% figure I quoted takes that into account. McCain STILL increases the debt 50% higher than Obama, WITH Obama's health care plan.
So, with Obama, we get health care for all AND less national debt?
And with McCain? No health care and more national debt?
I wonder what McCain's gonna waste all that money on! The cost of covering all U.S. citizens and then some? Why, that sounds like MORE WAR.
It is this simple.
McCain has pledge to balance the budget by 2013 by reducing spending.
Obama has no pledge to ever balance the budget.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=213&sid=143...
You are correct about Obama. Obama's goal is to collect more taxes from the US economy than McCain.
Obama is for more taxes and he wants to tax capital investment that is needed in Las Vegas to create jobs.
Nance, you have got to be kidding with this one.
"Also, Democrats choose union pay raises over the rest of the budget and taxpayers."
Yeah, those "union pay raises" why half of CCSD teachers quit, not able to afford to live, and having to put up with all kinds of #%&* that people in other occupations don't.
Nance, there isn't a union for teachers here. There is an inept, ineffective "organization." Schools here are being destroyed because teachers here are being destroyed, and have no power.
Lets see....thousands of Nevada citizens are losing their jobs and houses.
The budget is cut left and right by over 10%.
The Union twisted the Democrats arm to make sure the COLA is left untouched.
Over half of the state employees would have gotten regular raises anyway.
Now over half will get raise from 6% to over 10% while the rest of state is suffering.
It sounds like to me that the Unions own the Democratic party.
The Democratic Party serves the Unions and not the taxpayers.
No, it's not that simple, and you know it.
McCain's tax plan and spending will increase the national debt to 5 trillion.
Obama's tax plan and spending will increaase the national debt to 3.4 trillion.
If you're evaluating this purely on economic terms, which you are, no economic conservative could vote for McCain.
You are advocating for a candidate who will need to borrow trillions more than Obama to pay for his failed economic policies.
Nance constantly whines about having to buy foreign oil, but wants to finance trillions more in national debt through foreign money.
It's a double standard.
"McCain has pledge to balance the budget by 2013 by reducing spending."
Nance, be careful when you take such huge gulps of the GOP Kool-Aid. You'll choke if you keep doing that. Pray tell, do you happen to have a list of economists who have independently confirmed that he'll be able to balance the budget in four years while simultaneously slashing taxes? It's never been done before, but hey, your man McCain could be Mr. Miracle Worker!
I'm an Arizona Cardinals fan, and have nothing to look forward to this season. Let me try some of that Kool-Aid you're chugging...
<gulp>
Oh my God! We're going totally win the Super Bowl this year, just 'cause I say so! Woo hoo!
Obama plans to raise taxes and spend every dime of the new taxes and also increase the deficit to spend even more money.
He has zero plans to reduce the deficit.
Las Vegas is looking forward to the large tax increase on investments. It will help our unemployment rate go higher.
And McCain plans on cutting taxes for the rich, only, and spending EVEN MORE!
McCain's plan is to INCREASE the deficit... in fact, increase it even more than Obama will!
McCain wants to sell more of the U.S. to China, Dubai, Saudi Arabia and Russia.
That's a fiscal plan for failure, and anyone interested in jobs in Las Vegas won't be fooled by that debunked rhetoric.
McCain's plan is to spend us into the ground.
Any fiscal conservative would be better off voting for Obama, as Obama's deficit spending is nearly HALF that of McCain's disastrous plans.
Spend more while reducing revenue? That's John McCain's plan for bankruptcy.
McCain's plans will increase the national debt by 50 percent in four years. The deficit is $400 billion-plus now; I would not be surprised if it approached $700 billion in 2013 if McCain gets elected.
McCain chooses to insult our intelligence by claiming that he will eliminate the deficit when, in fact, he has zero chance of doing so. In swallowing this garbage you're just like a character from "1984," insisting that 2+2 really does equal 5.
Obama chooses not to lie about the situation, as McCain does. I respect him for that. It would be a lot easier for him to simply make up crap, as the GOP loves to do.
The reality is simple... it will take a long, long time to eliminate the massive deficit George W. Bush created. It cannot be done in four years. It took Bill Clinton seven years to eliminate the deficits you guys created the first time... these deficits are a lot worse.
The $400 billion deficit is the GOP's legacy to America. This one's a millstone around your party's neck, Nance. And no amount of B.S. or lying will change that.
Bill Raggio was allowed to win one more time because Chuck Muth supported him because he signed the no tax pledge. In the upcoming 2009 Legislative session there is going to be a huge
push by Democrats to raise taxes on business and
even if the Democrats win a majority, Bill Raggio
being the leader of the caucus can hold his group together and keep away the 2/3 needed to
raise taxes. Sheer brilliance on Chuck Muths' part. Otherwise, Sharon Angle would have won hands down. I for one, am delighted that the 3 most egregious violators were soundly defeated.
