SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home TRB: The Illusionist

JUNE 11, 2008

TRB: The Illusionist

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

If you accuse John McCain of agreeing with George W. Bush on economics, he'll come back at you with the one big issue where he and Bush disagree: spending. McCain may (now) approve of the Bush tax cuts, but he lacerates the president for his spendthrift ways. This, McCain says, is a "fundamental" difference between him and Bush.

But you know who else disagrees with George W. Bush on spending? George W. Bush. The president has been lamenting excessive spending for years now. Bush's line is the same as McCain's: The tax cuts are swell, but "[t]hat's just one part of the equation. We've got to cut out wasteful spending."

Actually, McCain is following the pattern of not just Bush but every Republican president since Ronald Reagan. Phase One is to enact tax cuts and promise that they'll cause revenues to rise, or will cause revenues to fall (leading to spending cuts), or somehow both at once, so, either way, there's no possibility that it will lead to deficits. Phase Two is deficits. Phase Three is to blame the deficits on big-spending congressional fat cats and to issue increasingly strident threats to cut expenditures, without going so far as to identify actual programs to cut.

One of the tropes of this phase is railing against the evils of pork-barrel spending. President Bush's position is that earmarks are really bad. ("The time has come to end this practice [of congressional earmarking]," he urges. "So let us work together to reform the budget process, expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress.") McCain's position is that earmarks are really, really bad. He likes to hold up for ridicule a federal program to study bear DNA, and he has taken to using the same language to taunt congressional appropriators ("I'm their worst nightmare") that he otherwise reserves for Hamas.

Another trope is the embrace of the line-item veto as panacea. Reagan crusaded for the line-item veto, as did George H.W. Bush. Today McCain vows, "I will seek a constitutionally valid line-item veto to end the practice [of earmarking] once and for all." When then–Vice President Bush was making the line-item veto a big issue in the 1988 campaign, economist Doug Holtz-Eakin studied state budgets over the previous 28 years. He concluded that "over time, in the hands of Republicans and Democrats alike, the line-item veto fails to cut spending." Apparently Holtz-Eakin has failed to share these findings with McCain, whom he serves as chief economics adviser.

McCain's crusade against domestic spending is a wild misdiagnosis of the problem. Most conservatives believe their main error has been to deviate from the true small-government faith, and McCain has embraced the narrative. "We were elected to reduce the size of government and enlarge the sphere of free and private initiative," he told the Republican group GOPAC. "Then we lavished money, in a time of war, on thousands of projects of dubious, if any, public value."

The audience is meant to take this to mean that the size of government has expanded under Bush largely because of pork-barrel spending or other domestic outlays. In fact, the growth of government under Bush is mostly due to higher spending on defense and homeland security, which have grown from 3.6 percent of the economy to 5.6 percent. Domestic discretionary spending (that is, programs other than entitlements) has fallen as a share of GDP, from 3.1 percent to 2.8 percent. (These numbers come from Richard Kogan of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.)

McCain is promising to cut taxes by $300 billion per year on top of the Bush tax cuts, which he would make permanent. In addition to this, he promises to balance the budget in his first term. When asked how he could possibly pull this off, McCain has asserted that he could eliminate all earmark spending, saving $100 billion per year.

I don't find this explanation persuasive. The first point I'd make is that $100 billion is, in fact, less than $300 billion. The second point I'd make is that McCain won't even cut $100 billion, or anywhere close. By conventional measures, earmarks only account for $18 billion per year. McCain gets his number by employing an unusually broad definition of what constitutes an earmark. McCain's definition includes things like aid to Israel and housing for members of the military that are not "pork" as the term is understood. When asked if he would eliminate those programs, he replied, "Of course not."

So we're left with a pot of money closer to $18 billion. And McCain surely won't eliminate even that. He has frequently found himself campaigning at places funded by federal earmarks and beloved by the local citizenry, and he keeps inadvertently showing how impossible it is to fulfill his promises. Last month, McCain visited a hospital in Pennsylvania and met an ovarian cancer patient who's being treated with a clinical trial program funded by an earmark. Asked if he would eliminate that program, he replied, "It's the process I object to. ... When you earmark in the middle of the night, you have no budgetary constraints."

Likewise, when pressed by NPR's Robert Siegel, McCain insisted he supports programs so long as "there's a need" and only wants "to do it through an open, honest, transparent process that is proceeded by hearings and authorization." A perfectly sound position. But, if you're merely shifting spending from earmarks to the regular budget process, then you're not saving any money.

Indeed, The Washington Post recently did a long reported story on the bear DNA project that McCain has made the butt of so many jokes. ("Three million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. Unbelievable," scoffs one McCain ad.) The Post found that the project is a tool for measuring the bear population in Glacier National Park and has a sound scientific basis. When contacted by the story's author, McCain's campaign gave a familiar reply: "Senator McCain does not question the merits of these projects; it's the process that he has a problem with." If McCain won't even commit to zeroing out his single favorite example of government waste, it's not clear that he'll save any money at all.

During the GOP primary, McCain presented his economic program as a more ideologically pure version of Bushism. Now he puts the same thing forward as a new synthesis. "It will not be enough," he says, "to simply dust off the economic policies of four, eight or twenty-eight years ago." Right; those other presidents had huge tax cuts for the rich combined with unspecified spending cuts. McCain's plan has those things and a joke about bear DNA. How heterodox!

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 77 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

77 comments

I wish when the left complained about tax cuts for the rich they would explain how something like a 25% tax cut for all tax brackets is a givaway to the rich (this was Reagan's ta cut). In the Bush tax cuts, I believe the higher percentage cuts went to the lower tax brackets. How is that a givaway to the rich? Try looking at the resulting tax rates when determing what is fair.

- MidwestConservative

June 2, 2008 at 8:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From the point of view of an economic conservative I see McCain as just another bullshit empty conservative suit that, while using the inspiring rhetoric of freedom,tax-cuts,decentralization, individualism,and a rollback to small government, will if elected be performing deeds in precisely the opposite direction. In that way, the fair rhetoric of freedom and small government will be used, as a cover for cementing big government in place. He is just another Reagan who was so effective as a rhetorician, though not a practitioner, of freedom and small government, that, to this day, most conservatives have still not cottoned on to the scam. McCain just seeks to continue it. I'm for Obama because at least what he says is closer to what he'll do even if I'm against it. Does that make sense?

- lesserliz

June 2, 2008 at 8:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am married, with a child, in my forties. I just received a year-end in bonus check where my portion of the gross was 51% of the gross and taxes took 49% of the check. Anyone who advocates raising taxes in any way, shape, or form loses any semblance of credibility with me. Where is the outcry to end government waste or stop fraudulent exploitation of government programs? I live in a 1,400 square foot house, drive an eight-year old car and a four-year old car, and pay hundred's for student loans every month so don't bother calling me a fat cat either. I'm voting for McCain simply because he promises to reduce taxes. Congress needs to do its part to reduce waste, fraud, and runaway spending. Enough is enough for goodness sake.

