McSame and Taxes
Here is a very good article on the hypocrisy of John McCain on taxes… and where his tax cuts will really go.
Taxes, Integrity and Character
Posted on Jun 18, 2008By Joe Conason
Once upon a time, there was a fiscally and socially responsible senator named John McCain. Despite his presidential ambitions, the Republican from Arizona spoke out against the economic royalism of his party’s leadership in the White House and Congress, and simply said no.
He rejected the Bush tax cuts in 2001 because they provided an unearned bonanza for America’s wealthiest citizens while giving a pittance to the middle class and nothing to the working poor. To him, as a long-standing enemy of waste and profligacy, these proposals were not only unfair but also unwise.
“I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief,” he said, joining courageously with Lincoln Chafee, then a senator from Rhode Island, as one of two Republicans who dared to cast such a crucial vote against president and party.
Now Chafee is no longer in the Senate, having lost reelection in 2006 after enduring a brutal primary challenge from the Republican right. And McCain, now driven by ambition rather than principle, has changed. He supports the tax cuts that his conscience once moved him to oppose—and indeed, he promises to deliver even more lucrative benefits to those who need relief least, at the expense of those who need it most.
Tax policy is rarely regarded as a character issue. It is possible to believe that rewarding the rich should be the main purpose of the tax code, and it is also possible to believe that taxation should advance rather than diminish equality—and it is possible for honorable people to argue either way. But in McCain’s case, the complete flip-flop and implausible explanation raise disturbing questions about his integrity. (That is particularly true of a candidate like McCain, who questioned the character of a primary opponent, Mitt Romney, for revamping his positions on abortion and other social issues.)
By the time McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 he had established a strong position against their regressive effects. That stance marked him as a true maverick in his own party and a straight talker who spoke for the national interest against his own personal interests. Running against George W. Bush in the 2000 GOP primary, he mocked the Texas governor’s “misplaced” bonanza for the affluent.
“Sixty percent of the benefits from his tax cuts go to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans—and that’s not the kind of tax relief that Americans need,” he said. Despite his wife’s inherited wealth, he criticized proposals to repeal the estate tax for the same reason, noting that such legislation “would provide massive benefits solely to the wealthiest and highest-income taxpayers in the country.”
As the chance to run for president again drew closer, however, McCain shifted toward conservative orthodoxy. In 2005 he voted for cuts in capital gains taxes that he had previously opposed, and in 2006 voted for essentially the same estate-tax repeal he had once denounced. And today his economic platform extends to the Bush tax cuts and makes them still more regressive—and more expensive.
According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the McCain proposals would render almost one-quarter of their benefits to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of taxpayers. Those are households with annual incomes over $2.8 million. Families in the lower 60 percent of the income scale would receive 8 percent of the McCain plan’s benefits. This scheme would result in the loss of at least $4 trillion in revenue over the coming decade, as our physical infrastructure crumbles.
Even more troubling than those numbers, however, is the contorted rhetoric that the Republican nominee-to-be has used to justify his policy reversal. Over the past several months, you see, he has discovered that he never really opposed the Bush tax cuts as unfair. He only opposed them because there weren’t enough spending cuts to balance the revenue reductions.
At the same time, however, he now insists that cutting taxes actually increases federal revenues—the discredited supply-side mumbo-jumbo that he must endorse to win over his party base. But if reducing taxes actually raises revenues, then why is he so worried about spending cuts?
Intellectual honesty was the currency of the straight talker, yet he has squandered that great asset by pandering to the most irresponsible ideologues. How he can bear to do this to himself is a mystery.
Truthdig - A/V Booth - Make McCain Exciting
Funny stuff…
“Not too important” - Part Two
Senator McCain wants context? Keith Olbermann is happy to provide it.
Thank you, Keith.
Part One:
Part Two:
“Not too important” - Part One
Not too important.
According to Senator John McCain, when we bring our troops home is “not too important.” Nice. Now, the entire context of the remark is that what is important is the number of casualties being suffered, and McCain cited our presence in Korea as the case in point.
Where do I begin to respond to such ignorance, callousness and arrogance?
