McCain's Perversion of Fairness

NYO: Let’s begin with the dishonesty of the McCain rant. What Mr. Obama proposes is to restore the tax rates on the wealthy to the same level as during the Clinton administration – that is, to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire without renewing them for individuals and families reporting more than $250,000 in annual income. There is nothing radical in this idea, let alone socialistic, (especially compared with the bank nationalizations and other violations of capitalist orthodoxy that Mr. McCain has supported recently as emergency measures).
Not only is there nothing radical about repairing the unfairness of those Bush tax cuts, but it is precisely the same position that Mr. McCain argued when they were first enacted. Is his memory so poor that he cannot remember saying that the Bush tax plan was “skewed” to benefit the rich? Having reversed that position for political convenience in the most craven way, he has also invented a different justification for opposing Mr. Bush back then – namely that he thought the cuts were fiscally irresponsible. But that isn’t what he said in 2000 and 2001.

McCain's Welfare

McCain and Palin's and the radical right's cry of socialism is just that --a cry. Desperation.

Factcheck.org: The McCain campaign has taken to denigrating some of Obama's tax proposals as "welfare" rather than tax cuts. And it continues to mislead about who would see a tax increase.
A new McCain-Palin Web ad characterizes Obama's proposed refundable tax credits as "welfare." But McCain himself proposes refundable tax credits, too, as part of his health care plan, and calls them "reform."

The ad also says "hard-working families" and "seniors" would pay higher taxes. But – need we say this again? – that would be true only for the affluent few, not for the many.
Analysis
The "welfare" argument appears, among other places, in the McCain-Palin campaign Web ad released Oct. 16.
The ad says, "Leading papers call Obama's taxes 'welfare' ... 'government handouts'." It says he would "raise taxes on seniors" and "hard-working families" and "give 'welfare' to those who pay none." It concludes, "Obama's not truthful on taxes."

This ad, however, is short of truthful itself.

As we've said any number of times, what Obama proposes would not raise taxes on any "hard-working families" unless they make more than $250,000 a year, a very small fraction of families. Independent analysis has shown than 95 percent of families with children would see federal income taxes go down.

As for "seniors," most of them would not see any increase in their federal income taxes either. In fact, Obama proposes to reduce federal income taxes to zero for persons 65 and over who make less than $50,000 a year. No other seniors would see an increase in what they pay to the IRS unless their income is $250,000 for a couple, or $200,000 for a single filer. It's true, as the McCain campaign likes to point out, that seniors who make less would be adversely affected by Obama's proposal to close down billions of dollars in tax preferences for corporations, which independent analysts calculate would flow through to owners of stocks and bonds in the form of lower dividend payments and reduced profits from capital gains. But while experts at the Congressional Budget Office and the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center tally this reduced income as "tax increases" for purposes of analyzing how proposed tax policies would affect different groups, it would not show up as an increased tax bill for any individual taxpayer, whatever their age.

"Welfare" or "Reform"?

The "welfare" claim rests on the argument, made in an Oct. 13 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, about refundable tax credits. Obama proposes to grant a number of refundable tax credits to low- and middle-income workers. For example, he would give a $500 tax credit ($1,000 for a couple) for workers, which would phase out for single workers making $75,000 or for couples making $150,000 per year. As the Journal editorial says: "You can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability." That's true enough. Whether or not that makes them "welfare" is a matter of interpretation, however. As the Journal editorial also says in its headline, "It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is."

Fair enough. But McCain himself is proposing refundable tax credits of up to $2,500 a year for individuals, or $5,000 for families, as part of his health care plan. McCain doesn't call his credits a "tax cut" but he doesn't call them "welfare" either. He does call it tax "reform," right there on his own Web site:
McCain Web site: John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code . . . [E]very family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Read more

See a side by side comparison of Obama and McCain's tax plans.