- Dave Thomas

June 2, 2008 at 9:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm married with three children and live in Manhattan. My two daughters share a small bedroom and I just built a loft in my hallway for my son to sleep because he's getting to old to share the room. I can't afford more space. I don't own a car. I clip coupons. Money is very tight. My 2007 effective tax rate? 53%!! (only counting federal income, federal AMT, city, and state income taxes!) That is out of control and I can't afford it. I'm not rich, not even close. I have no love for Bush or the Republicans but I'm voting for McCain because taxes are crushing me.

- Ted Morgan

June 2, 2008 at 11:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually Dave you don't really recieve any benefit from Bush current tax cuts. If you take your compensation in the form of salary (as opposed to sale of stock) you certainly are going to get screwed. Simply put, McCain may reduce taxes, just not for you. BSD

- Brian Despain

June 2, 2008 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I hear you, Dave, but if McCain wins, I guarantee you're going to be sorely disappointed. Politicians have been declaring since time immemorial that spending can be brought under control if we can just wring all of the "waste, fraud and abuse" out of the budget. In truth, if all wasteful government spending was eliminated tomorrow, the savings would amount to a drop in the bucket. No, in order to make a real dent, we will have to substantially reduce the military budget, which McCain won't do in view of his stated intention to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. Nor will he propose any serious cuts in entitlement spending. That leaves taxes. Given your description of your economic situation, I can safely assume that you're not part of the top 1% that's been reaping the benefit of the Bush economic policies these last 7 1/2 years. So yes, you deserve a break on your taxes. But you'd make out much better financially under a Democratic administration.

- Django

June 2, 2008 at 11:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MidwestConservative: Unfortunately whoever told you that a higher percentage of the Bush tax cuts went to the lower tax brackets is either mis-informed or delusional. That is (in other words) the assessment of the CBO and what you can get from a basic analysis of the legislation. While it is true that the upper brackets have recently being paying MORE tax, that's because they've been benefiting from greatly reduced tax brackets and hence have been making money hand over fist. Whether that's a good way to raise revenues or a better way to return to the gilded age is for you to decide.

- Nari224

June 2, 2008 at 12:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

McCain is no conservative. The Republican party contains many conservatives but mainly uses conservatives to get elected. Most Republicans are really moderates. Republicans usually increase welfare state spending, just at a smaller rate than the Democrats. Like most elected officials they buy votes with spending. With everyone doing this overall spending always goes up. Most conservatives, like those who read NR, WS, etc, vote Republican because that is the most conservative choice, not because they think the Republican party is the lesser of 2 evils.

- MidwestConservative

June 2, 2008 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have a question for the Obama supporters. I can understand the arguments for opposing McCain, Romney, Reagan (if alive and running), etc. I can understand liberals supporting Obama & Clinton's positions (even when I do not agree with them) just as I understand the conservative postitions I favor. What I do not understand is how the Democratic party can nominate a candidate who has less than 4 years experience as a Senator, no experience in the House of Representatives, no experience as a Gov., no experience running a business, no experience as a leader in the military, etc. There are lots of people in the Democratic party who share Obama's views but have proven track records. When we elected Bush we got a guy with only about 5 or years as the Texas gov and no other exerpience to judge him by. Why take a chance like that again?

- MidwestConservative

June 2, 2008 at 1:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where do you live? Do you live, as I do, in an area that is ridiculously expensive? You have the right to live anywhere you want, but perhaps you should consider moving if the cost of space is too high where you live. We live in a time when the shift of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy and very wealthy has rarely been higher. Reagan most certainly did not cut tax rates 25% for all tax brackets. Bush's tax cuts most certainly did not skew in favor of the poor, but in the opposite direction. By all means, if you feel that taxes are the only issue that matters to you in the election, vote accordingly. Please to explain how a President McCain, who supports the ill-advised, extremely costly, and poorly executed war in Iraq (you know, the country next door to the one that produced the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers) will pay for this war. Explain how the money paying for this war, currently not part of the standard budget, is NOT going to end up coming from you (Americans). Explain how McCain, in making promises that are impossible to fulfill and wouldn't work even if they were, is going to save you money. MY 2007 effective tax rate was 18%, money is tight for me, and I have crippling student loans (with a higher interest rate, thanks to Bush). Perhaps the recent spike in food costs is to blame, or the rising costs of gas. Perhaps the federal government only raises taxes to pay for all of the lawsuits they must constantly engage in to defend the President's constant assault on the Constitution. Perhaps single issue voters are a bigger problem than high taxes.

- John

June 2, 2008 at 1:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very simple really. A tax cut of any marginal rate is a giveaway to the rich, since the rich will pay that rate on the portion of there income to which it applies. If you really want to help out the poor and middle class, better ways to do it include expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit, reforming the AMT, and giving more aid to states so their taxes don't need to be as high.

- FriedomofthePress

June 2, 2008 at 1:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You aren't a fat cat Dave, but you aren't exactly living rough with your two vehicles (regardless of how old they are), house (not an apartment), and student loans (which suggests college training at some point). Would you be more inclined to a tax hike if, for example, it came paired with free comprehensive health care? Are you opposed to tax hikes completely, or just tax hikes that drop money into the invisible pit?

- AT

June 2, 2008 at 2:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

First of all, if you don't understand the point about the Bush tax cuts, think of it this way: There are two people, one making 100,000 dollars per year, one making 20,000 dollars per year. Each pays 25% in taxes. One of them has a remaining income of 75,000, the other has 15,000. Now, suppose you reduce taxes for both by 10%. They are now paying at 15% per annum. Our first person now has a remaining 85,000, while the second has 17,000. Who gained more? Obviously, the first person, who saw their income rise from 75 to 85,000 i.e a 10,000 dollar jump. The second case gained 2,000 dollars. That's why an "equal" tax cut actually benefits the rich more. Conservatives rely on your not doing the math, and realizing that yes, the rich gain more for such tax cuts - and need them far less. If you don't believe me, try it at home with a calculator. Second, on the subject of experience: Obama has served as a community organizer, a member of the Illinois legislature and as a Senator at the national level. His experience is easily comparable in real legislative and political terms to any businessman you care to name, most of whom have never crafted legislation, analyzed or produced policy, or managed a large-scale state or federal budget. Trying to to claim that only his work at national Senate level counts is like saying that a businessman's resume should only count the years when he was CEO. That's dishonest, and frankly ridiculous as an argument. That's why Clinton tried to use it, and now Karl Rove is peddling the same lies. Think for yourselves, and don't just listen to the same tired spin.