Francis Allen for posing as a Republican and then
violating the trust of her constituents by supporting more taxes and hanging with the Dems. Faux Bob Beers for being
a Democrat in Republican clothing and then supporting the Wynn dealers by introducing a bill
to ban the practice of tip sharing. And John Marvel got Daschalled royally for "taking one for
the Democrats" a Rhino Republican.
The message? NO MORE KENNY GUINNS, NO MORE TAX HIKES, NO MORE RHINOS. I am pleased that it resounded loud and clear. So bring it on tax and spenders. The Battle Born Libertarian-Republican
spirit is going to fight your efforts to be
Californicated. YEEE-HAH!
This is all part of a larger plan.
1) Take a government program that basically does what it's supposed to, although it is not perfect and has inefficiencies.
2) Appoint some right-wing cronies to mismanage it.
3) Complain that it's inefficient and broken, which is now of course absolutely true.
4) Scream for tax cuts to stop supporting such a horrible corrupt government program and all of its overpaid union crybaby employees.
5) Divert its funding to corporate cronies in support of a corporate socialist alternative.
McCain has pledge to reduce government spending and to balance the budget. McCain wants to target a few tax cuts to promote investing which will help create jobs in Las Vegas.
Obama has pledge to raise taxes, spend all the new tax money and to borrow more money.
Obama plans to tax investments will hurt Las Vegas casino's trying to raise money and therefore will hurt Las Vegas jobs.
McCain = Pro Jobs
Obama = Pro Taxes and anti-jobs
"Overall, Sen. Obama's middle-class tax cuts are larger than his partial rollbacks for families earning over $250,000, making the proposal as a whole a net tax cut and reducing revenues to less than 18.2% of GDP -- the level of taxes that prevailed under President Reagan."
"Sen. Obama believes a focus on the middle class is appropriate in the wake of the first economic expansion on record where the typical family's income fell by almost $1,000. The Obama plan would cut taxes for 95% of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples. In addition, Sen. Obama is proposing tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth."
"The Obama plan would dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class filers to do their own taxes in less than five minutes and not have to hire an accountant."
"Sen. Obama also recognizes that small businesses are the engine of job growth in the economy. That is why he is proposing additional tax cuts, including a tax credit for small businesses that provide health care, and the elimination of capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups. The vast majority of small businesses would face lower taxes under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan. In addition, Sen. Obama supports reforming corporate taxes in a manner that would help create jobs in America and simplify the tax code by eliminating distortions and special preferences."
"In contrast, Sen. McCain's tax plan largely leaves the middle class behind. His one and only middle-class tax cut -- a slow phase-in of a bigger dependent exemption -- would provide no benefit whatsoever to 101 million families who do not have children or other dependents, or who have a low income."
"But Sen. McCain's plan does include one new proposal that would result in higher taxes on the middle class. As even Sen. McCain's advisers have acknowledged, his health-care plan would impose a $3.6 trillion tax increase over 10 years on workers. Sen. McCain's plan will count the health care you get from your employer as if it were taxable cash income. Even after accounting for Sen. McCain's proposed health-care tax credits, this plan would eventually leave tens of millions of middle-class families paying higher taxes. In addition, as the Congressional Budget Office has shown, this kind of plan would push people into higher tax brackets and increase the taxes people pay as their compensation rises, raising marginal tax rates by even more than if we let the entire Bush tax-cut plan expire tomorrow."
"The McCain plan represents Bush economics on steroids. It has $3.4 trillion more in tax cuts than President Bush is proposing, largely directed at corporations and the most affluent. Sen. McCain would implement these cuts without proposing any meaningful steps to simplify taxes or eliminate distortions and loopholes. In addition, Sen. McCain has floated over $1 trillion in new spending increases but barely any specific spending cuts."
McCain plans on increasing taxes 3.6 trillion dollars over 10 years on working families.
Your rhetoric is absolutely debunked, Nance.
theBS is quoting from Obama paid staff.
Messrs. Furman and Goolsbee are, respectively, economic policy director and senior economic adviser at Obama for America
LOL..........whoooooooeeeeeeeee...I am sure it is 100% pure Obama kool-aid.
LOL......I am laughing so hard.
Go ahead, theBS..why not quote an Obama ad while you are at it.
Obama's plan attacks investments and jobs.
McCain's plan encourages investments and jobs.
I'm well aware of who they are. I also note your complete inability to refute their arguments.
http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/wp-con...
"Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has proposed a far-reaching plan to fundamentally reshape our health care landscape. The presumptive Republican presidential candidate’s plan raises taxes on millions of families—with the largest increases falling on middle-class households—and fails to make insurance affordable for many households, especially low-income families and individuals with pre-existing conditions."
"Today, workers with health insurance through their jobs enjoy largely tax-free benefits. McCain’s plan treats these benefits like wages, making them subject to income and payroll taxes, and creates a new tax credit for insurance premiums worth $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families.1 In the process his plan rewrites well over $200 billion in health subsidies
provided through the tax code—a massive sum that is about three times larger than any Cabinet agency other than the Department of Defense.2 Our analysis of the dramatic changes McCain proposes reaches three conclusions."
"For most taxpayers, McCain’s tax credit quickly becomes a tax increase. McCain’s new tax credit grows only at the rate of inflation (about 2 percent a year), while current tax subsidies keep up with health insurance premiums (about 7 percent a year).3 As a result, the value of the tax credit quickly falls behind rising health care costs, meaning most households with employer coverage today would soon see a tax increase. Families earning $40,000, for example, would receive a small tax cut in 2009, but by 2018 they will be paying over $2,800 more a year in taxes."
"Many middle-class households under the McCain plan pay higher taxes immediately. Households with employer-sponsored coverage, higher incomes, and higher premiums are the most likely to see immediate tax increases. The largest tax increases fall on middle-class families, which pay the highest combined payroll and income tax rates."
So I guess Nance is OK with McCain's plan to raise taxes on middle-class families.
McCain's economic policies have a dreadfully short expiration date.
"McCain's reduced individual and corporate rates could improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger future deficits would reduce and could completely offset any positive effect."
And again, you're arguing for a candidate that will leave the middle class out of the loop. Under McCain, the largest tax breaks will go to the top 1%, while middle class families will continue to struggle.
Most economists agree that Obama's tax plan will be more favorable to middle class families. You can't dispute that.
You also can't dispute that McCain's tax plan is to increase the national debt to 5 trillion dollars.
What kind of a fiscal conservative explodes the national debt to 5 trillion dollars? He's mortgaging a precariously short-term fiscal policy on the backs of our children.
Thus we will owe even more money to China, Dubai and Saudi Arabia under McCain.
Your blind support for McCain's abysmal fiscal policy is amazing, Nance.
"Senator John McCain’s current fiscal plan would create the largest federal deficits in 25 years, plunge the United States into the deepest debt since the second world war, and gut government revenues."
"According to our calculations, McCain’s economic plan, which includes a corporate tax cut, a full repeal of the alternative minimum tax, and an extension of the Bush tax cuts, would leave a national debt of $12.7 trillion by the end of a two-term presidency. Based on the Congressional Budget Office’s GDP estimates, this would total 59 percent of the projected GDP in 2017, the highest levels of debt since 1951 when America was still paying off the costs of World War Two."
"The corporate tax cut and full repeal of the alternative minimum tax make McCain’s plan significantly more severe than if he merely extended current Bush administration policies.
Extending Bush’s policies would on its own leave a debt of $9.2 trillion (43 percent of projected GDP); repealing the AMT and enacting the corporate tax cut would add an additional
$3.5 trillion to the debt."
If you take McCain's tax structure to a two-term timeline, the debt balloons to over 12 trillion dollars.
America can't afford John McCain.
It is impossible to do detail analysis on either candidate's tax and budget postions because neither party will disclose enough detail to do so.
One would have to make a ton of assumptions of what those details are.
If you want me to go and cut and paste from McCain's paid staff material or from a right wing site then I guess I could.
The source you used above is from the Center for American Progess Fund which is a left wing Democrat organization. John Podesta is the top leader in the organization. I am sure whatever they said it will favor Obama over McCain. It is just a different flavor of Obama kool-aid. Be sure to brush your teeth because that flavor may leave a stain.
I agree that Obama is going to tax the hell of out the rich. In some states, the rich will pay over 60% of their income in taxes.
I agree that Obama is going to give a little more in tax breaks to those earning between $30,000 to $80,000. It will be around $1.65 per day in tax reduction over what McCain will give. Whooooopeeeee!!!!! I can buy a Big Mac everyday.
Obama is going to hit hard capital investments.
McCain's plan, I believe, is pro-growth. Over 300 economist (some have earned prestige awards and all have PHD's) have endorsed McCain's plan as pro-growth.
Obama's plan is a robbing the rich to pay the middle class/poor plan.
Obama's plan has a ton of new spending promises.
Obama makes ZERO effort to make any promise to attack the deficit or to ever balance the budget.