McCain Was Against Tax Cuts for the Rich

He used to be against tax cuts for the rich, said it was unfair, until he embraced George Bush.

What a grump

Economic History Favors Democrats

This is becoming more apparent as the rich folks forget how many houses they own and the rest of us scramble to pay for milk and gas. You can't expect to keep giving tax cuts to the wealthy in hopes they'll create jobs and pass it down. The wealthy know tax loopholes and how to make more of their money anyway.

NYT: CLEARLY, there are major differences between the economic policies of Senators Barack Obama and John McCain. Mr. McCain wants more tax cuts for the rich; Mr. Obama wants tax cuts for the poor and middle class. The two men also disagree on health care, energy and many other topics.

Such differences are hardly surprising. Democrats and Republicans have followed different approaches to the economy for as long as there have been Democrats and Republicans. Longer, actually. Remember Hamilton versus Jefferson?

Many Americans know that there are characteristic policy differences between the two parties. But few are aware of two important facts about the post-World War II era, both of which are brilliantly delineated in a new book, “Unequal Democracy,” by Larry M. Bartels, a professor of political science at Princeton. Understanding them might help voters see what could be at stake, economically speaking, in November.

I call the first fact the Great Partisan Growth Divide. Simply put, the United States economy has grown faster, on average, under Democratic presidents than under Republicans.

Income inequality doesn't pay.

It is well known that income inequality in the United States has been on the rise for about 30 years now — an unsettling development that has finally touched the public consciousness. But Professor Bartels unearths a stunning statistical regularity: Over the entire 60-year period, income inequality trended substantially upward under Republican presidents but slightly downward under Democrats, thus accounting for the widening income gaps over all. And the bad news for America’s poor is that Republicans have won five of the seven elections going back to 1980.

McCain Tax Lies Fact Check Video

Here's more:

MSNBC: But when it comes to promises, it's worth pointing out that, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center's analysis of both candidates' proposed plans, Obama would cut taxes for those making in the range of $38,000 to $66,000 three to almost eight times more than McCain would.

Under Obama's plan, according to the center, by 2009, those making $37,595 would see an average increase in their income of 3.6%, or a tax cut of $892; those making an average of $66,354 would see an increase in their income of 2.4%, or a tax cut of $1,042.

Here's a side by side comparison.

McCain's Fantastical Pledge

It makes you wonder, where does he come up with this stuff? How much preparation is behind it?

The New Republic: John McCain's fantastical pledge on Monday to balance the budget by 2013 through massive tax cuts and unidentified budget reductions deserved the bad reviews it received. But the most unfortunate element of his incoherent promise is that it's representative of his policy agenda these days. While the McCain campaign is trying to paint Barack Obama as a flip-flopper, the Arizona Republican is making diametrically opposed policy promises to different audiences at the same time. The contradictions are often in the details, but their obscurity is evidence of the campaign's cynicism.
Take McCain's ambitious health care plan. It would give every family a $5,000 health insurance tax credit at a cost of $3.6 trillion, by his campaign's own account. Despite its size, McCain aides have said, repeatedly, that McCain's health care proposal has no net cost. That's because it would tax workers' health benefits, which the Joint Committee on Taxation agrees will raise $3.6 trillion (in its analysis of the Bush proposal that served as the model for McCain's plan). Taxing health benefits solves the budget problem, but it creates another: It raises taxes on tens of millions of middle-class families, according to a Center for American Progress Action Fund report one of us co-authored.
Read more.

Guess Who Just Lost the Election

John McCain was supposed to come out with some economic speak today and all he gave was this:

Mr. McCain is pledging to balance the budget by the end of his first term as president in 2013, his advisers said Monday, reverting to an earlier pledge that the Arizona senator had abandoned in April when he proposed a series of costly tax cuts for corporations and high earners, and said it might take two terms to balance the budget.

“American workers and families pay their bills and balance their budgets, and I will demand the same of the government,” Mr. McCain said at a town hall-style meeting here.