- morzer

June 2, 2008 at 2:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'd like to know what exactly conservatives mean by "smaller" government? Usually they mean reducing all outlays for social programs, federal highway funding, No Child Left Behind funding, school lunches for poor, lack-luster benefits for veterans, no health care benefits. Let's say instead of cutting taxes of the top 1% which hold at minimum 60% of the wealth in the U.S. and raising the AMT on middle-class Americans including those that make $100K, we raise taxes on the top percentile earners who don't pay taxes on earned income at the same tax rate as they pay on capital gains. Capital gains is where the top 1% make their money and pay a significantly lower rate than you or I do on income wages. Republican/Conservative fiscal policy by in large fails on so many levels except passing policies that favor large corporate interests and top 1% "wage" earners whose income comes primarily from capital gains. If you feel inclined to read some I'd suggest Wealth and Democracy for a cogent history of how economics policy works in the US. Or refer to this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States The average American's income has flattened the last 20 years while cost of living has gone up. Truth be told, shrinking government spending wouldn't do much to lower your taxes anyway since most of the lower and middle-income tax payments go to pay off the Government's interest. So before folks start complaining about how "high" your taxes are, consider what you'd get if we didn't outlay so much to pork-barrel wastes like an invisible fence along the US-Mexico border, ineffective TSA screening and the Iraq war.

- singlespeed

June 2, 2008 at 4:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"A giveaway to the rich" Indeed! The government allows us to keep more of our own hard-earned money and this is called a giveaway!? I believe the 2007 tax figures showed that 5% of the wage earners in the US paid 90% of the total income taxes. How much more fair does it need to be? Should they pay 99% of all taxes? Does that redistribute wealth enough? By the way, who are "the rich"? Do they make over $50k per year? Over $100K? $200? $1 mil? And who defines who is "rich" and who is "middle class"? Lenin, Fidel, or Hugo?

- MDenis

June 2, 2008 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So many people post the red-herring about Obama's experience...he has the same amount of experience that Lincoln had when he became President, and we know what a failure Lincoln was. Oh, but the times were different then! Yeah, the country was torn apart by civil war...it was soooooo much easier for Lincoln. Right.

- Jay Bazzinotti

June 2, 2008 at 4:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Before I clicked to connect to read this article 'The Illusionist' I thought the article would be about Obama. I'm still wondering how flowery language, minor experience, and ties with shady/divisive organizations have led to so many media outlets and Democrats to be suckered in to thinking that he's a good idea to lead this country. I'm not saying he's a complete imbecile, he's intelligent and has probably done a great job in his short tenure as a senator. But really, its a bit worrisome for me, its like having a 14 year old look after your newborn twins for a week...not a good idea.

- Kelly

June 2, 2008 at 5:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Don't tax you/Don't tax me/Tax that fellow/Behind the tree" Russell Long. Thank heaven for Google. Especially since my memory is going. I'm self-employed. My tax rate is obscene. So it goes. Clean streets are better than dirty streets. Happy people are better than crazy people, especially if they're walking on your clean streets.

- AlanK

June 2, 2008 at 5:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Some conservatives would like to toe the party line than to study the Tax cuts under Bush - which went largely to rich. In then it serves democracy poorly. Oh BTW, I see the same traits among liberals too. WAKE UP and smell the coffee - whether we are Liberals or Conservatives. Our Nation needs a new direction. On domestic policies, on regional policies and on Global policies.

- CaliforniaRealist

June 2, 2008 at 5:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Its too easy to get caught into hypothetical arguments. Its very simple. There should be an amendment requiring a balanced budget. I realize there will be times when emergency will call for the government running a deficit but that should be the exception not the norm. Spending and tax rates will fall in line at whatever they need to be in order to balance the budget. A constant large (and growing) deficit and debt has caused the dollar to tank. The residual effect of that? Relative high prices on the international market, which leads to high prices in our stores. Been to a gas pump recently?

- Kevin

June 2, 2008 at 5:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

presidential candidates always propose "magic bullet" fantasy programs that cut taxes to whatever group they prefer, increase services, and magically balance budgets in the first 100 days. In reality, the spending proposals always outweigh any revenue generation by 100 to 1 (give or take an order of magnitude). Write a similar article about Obama or Clinton, should be pretty easy.

- reb

June 2, 2008 at 6:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Guys. Liberal or conservatives, let us unite. Let us work together as team: 1. To never fund fundamentalists for foreign policy nightmare of future. Violent Islam today has its roots in Soviet and American rivalry. 2. Let us not doublespeak on Torture. Civilization means that we try culprits in court and convict them. And not keep them in jail for years and torture and claim that they are terrorists. 3. Enact a law, if required to bar government borrowing from Social security. There are million ways for them to borrow and our retirement fund is not their personal privy purse. 4. No deficit should be carried beyond 3 years. So, if we cut taxes and not expenses, we will have a payback year before we can let a president leave white house. 5. And, let think like united Americans first before thinking of our political dispositions. God bless.

- AGarg

June 2, 2008 at 6:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I trust in intelligence. Truly smart people tend to be humble. They're smart enough to know they haven't got all the answers, so they hire experience and listen well. Dumb leaders, because they are threatened by smart people, tend to clone themselves in any organization. In such a situation, the smart people will gradually leave and the boss will replace them with fellow dumbasses -- which of course we have seen over the past 8 years in Washington. We now need the most intelligent leader we can find --a Houdini who can put the toothpaste back into the tube and steer our nation straight again. I believe that leader is Obama.

- nckoalagal

June 2, 2008 at 6:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Midwestconservative, how can we nominate Obama, same way the GOP nominated Lincoln

- axt113

June 2, 2008 at 7:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have rarely seen such a dumb comment, you have a system that lets the government bribe people with their own money and you are shocked when it dosn't work. Study Direct Democracy (eg Switzerland) where the politicians hate it because the people wont vote for their nonsense.

- brian

June 2, 2008 at 7:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I believe Reagan's 1981 tax cut was a 25% reduction in all income tax rates (more or less - top rate was 70%, reduced to 50%, lowest rate was 14%, reduced to about 11)accoring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Recovery_Tax_Act_of_1981). That certainly does mean the rich receive a larger cut in dollars. However they pay much more in dollars, also. So, if you think 70% marginal rates are fair then indeed Reagan's 1981 tax cuts were a giveaway to the rich. The Gephardt-Bradley bill later reduced the top rate even further, to under 30%. What exactly are Obama's proposals for taxes?

- Duffy

June 2, 2008 at 8:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MDennis, there are answers to your questions. Do a little research. Try to avoid partisan and ideologues. If the top 5% paid 90% of taxes, was it because they made 90% of all income or more? And federal income tax is but one of many taxes. Who pays the bulk of other taxes? Think a little bit, then speak! Why are wages taxed at a higher rate than investments?

- moz

June 2, 2008 at 8:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Regarding Obama's experience, I was not suggesting that McCain should be preferred by liberals on the TNR blogs & forums over Obama, any more than I would think that conservatives would prefer, say, Ted Kennedy over a 4 year conservative senator. Of course most folks here prefer & will vote for Obama instead of McCain. I just think there are many more Democrats with more proven abilites than Obama. Yes, Lincoln did well. Jimmy Carter, a one term Governor, did not. It was foolish to nominate him instead of, say H. Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, etc, all of whom would have beaten Ford. Trusting Obama with the presidency is going with faith over slim evidence. And I will take experience & accomplishment as as Governor, Senate and House Representative over Obama's thin resume. A community organiser & state legislator is not the same thing as executive experience or dealing with national issues. The democrats are picking the president this time. At least pick a proven candidate.