McCain has promise to balance the budget.
Here is an excellent article on McCain's healthcare plan.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_...
It is a source that is on par in quality of what you have been quoting.
Here is a NY Times story on the topic:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/pol...
It says that McCain's plan "could" increase taxes for individuals that are in the top tax brackets (Obama's favorite tax target group) and who have platinum health insurance plans.
Also, just like any tax credit if it is never adjusted for inflation then more and more people will pay higher taxes. Making the assumption that it never will be adjusted for inflation is an assumption that your left wing Democratic group made.
We could make the same assumption for Obama's tax credits too. If they never get adjusted for inflation then every year more and more people will pay higher taxes. LOL
You say: "Over 300 economist [sic] (some have earned prestige awards and all have PHD's [sic]) have endorsed McCain's plan as pro-growth."
You're quoting McCain campaign literature now. How absolutely hypocritical!
Reality says:
"There’s just one problem. Upon closer inspection, it seems a good many of those economists don’t actually support the whole of McCain’s economic agenda. And at least one doesn’t even support McCain for president."
"In interviews with more than a dozen of the signatories, Politico found that, far from embracing McCain’s economic plan, many were unfamiliar with — or downright opposed to — key details. While most of those contacted by Politico had warm feelings about McCain, many did not want to associate themselves too closely with his campaign and its policy prescriptions."
"Howard Beales, an economist at George Washington University, explained that he signed the letter as "an expression of support for [McCain], not necessarily each and every detail of his plan, which I may not have had time to study closely."
Now who's drinking the kool aid?
McCain's gonna balance the budget?
No, says top economists.
"The package of spending and tax cuts proposed by Senator John McCain is unlikely to achieve his goal of balancing the federal budget by 2013, economists and fiscal experts said Monday."
“It would be very difficult to achieve in the best of circumstances, and even more difficult under the policies that Senator McCain has proposed,” said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group."
"C. Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, who worked in the Reagan administration, said Mr. McCain “may well be committed to balancing the budget in five years, but does not tell you how he would reach that goal.”
"J. Bradford DeLong, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, who worked at the Treasury under President Bill Clinton, said, “Senator McCain and his advisers want to claim they will balance the budget by 2013, but they have given us no clue and no plan to meet all the commitments he has made and still get there.”
And while you're quoting campaign literature, why don't you delve into the specifics? Oh, that's right... McCain isn't producing specifics.
"While campaigns typically snow reporters with white papers and policy minutiae, many of the domestic policy plans of John McCain have been notably short on details."
"Analysts caution that both McCain and Barack Obama have produced policy pronouncements that are just as much election documents as workable proposals; after all, that is what presidential candidates do. But when it comes to the metric of paper produced, McCain trails Obama in spelling out the nitty-gritty."
"The Obama people are much more detailed," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan advocacy group dedicated to balancing the budget."
"Consider McCain campaign senior adviser Taylor Griffin’s description of his candidate's plan for fixing Social Security:"
"The history of the Social Security debate has taught that too many specifics, especially during a presidential campaign, has polarized the debate," he said of the program that McCain called "an absolute disgrace [that's] got to be fixed."
"Will he contrast his plan to that of his opponent? "Sen. McCain believes this is so important that we do not politicize this debate during an election season."
"What, then, is the plan? There doesn't appear to be a page dedicated to it on the McCain website, though some details can be gleaned from the page dedicated to his plan to balance the budget by 2013"
Then he waffles between telling people all options are on the table, then saying he won't increase taxes, but all options are on the table, but he doesn't want to raise taxes, but all options are on the table.
Confused yet? You should be.
Social Security can be fixed one of two ways: raise additional revenue or cut benefits. If he doesn't want to raise revenue the only thing he can do is cut benefits.
Sure, it won't hurt McCain, whose worth more than $100 million, but to most Seniors living off of Social Security, the threat of benefit cuts is not taken lightly.
Obama's Plan:
1) Tax the hell out of the "rich"
2) Destory any the incentive for the "rich" to invest in long term economic projects which will hurt Gaming companies and hurt job creation in Nevada
3) Spend, spend, spend....never ever even dream of balancing the budget or attacking deficit spending...every dime of new tax money from the "rich" is immediately spent.
4) Give $1.64 a day tax reduction over McCain's plan for the middle class
5) Health care plan gives more control over choices to the government
6) His plans changes monthly because they take a poll and bam....new plan comes out
McCain's Plan:
1) Tax policy is pro-growth
2) Increases incentives for investments which will help Nevada gaming and Nevada job creation
3) Attempt to balance the budget and fight deficit spending
4) Health Care is to gives control and power to the citizens