But it is unclear how Mr. McCain plans to balance the budget, given that fiscal analysts who have examined his economic plans say his calls to extend the Bush tax cuts while cutting corporate and other taxes would likely increase the deficit significantly.

This tension between steep tax cuts and deficit reduction has been a recurring theme in the evolution of Mr. McCain’s economic thinking.

I can tell you this, when Americans are worried about their own budgets, they could give a hoot about the government's deficit. Also, how the heck does he plan to do this as a war president? War spending has sapped the budget. Balancing is not even plausible. 

When it comes to the economy, McCain is a vase of cut flowers. 

The Difference Between McCain and Bush

John McCain has been loyal to bush, more than the GOP, according to an NPR report this morning. NPR did a nice analysis identifying the differences between Bush and McCain.

There are three:
McCain supports stem cell research funding, McCain believes global warming is real and here's a small one, McCain's tax cuts are deeper than Bush's and a "radical" departure on where McCain used to stand on tax cuts.

NPR played a "Meet the Press" clip in which McCain said that the tax cuts were unfair because they favored the rich. He opposed George Bush. Now he supports the tax cuts for the wealthy and he wants to give them more.

If you support McCain, you would say he evolved and got smarter on tax cuts. If you don't like McCain, you could call him a flip flopper. If you're in the middle class, you'd say he's an idiot.

Obama isn't asking for a tax hike-- on the middle class (under $200K). He supports a redistribution. In simple words, take the decrease in taxes that the wealthy have had under Bush and give them to the the middle class. So effectively, it will be a tax increase for the rich. But the rest of us should know that it's a tax decrease for us.

So, as you see, McCain really is a Bush.
Here you can see a side by side comparison of Obama and McCain's tax policy. 
McCain’s Tax Cuts Fact Check
Obama's Redistribution of Taxes

The Difference between Obama and McCain: 

Obama supports women's right to choose. McCain does not -- his website says he wants to overturn Roe V. Wade. 

McCain supports offshore drilling, gas tax holiday, Obama does not. 

Obama supports tax breaks to the middle class. McCain supports tax breaks to the wealthy (the theory is the money will trickle down. This is a basic difference between dems and reps). 

Obama has a more diplomatic approach to foreign policy. McCain is a militarist. 

Obama believes in free trade -- but with reciprocity, making sure it's a good deal for the U.S.

McCain is traditional on free trade. For those who lose jobs to free trade, he wants to overhaul the unemployment insurance system and use it for retraining. 

Obama supports a transparent, modern government (everything on the Internet). McCain hasn't talked about this and doesn't use the Internet (he said he's learning). 

Obama wants to start a green jobs program, like Kennedy's Apollo program, to free the country of foreign oil in the next 10 years. McCain will probably be starting another war. 

Obama believes in funding education -- he wants to pay teachers more and fund No Child Left Behind.

I don't think McCain has talked about education other than saying he supports vouchers.
Obama wants to create new jobs through rebuilding America's infrastructure--bridges and roads-- and developing alternative energies.
McCain doesn't have a plan for jobs, other than giving tax cuts and breaks to the rich and corporations. Economics is not his expertise (he said so himself).
Obama wants a healthcare program that insures everyone who needs it gets it at an affordable rate. If you already have insurance and you're happy, it wouldn't change.
McCain wants to give families a $5,000 credit for health care.
Obama is known for his cool head. No drama Obama.
McCain is known for making rash decisions and flying off the handle.
Obama is the better leader. He inspires people to take action. Just look at his ground campaign.
McCain is a lead by brute force kind of guy.
Perhaps the biggest difference between Obama and McCain is McCain still thinks of international relations with an old mind.
Obama understands that the U.S. has to build alliances and partnerships to fend off terrorism and other threats.
Here's another fundamental difference: republicans don't believe in government in the first place, even though they've abused it for sure.
Democrats believe government can be helpful.