- MidwestConservative

June 2, 2008 at 9:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am so tired of party riders. People who blindly follow, because their party tells them to follow. First, lets discuss Bush's wonderful tax cuts: They are termed "trickle down economics" because the tax cuts were for the rich. He (and Reagan) assumed that if the rich were making and saving money, it would trickle down...I am in the middle of a drought here, gang! When his rich friend started taking their businesses overseas, Bush gave them even more breaks, saying that this was good for the American economy, because (as Americans) we could save money if they were made at a cheaper cost. Unfortunately, if your jobs are going overseas, you don't have the money to buy these cheap items, so you are hosed either way. I saw comment above complaining because Obama has very little experience. THANK GOODNESS!!! I want someone to go in without any taint on them. While McCain is closing all his little fund raisers, wide-eyed Obama is letting reporters into his fund raisers. I would opt for lack of experience (with honesty) over a corrupt old hag any day. I would also like to point out that McCain has consistantly voted against any advanced benefits for veterans. While he wants them to commit, he sure doesn't want to reward them for the commitment. Obama has an 86% approval rating with veterans. I am a full time student, and I work full time. I have avoided using grants or loans, and have been using a tuition fund that was setup for me 20 years ago. In November, that fund was worth 40,000 dollars. After paying 2700.00 for my summer semester, I am down to 3,500.00. Right now, I am selling blood plasma to save for my spring semester. Start researching the issues instead of following a party blindly.

- Ri delRio

June 2, 2008 at 9:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hillary Clinton will win the presidential election against John McCain in November 2008. Hillary, with a Democratic Party Vice Presidential (VP) candidate with a respectible military record (Webb, or Fallon, or ? . . .) against McCain and whatever pitiful VP candidate the Republicans choose to lose with him. Senator Obama will put his full support behind Clinton. McCain will be blown out of the elections. Standy by Women of America ("USia?"), under the HR Clinton Administration, Selective Service registration for USian women is coming and the days of the last remnants of "Female perogative" (i.e. "Choice"), are coming to an end. Time for USian women to "step up to the plate," and show full responsibility as citizens for a change.

- p.

June 2, 2008 at 9:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A recent article in the NYT was about the usefulness of an education in science, not because it made everyone a scientist, but because it taught people how to think rationally. The majority of the posts on this message board illustrate the crying need for that ability. Let's start with those who claim tax burdens around 50%. The highest income tax rate is 35% for those making way over $300.000 so since you (pl) claim that you are not in that category, then your tax rates are a lot less. Claiming that other taxes such as state, local and SS make up the difference is beside the point because the federal government doesn't control local and state taxes. All they control is the piddly bit on your income tax. So if you are paying 49% on your bonus, either you are in a really high tax bracket or you're not paying 49%. Furthermore, as normal people realize, everytime that federal taxes are cut, either states have to raise their taxes to make up the difference in services or they have to cut things like education, road maintenance, sewage treatment, police protection, and similar "wasteful spending" items. As for those worried about Obama's experience, let me ask you what Donny Rumsfeld's and Dick Cheney's massive experience has done for our country? It's obvious that experience without moral direction is worse than no experience. Then for those who complain that we elected a president with no experience, let me remind you that we in Texas knew what Bush was going to be like because everything he did to the country, he first did to Texas, only on a smaller scale. He made us first in pollution and last in education and gave the state coffers away to big corporations, so it isn't as if he was an unknown quantity. Obama does have a track record and it is one in which he has a moral compass to guide him to work for those who need him. And for those poor slobs who feel that they have earned all their hundreds of thousands of dollars of income, please. Go peddle that to your mothers. The only difference between you and someone who actually accomplishes something is that you found a way to leverage and they didn't.

- dkm

June 2, 2008 at 10:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bush's tax cut gave most of the benefit to the wealthiest, not the middle classes. Those cuts were counterbalanced with sharp increases in state and local taxes, rising costs for state colleges and universities. Less aid, like Pell Grants, for higher ed. Bush's economic policies, using tax dollars to subsidize the outsourcing of jobs, a never ending stream of visas and open borders to displace citizen workers has further increased the burden of paying the larger tax load on the remaining middle class. We have less lower and middle income citizens supporting local businesses, and contributing to the tax rolls. Social welfare programs, and costs for public education have skyrocketed to subsidize illegal aliens at the below wage standards they earn. Costs for everything are going through the roof, the dollar is plummetting because without a strong middle and working classes, without jobs that lift the poor out of poverty, we are on the slippery slope to a third world country. Those who think that voting for McCain will protect them, are delusional. Whatever meager benefit you get from the tax cut will disappear, he will in fact further force a higher burden on all but the very wealthiest. Whatver investments you have will be lost in an economic collapse. Do you not realize that what will come about will be complete devastation. I can't claim to know how good Obama would be as a president, his open borders stance is wrong, but Hillary Clinton and John McCain would be much, much worse. Those who believe that preserving these idiotic tax cuts will save them, are the same mindless bots who rationalized voting for Bush, who still pretend that Reagan was a good president, even though he is the one who allowed foreign nationals to buy our country up in bits and pieces. Who destroyed our free press. He is the one who started gutting our constitution, everything that made us a strong country. If you're in your forties, like myself, perhaps you should consider a few facts that you have wrong. I remember growing up listening to the big three complain that their cars were losing popularity because the American workers weren't up to par, but the fact was that it was decisions made at the very top, the switch to more plastics, the cutting of corners on design and safety standards, that were turning out cars that were lemons, that broke down, parts that didn't last. It wasn't the line workers who were to blame, but people like yourselves prefered to believe the CEOs who were the ones pushing junk on consumers. It's the same as now. You listen to corrupt politicians, and corporate interests distract you by convincing you that if only the wealthiest had larger tax cuts, more profits, less responsibility, less sharing of the sacrifice all would be sunshine and lollipops. Are you so blind that you can't see? If you're suffering financially, paying more in taxes during the time of the so called tax cut you delusionally want to view as some life preserver for you, then snap out of it. The tax cut is causing you to pay more in taxes and everything else.

- Jenny

June 2, 2008 at 11:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

God forbid we lower our country's capital gains tax rates and try to do something stupid like encouraging an increase the rate of capital formation, economic growth, job creation, and real wages over the next decade; and thus promoting a more efficient capital market to remain competitive with the rest of the world. I think Chait would prefer us to dust off a copy of one of the former Soviet Union's 5 year plans.