First off, McIdiot, there is absolutely no comparison between Iraq and Korea, or Iraq and West Germany. Both Korea and Germany were cold war conflicts between nation-states; clearly identifiable adversaries. In the case of Korea, the combatants fought to a standstill and reached an armistice, one that is still in effect today. Exactly when did an armistice get implemented in Iraq?
In Iraq, Senator, we are faced with a civil war (please stop denying this) and we are faced with an Iraqi government that has made nearly zero progress in being able to govern and secure their own nation. At last count, only three of eighteen benchmarks have been met. The fact of the matter is that the Iraqis will not get serious about resolving their own differences and governing themselves when it is clear that we are leaving. Until then, they default to U.S. troops being bombed and shot at in the name of Iraqi freedom.
McCain wants us to believe that with his election some magical event will result in no more U.S. troops dying in Iraq while we continue a peaceful occupation. My God, isn’t this just “they will greet us as liberators” taken to post-invasion Iraq? Exactly how is this violence… in the middle of a frakking war zone… going to stop? Of course, McCain is silent on these specifics.
In fact, when asked about those specifics, McCain’s only response is to criticize Barack Obama and denounce any timetable for U.S. withdrawal. I think it is worth noting here that Iraq itself (through its legislators) has asked for a timetable. It is also worth noting that the same John McCain himself publicly stated a timetable, predicting that U.S. troops will be drawn down by January, 2013. Doesn’t this idiot even pay attention to what he has already said?
Second, I would like to see McCain say to the troops and their families that it isn’t important when our soldiers come home. What? I’m sure that the soldier on his third tour of duty wouldn’t quite agree. I’m also reasonably certain that the Marine who will never walk again might disagree with that, as I am sure that grieving families may not find McCain;s words very comforting.
McCain’s comment is deplorable. It is insensitive. Frankly, it is stupid. It demonstrates very clearly that Iraq and foreign policy are not John McCain’s strong points, Given that he already told us how little he knows about the economy, could someone please explain to me what this man’s qualifications are? It’s not a qualification that he outlasted other idiots.
Please keep staying stuff like this, John. That will be the best way to insure a Barack Obama presidency. In the meantime, Johnny gets another Momo… no doubt not the last that he will see in this campaign.
Part Two is tomorrow night… after Keith Olbermann’s promised Special Commentary.
Fact Check: McCain’s Budget Nonsense
Here is a great two-part check on McCain;s budget statements from Fact Check dot org. The articles also serve as a reminder as to the fiction of Supply Side (”Trickle Down”) economics.
The Budget According to McCain: Part I
May 13, 2008
Updated: May 16, 2008Think it’s all about cutting earmarks? Think again.
Summary
McCain’s big promise is that he can balance the budget while extending Bush’s tax cuts and adding a few of his own. He likes to leave the impression that this can be done painlessly, for example, by eliminating “wasteful” spending in the form of “earmarks” that lawmakers like to tuck into spending bills to finance home-state projects. We found that not only is this theory full of holes, it’s not even McCain’s actual plan. In this story we examine the spending-cut side of McCain’s budget program. In Part II, we’ll look at what McCain has said about taxes.
McCain’s pronouncements on cutting spending, and even on the growth in the size of the federal government, are dubious at best:
* McCain seems to say that he can save $100 billion by cutting out earmarks. But budget experts say that cutting earmarks would actually save very little. And questioned more closely, McCain’s campaign now says that his planned savings have nothing to do with eliminating earmarks.
* With earmarks out as a potential source of savings, McCain hasn’t said what he’d cut out of the discretionary budget to get to $100 billion. He’s even indicated that defense spending might increase. If defense spending is off the table, saving $100 billion would require 18.5 percent across-the-board cuts in every other discretionary program, including things like elementary and secondary education, veterans’ health benefits and highway construction. The alternative would be severe cuts in a few programs, as yet unnamed.
* McCain says that “just in the last few years” the government has puffed up “by 40 percent, by trillions.” Actually, it has taken federal spending a decade to grow 40 percent, and even longer to grow by “trillions.” In inflation-adjusted dollars, federal spending is projected to come to $2.45 trillion in fiscal 2009, including $1.4 trillion for Social Security, Medicare, military spending and veterans programs. The last time the budget was “trillions” smaller was 1951.