- PBass

June 2, 2008 at 11:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Last check, someone making 20K/year pays around 12% tax, someone making 100K/year pays around 22%. If you need some examples of pork, look at the farm bill. Strongly passed by dems and those moderate repubs showing who has the corporate lobbies at their backyard BBQ's.

- fuzzy math

June 3, 2008 at 12:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Django post 6 got it right.Military spending is what needs to be reduced. Midwest conservative, i am an Obama supporter and will answer your question. In the geopolitical marketplace, legitimacy is based on effectiveness, and must be proven in comparison with other superpowers.In fact, America can learn a lot about legitimacy from Europe and China.After the Cold War, some Americans argued that the diminished US military presence in Europe would lead to a renewal of internal European rivalry,such as between France and Germany.Instead,the European Union has become the one contemporary empire that continues to expand, year after year, by absorbing new countries, with many more in line begging to join. Around the same time, the Pentagon declared its strategy to contain the rise of any great power rival ,such as China.Yet China is methodically pursuing its own timeline to become the world’s paramount power,restoring its position as the ‘Middle Kingdom’.Like the European Union,it is turning its neighbor states into semi-sovereign provinces,subduing them not militarily but rather through demographic expansion and economic integration.This used to be called imperialism; the new term for it is globalization. The power of an (inexperienced) Obama presidency is the understanding of this 21st century reality (as opposed to an experienced 20th century imperialist like Mc Cain).

- ES NYC

June 3, 2008 at 12:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We complain that taxes are too high but in a society where we are living much longer, we refuse to increase the eligibility age for social security benefits thereby increasing the deficit of social security. Privatization will do nothing to solve this problem. We want lower taxes but we refuse to reduce military spending accordingly. The math is simple, if you believe that we need a strong military, stop kidding yourself that it does not cost a great deal to maintain. You can only have it one way and you need to make the choice. Domestic spending is increasing at a proportionately smaller rate and we need to address the real issues to reduce spending or be willing to fund these issues. Stop kidding yourself. We say the answer to healthcare is to simply put the spending into our control (Health Savings Accounts), as if we can negotiate a better rate than the insurance companies. Under the HSA system, people will have only catastophic insurance and the insurers will only negotiate for better rates for these services. Healthcare in the USA consumes a greater portion of the GDP than in any other industrialized nation. Forcing the individual to pay for the services will do nothing to solve the problem that we pay far more for healthcare than anyone else and we are the only industrialized nation in the world that does not see it as a moral obligation to provide healthcare for all people. The argument that the services are so much worse is complete crap. We are buying into distorted facts and it is costing us dearly. Decreasing your taxes will do nothing to lower your healthcare costs and unless we reduce the overall cost of healthcare, as a percentage of GDP, we will continue to have less money for other spending whether you pay it in taxes or pay it to your pharmacy or doctor. Again the math is simple - don't let politicians sell you any crap. The list goes on and McCain addresses none of the spending issues directly so I find it very hard to see how he has the intelligence to understand the issues as they truly are. I disagree with many of Obama's policies however he seems far more honest and forthright than McCain.

- Ron M

June 3, 2008 at 12:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Any Tax Cut Now is Actually A Tax Increase or Worse It goes like this: Social Security - immensely popular third rail (60%+ support) Medicare/Medicaid - even more popular than above, likely to be expanded into some kind of "eurocare" private/public system Defense spending - runaway "wartime all the time" $500 Billion/yr hand outs to the military industrial (congressional) complex Ike spoke of so well. US GDP - $12 Trillion Debt : $5 Trillion Social security trust obligations: $1.6 Trillion (so far) Trade deficit: at least $ 2 Trillion Real deficit: $400 Billion/Year The Republican/Libertarian "small government" option is clear. Cut taxes and spend until bankruptcy can be declared. Anyone wealthy and "in the network" will be invested overseas in gold/commodities,etc. Everyone else is screwed by inflation, market crash, etc. Is this the legacy you want for your children? The Bush/McCain camp isn't cutting taxes to stop spending, they are cutting taxes to loot the treasury for any and all buddies before they burn the house down. And the voters love it! Free Services! (That is until a friendly chinese man named Mao says he bought your house in a government auction, and you have 7 days to leave..) Wake up folks! Voting for tax cuts now means you don't want any gov't services at all, all at once!

- nanonatro

June 3, 2008 at 1:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bush's Tax cuts did not go in a higher percentage to the lower incomes. They went to a higher percentage to the higher incomes. And that actually makes sense. What does NOT make sense is that they went DISPROPORTIONATELY to the higher incomes- in other words, if group "X" paid 30% of all taxes, they got 35% of the overall tax relief. In other words, not only did Bush fail to deliver on his campaign promise of middle class tax relief, he also failed to deliver on a tax break that was primarily focused on middle income earners. But who expects candidates to actually follow through any more, right?

- Chris

June 3, 2008 at 1:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Funny to me how most of the commenters here don't address the article at all and just say bad things about taxes and Obama. The point is that McCain wants to cut taxes massively and has no idea how he will pay for these cuts, and that his anti-"earmark" crusade is largely hot air.

- William Pastor

June 3, 2008 at 2:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Very simple, Midwest Conservative. We support Obama because he is the best candidate running this year -- in fact he is the best candidate to have run for President in a very, very long time.

- Mandy

June 3, 2008 at 2:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ted and Dave: Obama also plans to reduce taxes on average Americans while only raising taxes on those making over $200,000 who can afford to pay them. That doesn't sound you. The fact is that President Bush lowered taxes 8 years ago for everyone--meaning that taxes the top 1% of wealthy Americans who pay a significant portion of all taxes was reduced by a significant portion. Now how are you doing? No amount of government waste, abuse, or fraud, recently tallied in the 10-20 billion range over the past decade, can cover the $300 billion loss in tax revenue. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing twice, and expecting a different result each time. That's exactly what voting for McCain is--insanity.

- Mannewell Darby

June 3, 2008 at 2:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Morzer's use of a 25% flat tax in his example is irrelevant as we do not have a flat tax system. The US has a progressive tax system, where those with higher taxable income pay a higher percentage of tax than those with lower income. An individual with taxable income of $100,000 would pay $22,110.75 in federal tax while an individual with taxable income of $25,000 would only pay $1,826.25 in federal tax. While it is true that a flat 10% reduction in tax would benefit the the "rich" more, the "rich" clearly pay the majority of the taxes. Morzer should consult the IRS tax tables before citing such a pathetic example. Morzer is using some of that liberal "fuzzy math".

- DougC

June 3, 2008 at 2:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MidwestConservative: You asked how Obama supporters could support someone with so little experience. It's easy, really. Looking back at history, there is absolutely no correlation between the amount of a President's experience and how effective a President he is. None at all. The extreme example of this is the two consecutive presidents - Buchanan and Lincoln - who are respectively regarded as one of the worst and one of the best presidents we have ever had, and also as the most experienced and the least experienced.

- Al

June 3, 2008 at 3:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The agreement that Bush also said he would cut spending is incorrect. He said late in to his presidency what you are mentioning to score political points, but in 2000, he ran as a "Compassionate Conservative." Also, unlike Bush, McCain has strong pressure on his side to actually reduce spending, whereas Bush's constituency was nearly screaming spend until it was too late, and McCain has indicated that many of these spending cuts would occur early on. BTW. #16: You could actually argue that Lincoln was a failure because he, through his inexperience and arrogance, ignited the most destructive war in American History. If US Abolitionists like Lincoln had followed the more diplomatic model the British had followed, there would've been less (or no) bloodshed, less hatred and racism in the long term, the South and America as a whole would be in better shape economically then it is today, and it might have even gotten done sooner (the British finished abolishing slavery decades before we did).

- Jeremy Janson

June 3, 2008 at 3:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is no more compelling issue to our quality of life. Obama will raise taxes, he has said so. How is he different from every other Democratic of the past 40 years? "Change", it's all you'll have left when he's president. They just don't understand that it is our money.

- tim edmon

June 3, 2008 at 3:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Neither McCain nor Obama will be raising taxes. McCain is saying (now at least) that the Bush tax cuts should stay while Obama is basically suggesting what amounts to a %500 - $1000 rebate check every year instead for the middle class. Also, yes Reagan did cuts taxes, but thats because they were at insane 70% for the highest bracket. He brought them down to a less insane 50%. Up or down 5% wont make a big difference in growth from 35%. Provide Middle Class Americans Tax Relief Obama will cut income taxes by $1,000 for working families to offset the payroll tax they pay. Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans: Obama will dramatically simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans will be able to do their taxes in less than five minutes. Obama will ensure that the IRS uses the information it already gets from banks and employers to give taxpayers the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return. Experts estimate that the Obama proposal will save Americans up to 200 million total hours of work and aggravation and up to $2 billion in tax preparer fees. (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#tax-relief)

- Doug

June 3, 2008 at 3:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MDenis--What do you consider "rich"? A look at the Forbes top 400 wealthiest Americans ranges from $48 billion to $750 million, with an average of around $2.5 billion. Now using your un-cited 5%/90% figure, that means that the top 5% of Americans pay 171 times more taxes than the average joe. Well according to the Social Security Administration which tracks the national average wage, the averge joe makes $36,651.41. But let's not hate on the success of these 5% and just assume that they make say 2% of that $2.5 billion a year. That $50 million they make--$50,000,000 on average. That's 1,364 times more than Joe and that number is only going up. That's 1,364 times than Ted and Dave. 1,364 vs. 171… I have an idea of what fair is. This isn't it.

- Mannewell Darby

June 3, 2008 at 4:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In reading all of your posts, we can all agree that each of us feels we are already paying too much in taxes. While Social Security and Medicare still require attention, less our retiring/elderly will find themselves without benefits, would someone please explain to me how we are going to pay for all the proposed plans Sen. Obama has promised? I have heard of raising the taxes for those who earn higher incomes and for corporations. Will this actually be enough to cover medical expenses for 300 million people? How high should the amount be for taxing these groups and still hope they have money to invest in jobs for all of us or keep their prices down? Then I hear, we can defray war costs to pay for these programs. Aren't the war costs what is putting us in debt? So we will transfer one form of debt over to another. I guess the answer is that no one can truthfully meet these promises. That we can not ask the American taxpayer to pay a college student $40/hour to do community work, they will have to earn what most of us had to earn to get us through college and help pay our bills. We will not be given entirely free healthcare, maybe forego the plasma tele purchase, the new car, learn to live in a more modest home, not eat out as much, and pay out a little more for our necessities. And while we learn to live within our means then we should ask government to spend within their means,to work towards reforming their agencies, and address the system of tort reform,(which is what primarily is ruining our healthcare system and driving costs up). Then maybe, we should all realize times have changed, those third world countries are progressing and requiring the same things we took for granted (i.e. oil), and we will have to invest in education, new technologies, and our industries to remain competitive and to provide us with a lifestyle all of us were once used to.

- Genevieve

June 3, 2008 at 4:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is easy to explain hy a 25% taxcut across the board is helping the rich more then the middle class and lower income. 25% of lets say 250.000 is more then 25% of 50.000 Cut taxes for the lower income and raise tax by say 5% on higher income. This way you will have increased gocernment income and yet stimulate the economy because the lower and middle income need that cut to spend on daily lives, whereas the higher incom would cut down on savings a bit. This is really a no-brainer and economics 101. No I am not a socialist, I am considered a fiscal conservative, but I am also a realist and I pay 52% income tax. I agree it hurts when you see your bonus cut in half (more actually), but I also realise that the economy needs me and people like me to support the ones earning less. McCain is trying to sell the same old tripe with beautiful words but we have seen what that policy did to the US economy the last two terms. I don't need more of that.

- Hans-Erik Iken

June 3, 2008 at 4:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not only are capital gains tax rates lower than earned income rates, but capital gains are not taxed for Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid.

- RMA

June 3, 2008 at 4:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Neither McCain nor Obama will have a direct effect on either state and local taxation or spending. So what do the figures show. A Congressional Budget Office study shows that in 1979, the bottom 1/5 of federal taxpayers earned average pretax income of $15,700 and in 2005 they earned $15,900; the next highest quintile earned in 1979 an average of $34,000 and $37,400 in 2005; the next highest quintile earned $51,000 in 1979 and $58,500 in 2005; the next earned $69,000 and $85,200 respectively; and the top 20% earned $132,100 and $231,300 respectively. In that top quintile, the top 10% earned $172,200 in 1979 and $339,100 in 2005; the top 5% earned $234,200 in 1979 and $520,200 in 2005; and the top 1% earned an average of $517,800 and $1,558,500 respectively. You can see who has garned most of the growth in income that has taken place in those 26 years. Over that period, the bottom 20% paid 5.8% of the income tax burden in 1979 and 4.0% in 2005; the next quintile paid 11.1% of the burden in 1979 and 8.5% in 2005; the next quintile paid 15.8% and 13.3% of the burden respectively; the next paid 22% and 19.8%; and the top quintile paid 45.5% and 55.1%. in that top quintile, the top 10% paid 30.5% and 40.9% of the total tax burden in 1979 and 2005; the top 5% paid 20.7% and 31.1% of that burden; and the top 1% paid 9.3% and 18.1% respectively. These numbers show that, while the top 20% of income earners have been the only taxpayers to have their total share of the tax burden go up, theirs has seen the greatest increase in income over the 26 years. It is only natural that they would pay a greater share. If they want the rest of the income spectrum to pay more of the tax burden, then the rest of us will need a substantial increase in our share of the income generated by the economy.