Update, May 16: In our original article, we did not specify in the summary that the $2.45 trillion in federal spending is measured in inflation-adjusted dollars, with 2000 as a baseline. Also, we have changed the summary to reflect that the estimate is for fiscal year 2009, as we say in the Analysis section; the spending levels are still being developed by Congress.
Also, we should not have said that student loans were part of the discretionary budget, as we did originally. They are not. And we have changed the term “assistance to veterans” to be more specific, since some veterans programs are mandatory and some are discretionary.
Analysis
Beginning, appropriately enough, with an April 15 speech, presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain began unveiling a series of economic proposals. He elaborated on his plan in an April 16 interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC and again in an April 20 appearance on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” and has continued repeating many of his claims on the stump. In the first of our two-part article on McCain’s budget and tax proposals, we look at his plan to reduce government spending.
The Budget According to McCain: Part II
May 14, 2008The new McCain loves tax cuts. But many of his claims about them are off.
Summary
In our last installment we looked at McCain’s pronouncements on spending cuts to help balance the budget. In Part II, we examine what he’s said on a subject that might be more pleasing to many Americans: lowering taxes. We found exaggerations and distortions here, as well.
* McCain says that eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax will save “more than 25 million middle-class families more than $2,000 every year.” But McCain’s “middle class” includes families making up to $200,000 per year, and the $2,000 figure is an average. Those earning more money will see the lion’s share of the savings. McCain also leaves out the fact that the proposal could cost as much as $1.6 trillion over 10 years.
* By the measure most economists prefer, McCain is wrong in his claim that Sens. Clinton and Obama want to implement “the single largest tax increase since the Second World War;” it would be the fifth largest. At a more basic level, it’s misleading to tag Clinton and Obama for something that was scheduled during the Bush administration – the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which by law will occur at the end of 2010.
* McCain also repeats the mantra that cutting the capital gains tax rate will increase government receipts. In fact, rate cuts produce a spike in revenue, but it’s only temporary. McCain also falsely claims that higher capital gains tax rates will affect 401(k) plans.
* McCain was the first to announce the now widely discredited proposal to suspend federal gas taxes. The proposal wouldn’t lower prices at the pump and would result in (effectively) an $8.5 billion windfall to oil companies.
Analysis
In an April 15 speech, McCain unveiled a set of proposals that he says would reduce spending, lower taxes and still leave the government with enough money to balance the budget. We’ve already tackled McCain’s pledge to cut discretionary spending by $100 billion. In this second part, we examine his plan to lower your taxes.
Alternative Middle-Class Cuts
McCain says his plan to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would be a “middle-class tax cut.” That depends on what your definition of “middle class” is.
McCain (April 15): “I will also send to the Congress a middle-class tax cut – a complete phase-out of the Alternative Minimum Tax to save more than 25 million middle-class families more than 2,000 dollars every year.”
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s economic adviser, confirms that the senator is referring to taxpayers making up to $200,000 a year. According to projections by the Tax Policy Center (TPC), 26.6 million of those paying the tax in 2010 will make up to $200k, while 5.8 million will make more than that. TPC figures also show that the majority (64 percent, or 20.9 million) of AMT taxpayers in 2010 will earn more than $100,000 a year. The AMT was originally devised in 1969 after 155 taxpayers with incomes over $200,000 escaped paying any federal income taxes. But because the tax isn’t indexed to inflation, it has been affecting a greater percentage of taxpayers in most income classifications each year; that $200,000 threshold would be worth $1.2 million in today’s dollars. Bush’s tax cuts have caused the AMT to affect more people than it otherwise would: Taxpayers are subject to the AMT when the amount they owe under the “regular” tax system dips below the amount they would pay under the AMT, so cuts in the regular tax rate can actually increase the number of people who must pay the AMT. In fact, the estimated percentage of taxpayers subject to the AMT will have more than doubled in 2010 because of the Bush tax cuts.