- RMA

June 3, 2008 at 5:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Midwest Conservative, You are not the first person to question Obama's apparent lack of "experience". What I'm wondering is, what sort of experience SHOULD he have? And what would it tell us? Should he be like John Kerry or Ted Kennedy (or John McCain for that matter) and have a couple more decades in Congress? Is that your idea of a proven track record? Of course not - then the criticism would be that he's an elitist hack, a professional politician, and part of a broken system. So it's clearly not POLITICAL experience you are looking for. Remember, Obama already has more political experience than Ronald Reagan did when he was elected President. But then there's leadership and business experience. He's never run a business you say? So? George W. Bush ran two of them and look where that got us. Jimmy Carter ran a business too. Reagan didn't. Ddoes anyone actually imagine that that serving as Chief Exectuive of the U.S. is anything at all like owning a business? Jay is correct - Obama has roughly the same experience that Lincoln had. And considerably more experience than Harry Truman had. Not all experience is good experience. The experience that matters is the kind that informs us of the candidate's command of issues, decision-making and judgment. And yes, the ability to communicate and capacity to inspire - these are indispensible elements of leadership. Now you may not be convinced that Obama has demonstrated this - reasonable minds can differ here. But let's not pretend as if running a business, or being a Governor or a lenghty career in Congress would do the trick either.

- citizenghost

June 3, 2008 at 6:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When Reagan took office in 1980 the federal budget was 600 billion dollars. This year it topped 3 trillion! The totally out of control government WILL be the downfall of this country. What future do my grandchildren have when their taxes will have to rise to support this out of control government?

- Fred

June 3, 2008 at 7:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

'I'm going to vote for McCain because he's going to reduce taxes.' This is so utterly laughable, as the article points out. Reducing taxes without reducing spending just means more debt and eventually, more taxes to pay for it, plus even MORE taxes to cover interest on the debt. And McCain promises to continue the Iraq war, costing more than $150 BILLION per year, and of course, continue defense spending at its current rate of $400+ BILLION per year, while hedging about finding $18 billion to cut? Seriously, how stupid does one have to be to swallow this after 8 years of the same rhetoric by the Current Occupant?

- Wow . . . Just Wow

June 3, 2008 at 7:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The top 5% of income earners pay over 50% of the taxes that support our government. Yeah, they're getting off easy. Suuuuuuure. It's only natural that tax cuts favor those who pay more taxes. Anything else turns it into a transfer payment. Quite frankly, I am smack in the middle of middle class. I have benefitted GREATLY from the Bush tax cuts, especially the increase to the child tax credit. If someone makes more than I do, and pays way more taxes, I do not begrudge them getting a bigger break, because they still are paying more. To me, that seems fair and good. I am not one of those who bases all my decisions on jealousy against people who are successful.

- Southerner

June 3, 2008 at 7:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

as much as I hate mccain, when I read an article like this, written by an ignorant socialist, it does push my vote in mccain's direction

- glebby shwanson

June 3, 2008 at 7:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So by economic conservative you mean liberal.

- gladRocks

June 3, 2008 at 8:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The matter of the fact is: If we were not in this war, we would have money galore to spend in our own country. And since we have a war, we need to get the money to finance it somehow. Everyone wants everything but who pays for it??? You cannot expect to get it all without paying for it. THis would be stealing and right now we steal from our kids and grandkids that we leave with a budgetary mess!

- IamME

June 3, 2008 at 8:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Voting for a pure socialist (even though he unabashedly admits it) does not make any sense if you are the true conservative you say you are. Makes no darn sense at all!

- Marc

June 3, 2008 at 9:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why is the the relationship between taxes and services provided by the government for the betterment of all is apparently such a difficult concept for some people? If anyone feels that they would have made all the money they do today in any other country, especially a low-tax, low-government intervention one, then I'll respect the position that the current US tax system is somehow representative of a Lenin/Fidel/Hugo wealth redistribution scheme. I would suggest trying getting born in say Bagladesh or Afghanistan and giving it a spin to see how it works out. The US tried a system where no-one paid taxes and the government didn't regulate much of the economy. Mark Twain called it the Gilded age, and it didn't work out so well for the vast majority of people.

- Nari224

June 3, 2008 at 9:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The federal government MUST immediate cease spending more than it collects in tax revenues. Our top two economists (Bernacke and Greenspan) both say we are on a DEATH SPIRAL. If private managers of trust departments engaged in this activity, it would be criminal. "Nothing is so well calculated to produce a death-like torpor in the country as an extended system of taxation and a great national debt." - William Cobbett (1762–1835), English journalist, reformer. Letter, 10 Feb. 1804.

- Holman

June 3, 2008 at 9:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think the election will force Americans to decide on 2 questions: 1) Is the best way to allocate health care to make it a "right" (federal entitlement) and get costs downs through government mandates on providers? Or is the best way to eliminate the employer-subsidized health care and have consumers reduce costs through their choices? 2) Should we serve as the world's policeman and nation build or can carrot-and-stick diplomacy get the world's dictators to treat their people better and act responsibly in the world community? As a McCain supporter, I agree here with Chait's argument that McCain's tax cuts are a non-starter, but I think I can offer a rationale for them. At the risk of oversimplification, the Republican Party is for economic efficiency and the Democratic Party for economic fairness. Most economists agree that taxes (on income, sales, capital gains, imports) reduce economic efficiency but also agree that public goods (highways, parks, police, clean water and air, national defense, etc.) need to be paid for. I agree with Democrats that wealthier people benefit more (would they enjoy their lifestyles in a country without this infrastructure?) from these public goods and thus should pay more. That being said, I think the lesson of the failure of Bush Social Security Reform is that the only way to change this program from defined benefit to defined contribution (and thus bring our future deficits back in balance) is to attack incoming revenues. Then, those who propose additional spending (domestic or for wars) can only pay for it by substantially reducing promised benefits (in addition to raiding the SS trust fund as both parties do now). McCain, as one of the other posters wrote, is not an economic conservative at heart (though he is listening much more to Jack Kemp and Steve Forbes than he is to Pete Peterson). As President, he knows he'll have a Democratic Congress who'll never pass massive tax cuts but he can use these tax cuts as a weapon to go after social security and wring waste out of our health care system.

- Shalesh Kumbhat

June 3, 2008 at 9:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Conservatives THINK ITS CUTE, to pretend to have principles: like small government, like states rights, like original intent. But they dont want small government: Conservatives want the government to have the power to secretly detain and torture without a trial. Conservatives are suing the state of California over emissions, trying to tell the states that only the Feds should be able to set emissions standards. California would have their standards by now if it werent for Conservatives. Conservatives didnt want Florida to be allowed to count the votes, in 2000, because the Supreme Court had to rule 5-4, ALL CONSERVATIVES, against states rights to count votes, and granted an injunction, ALL CONSERVATIVES, against the Floridian high court. Conservatives dont believe in original intent, because they want the president to have the power to start wars based on lies, you have George Bushs advisors telling him he should have "near dictatorial" powers during a time of perpetual war. Conservatives have always thumbed their nose at the Constitution, which says NO torture, NO cruel and unusual punishment, and the Constitition says that the President SHOULD NOT have the power to declare war. Cute, Conservatives - oh and since you betrayed your so-called principles, then you arent "real" Conservatives, so I guess we cant blame your stupid system of Conservative belief for everything George Bush the idiot has done WITH YOUR SUPPORT. Conservatives, go to Hell.

- OH

June 3, 2008 at 9:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lesserliz. With friends like you, who needs enemies?

- jojo4m

June 3, 2008 at 9:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Thomas: If you are living on the edge of poverty as you describe and yet find yourself in a 50 percent tax bracket, let me suggest that you find yourself a better tax accountant. Or perhaps, to look at this honestly, your bonus was subject to withholding taxes as if it were your normal pay for that period, and you will recover a good portion of that withheld tax when you file your annual return. This happens to many of us, and many of us are astute enough about income taxes to understand it.

- David Bessmer

June 3, 2008 at 9:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

4331vd1-221vzgx-tw6q02d7-0 http://online-gambling-mo.lookera.net#1 health insurance|health insurance quotes|individual health insurance|health insurance|low cost health insurance|group health insurance|health insurance|health insurance quotes|individual health insurance|health insurance|low cost health insurance [url=http://urlser.com/?boo2X#3]life insurance|whole life insurance|whole life insurance policy|life insurance|online life insurance|life insurance leads|life insurance|whole life insurance policy|whole life insurance quotes|life insurance[/url] [url]http://urlser.com/?boo2X#4[/url] [http://texas-holdem-mo.lookera.net#5 texas holdem|texas holdem poker|texas holdem hands|texas holdem|texas holdem|online poker|texas holdem|poker games|poker tables] "online casino gambling|online casinos|free casino games|online casino gambling|online gambling|free casino|online casino gambling|casino|casinos|online casino gambling|casino games|free casino games|online casino gambling|online gambling":http://online-casino-gambling-mo.lookera.net#6 [LINK http://urlser.com/?5Nnno#7]progressive insurance|insurance quotes|allstate insurance|progressive insurance|automobile insurance|renters insurance|progressive insurance|insurance online|insurance rates|progressive insurance|progressive insurance|allstate insurance[/LINK]

- health insurance quotes

June 3, 2008 at 10:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

McCain couldn't get the 33 Republican votes he needed to make the veto of the farm bill stick. He couldn't get the dozen Republican votes he needed to pass the Carbon Offsets law he's promoting. How exactly is McCain going to pay for all this stuff he's promoting? Democrats won't follow him. Republicans won't follow him. If he wants to get anything passed, he'll have to load it up with so much pork that it'll squeal when you poke it. I've got two candidates to choose from (my main man lost in the primaries). One of them promises a lot more spending, and promises tax cuts that aren't going to happen. The other promises a lot less spending (mostly on Iraq), but doesn't make any promises about tax cuts. From a pocketbook standpoint, this one is a no-brainer. And I couldn't care less that Obama only has a decade of experience legislating. Maybe that'll mean he has to rely on his advisors, not a guy who can't remember who's actually in power in Iran.

- Matthew H

June 3, 2008 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

morzer, "Conservatives rely on your not doing the math, and realizing that yes, the rich gain more for such tax cuts - and need them far less." This is a ridiculous statement on many levels. First, conservatives don't rely on people not doing their math; they rely on people knowing how we pay taxes. We all know someone making $20k, won't pay any taxes at all because of all the deductions. Also, even if they did, they pay taxes at marginal rates almost twice as high. Second, as someone else already mentioned, when the government forces you to pay less, you don't "gain more", you get to keep more. People who already pay for the lion’s share of government subsequently pay less in taxes aren't now freeloading off the government. In fact, most of the government programs they're paying for (Medicare and SS) will provide virtually no benefit to them. The "rich", however you or Barrack Obama decide to arbitrarily define it, end up footing the bill for all of the do-gooding programs politicians have cooked up over the years. Lastly, who are you or anybody to determine whether someone else "needs" the money they earned? Just because person A earns less than person B, doesn't give person B the right to persuade politicians to take money away from person A because, in their estimation, he doesn't need it. I believe in property rights and I don't believe the majority has the right to confiscate the property of the minority to fund the objectives of the majority.

- hutch

June 3, 2008 at 10:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Midwest conservative, How old are you? I was paying taxes during the "Reagan Revolution" averaging around 60K over those 8 years. I'll explain that 25% tax cut for all brackets, it is a FICTION! Not only did it not happen, it was a campaign promise that never made it to a proposal. The actual tax cuts were somewhat more modest, and led directly to what was then an unheard of deficit. David Stockman, the architect of those "trickle down" failures, repudiated those policies in no uncertain terms. This sort of revisionism is grotesque. Military budget more than 5%, before Iraq's bill is tallied? even more grotesque.

- gimmeliberty

June 3, 2008 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Let's see - FDR, an 8 NY Gov, pretty effective president, RWR, an 8 yr California Gov, pretty effective, DDI, supreme allied commander in WWII, pretty effective, Clinton, AR gov for many years, pretty effective, Jimmy Carter, not much experience, prety poor, GWB, not much experience, pretty poor. Lincoln lead the country well through the civil war - maybe someone else would have avoided it. Truman - pretty poor at getting things through congress. But then, he did not ask for the job to start with. I think lots can be learned by a person's experience. That is how people are hired everywhere else, seems silly to ignore it when choosing a president. I just don't think Obama has demonstrated an ability beyond that of winning elections. Again, my argument is not one of ideology, but of demonstrated leadership. What did he do in Illinois that leads you to believe he will be a good president?

- MidwestConservative

June 3, 2008 at 6:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, the percentage share of the total economy that is the federal budget has gone down since 1979, not by much but down nevertheless. So the absolute number has gone up but not the proportion.

- RMA

June 4, 2008 at 4:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Would you rather have lower taxes or higher wages? Can you live on $35,000 to %57,000 a year?

- RMA

June 4, 2008 at 4:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No business will knowingly produce goods and services they cannot sell. So if we let income go primarily to the top 1% forever, who is going to buy the goods and services that businesses produce?

- RMA

June 4, 2008 at 4:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

gimmeliberty, it did happen. however, in reagan's second term the gephardt-bradley (bth democrats) tax reform bill was passed. That bill reduced the top bracket to something like 28%.

- MidwestConservative

June 4, 2008 at 8:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pretty nice site, wants to see much more on it! :)

- John Williams

August 19, 2008 at 10:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Pretty nice site, wants to see much more on it! :)

- John Williams ok

August 20, 2008 at 8:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's OK to spend trillions in Iraq, but any money for science should be questioned, according to McCain, who doesn't understand wildlife biology. DNA studies on populations of animals that are under stress (bears in Montana) are important. You must know the genetic relatedness between the different populations of a species, for management decisions. As populations of a species decline, inbreeding becomes one of the biggest threats to the survival of that species. This is money for basic science. The lack of understanding of basic science by the politicians, of both parties, is shameful.

- Dick

September 11, 2008 at 6:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close