Holtz-Eakin also told FactCheck.org that the families to which McCain refers would save an average of $2,000 a year. That means some would save more and some would save less. Those in higher income groups pay much more of AMT taxes than do those with lower earnings, and they would reap more of the benefits of repealing the tax as well. About 90 percent of the tax benefits of doing away with the AMT in 2007, for instance, would have gone to households in the $100k and above group; 55 percent would have gone to households earning more than $200k. We’ve charted the Tax Policy Center’s data on who will pay the AMT in 2010 and how much of the AMT tax burden they’ll bear:
Fact Check: McCain continues to lie about Katrina
From Fact Check dot org:
Katrina Kerfuffle
June 5, 2008McCain claims he “supported every investigation” into the government’s role regarding the hurricane, when in fact he twice voted against an independent commission.
Summary
McCain was asked by a New Orleans reporter why he voted twice against an independent commission to investigate the government’s failings before and after Hurricane Katrina, and he incorrectly stated that he had “voted for every investigation.”
McCain actually voted twice, in 2005 and 2006, to defeat a Democratic amendment that would have set up an independent commission along the lines of the 9/11 Commission. At the time of the second vote, members of both parties were complaining that the White House was refusing requests by Senate investigators for information.
The McCain campaign accused the Obama campaign of “tired negative attacks” for pointing out and documenting McCain’s gaffe.
Analysis
A New Orleans television reporter asked John McCain at a June 4 town hall meeting in Louisiana why he had voted twice against the creation of a commission to investigate preparedness for Hurricane Katrina. McCain responded that he “supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy.” That’s not true.
McCain did, as the reporter said, twice vote against legislation that would have created an independent commission, much like the 9/11 Commission, to investigate the government’s role in preparedness for and response to the hurricane. Here’s the exchange:
Reporter: Senator, Maya Rodriguez at the CBS station out of New Orleans. My understanding is you have voted twice against the creation of a commission to investigate the levee failures in New Orleans. And my question is, why have you voted against that?
McCain: I’ve supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy. I’ve been here to New Orleans. I’ve met with people on the ground. I’ve met with the governor. I’m not familiar with exactly what you said, but I’ve been as active as anybody in efforts to restore the city.
The reporter was referring to votes on an amendment offered by Sen. Hillary Clinton in 2005 and 2006 to set up an independent commission to look into the government’s actions regarding Katrina. The commission would have been made up of non-federal-government employees, appointed by the president and Democratic and Republican leaders in Congress. Republicans defeated both attempts, with yeas and nays cast completely along party lines.
Even more of the McSame
It’s not bad enough that John McCain willfully follows the President on Iraq. It’s not enough that he caved on the torturing of detainees. It’s not even enough the McCain acknowledges being clueless about the economy. Now, John McCain wants to continue the illegal surveillance activities that violate the civil liberties of American citizens. And once again, he has managed to flip-flop from a previously stated position.
I’ll say this for him… he’s consistent. Consistently bad.
Adviser Says McCain Backs Bush Wiretaps
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: June 6, 2008WASHINGTON — A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.
In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.
Mr. McCain believes that “neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin wrote.
And if Mr. McCain is elected president, Mr. Holtz-Eakin added, he would do everything he could to prevent terrorist attacks, “including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.”
Although a spokesman for Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, denied that the senator’s views on surveillance and executive power had shifted, legal specialists said the letter contrasted with statements Mr. McCain previously made about the limits of presidential power.
About
This is a site designed specifically for reporting on and analyzing the record and positions of Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for the presidency. It is not intended to be a “hit” job, but we offer no apologies for the fact that we vehemently disagree with the overwhelming majority of Mr. McCain’s positions. Further, we believe that McCain is someone that has sold out his principles for political convenience, has questionable ethics, and therefore cannot be trusted to hold the highest office in this land.
STILL SEEKING CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS SITE - send a blog link or writing samples to nomoreofthemcsame@gmail.com.
-
Reader Comments
Ed on Two great McSame cartoons Barack on Please caption this pic… 
Rick on Caption this pic #2 McCain-Bush '08 on The Bush-McCain Challenge Suicide Clutch on Caption this pic #2 Brodrick on Caption this pic #2 Babs on Caption this pic #2 Purple State Pundit on McAbsent todd on Please caption this pic… Jeff on Please caption this pic…
