Posted on 10/04/2008 5:38:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
Now that Congress has approved the Bush-Paulson financial stabilization plan, Senator John McCain has an opportunity to refocus his Presidential campaign, and get back on the political offensive by pounding Senator Obama on the tax issue.
No domestic issue provides a starker contrast between Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama than the issue of taxes. McCain wants to keep taxes low for all taxpayers, and cut them where he can. Mr. Obama wants to redistribute the tax burden by raising tax rates on the economically successful, and providing tax relief to certain middle- and low-income earners.
Specifically, Senator McCain wants to permanently extend the 2001-2003 tax reductions, increase dependent tax exemptions, cut the U.S. corporate tax from 35 percent to 25 percent, allow businesses to expense their investments, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax. Ultimately, Mr. McCain wants to simplify the tax code by allowing taxpayers to choose between the current system or a streamlined system with two income tax brackets and a generous standard deduction.
By contrast, Senator Obama has proposed a redistributionist tax plan, which would generally raise income and payroll taxes on the so-called “wealthy,” and use that extra tax revenue to provide a hodge-podge of tax breaks for middle- and lower-income taxpayers. Obama’s tax-raising agenda includes increasing the top tax rate to 39.6 percent, raising capital gains and dividend taxes somewhere between 20 percent and 28 percent, and imposing a 2 to 4 percent payroll tax surcharge on people earning $250,000 or more.
Further, Senator Obama’s voting record clearly demonstrates his bias toward higher taxes. During just three years in the U.S. Senate, Obama voted 94 times for higher taxes, and voted for a Congressional budget resolution which called for raising taxes on people earning as low as $42,000 annually.
Because of tightening credit, rising energy prices, and the continuing fall-out from the housing bubble, the U.S. economy is clearly slowing down, perhaps sliding into a recession. As a result, jobless claims are up, consumer spending has slowed from the second quarter to the beginning of the third quarter, and corporate after-tax profits and capital expenditures are anemic. Over the past ten months through September, the economy has lost 983,000 jobs while unemployment has increased from 5.0 to 6.1 percent.
Even the most extreme liberal Keynesian economists would not propose increasing taxes in a recession. Barack Obama now says he would consider delaying the tax rate hikes on the rich if the economy is in recession. But if the budget deficit worsens, Mr. Obama will be under tremendous political pressure by liberal interest groups to raise taxes to pay for social government spending programs. If forced to choose between raising tax rates on the rich or increasing funding for Head Start or government health insurance for children, is there any doubt what President Obama would do, even if there was a recession?
In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, former Bush advisor Karl Rove wrote: “Taxes still matter because they are highly visible and unpopular. In a July 2008 Pew Poll, 52% of Americans said it was ‘difficult to afford’ taxes. And in times of economic challenge, concern about taxes rises—especially among blue-collar households skeptical of promises that that tax increases won’t affect them.” Mr. Rove concludes: “The tax issue has lost its political punch in the eyes of some commentators, but not among voters.”
Apparently, not many among Democrat politicians either. Recently, Senator Bernie Sanders, Independent from Vermont and an avowed socialist, proposed an amendment to the Paulson financial rescue plan calling for a 10 percent surtax on wealthy individuals earning more than $500,000 annually to help finance the cost of the plan. Interestingly, the amendment was defeated on a “voice vote” because Democratic Senators feared going on the record in favor of higher taxes only weeks before an election.
Clearly, Democrats remain politically vulnerable on taxes. During the recent Vice Presidential debate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin relentlessly attacked Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama for proposing higher taxes:
“Now, Barack Obama and Senator Biden also voted for the largest tax increases in U.S. history. Barack had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction, 94 times. Now, that's not what we need to create jobs and really bolster and heat up our economy. We do need the private sector to be able to keep more of what we earn and produce. Government is going to have to learn to be more efficient and live with less if that's what it takes to reign in the government growth that we've seen today. But we do need tax relief and Barack Obama even supported increasing taxes as late as last year for those families making only $42,000 a year. That's a lot of middle-income average American families to increase taxes on them. I think that is the way to kill jobs and to continue to harm our economy.”
Senator McCain needs to pick up where his running mate left off by repeatedly explaining his pro-growth tax cuts, and relentlessly pounding Barack Obama for wanting to raise taxes, from now until Election Day.
McCain should take advantage of the public distaste for the bailout bill and name the names of all members of Congress of both parties who loaded the bailout bill with pork. This would show him as a maverick and cost cutter.
McCain voted for it! If he didn’t like pork why did he vote for it? It’s still just a bailout for wall street and banks, not joe six pack. The bill will result in new taxes.
“Now that Congress has approved the Bush-Paulson financial stabilization plan, Senator John McCain has an opportunity to refocus his Presidential campaign, and get back on the political offensive by pounding Senator Obama on the tax issue.”
Is this the real reason it was signed by the President?
The pork in this bill is like taking breath mints from the check out bowl as you run out of your bill at a restaurant.
McCain. Life long political hack, a ‘Maverick’.
Lott, ten years of the Hasteret Congress, President Bush, the Senate Republicans and I'm supposed to believe that they are ‘cost cutters’? Democrat Lite, yes. Half step socialists, yes.
Same party, different factions. Lots of marketing though.
Lots of branding.
Just like Coke is radically different and better than Pepsi. Or is it the other way?
It’s the Taxes, Stupid!
In the recent debates, both Obama and Biden have told us that under their tax plan is about ‘fairness’ and that no one will pay ‘no more than they did under Ronald Reagan’. These lies can not stand. Karl Rove pointed this out last night on Fox, but even the well informed Rove only got it part right. Reagan’s top tax rate was 28%, and social security and Medicare were capped. Under Obama’s plan, the top rate would go up to 39.6%, much higher than Obama and Biden are telling us. But that is not the whole story. That does not include the 15.3% tax on social security and Medicare which Obama has proposed a doughnut hole approach, exempting some incomes, but lifting the cap off for incomes over $200K/$250K. This tax will really be horrible for small business owners who have to pay both halves of the payroll tax, creating a rate of 55%. Tax rates not seen since the Carter era.
Americans are all for a fair and simpler tax policy, but Obama’s plan is neither. Obama plans adds in numerous phase outs for deductions and exemptions creating pockets of income which will even see much higher rate than the 55%. While under Obama’s plan, tax rates at the top end are skyrocketing, millions of families who pay no taxes will now be getting government checks. That is not a tax cut that is welfare.
A golden opportunity is here, if McCain can and/or will take advantage of it. 0bama's managed to sell the image of being an economic moderate when in fact his economic plans are further left than those of Bill Clinton, Gore, or even John Kerry. Much of his "middle class tax cut" is nothing ore than wealth redistribution to people who currently don't pay any income taxes at all. At the same time, he wants to send capital gains tax soaring, raising the cost of investment and sticking it to the millions of (truly) middle-class people investing in the market. . The sword is in the stone, Senator McCain, will you draw it forth?
More like socialism..........
ROFLOL!!!!!
Tax is just a piece of it.
A reassuring, convincing direction toward well-being is the issue. That’s one reason Palin scores so well.
A simple look at her tax form tells me that they really are middle class americans. That gets her only so far. It must be a combination punch. If one of our own offers a reassuring, convincing direction into the future, it will overwhelm the opposition.
That’s partly the reason so many folks are supporting Obama when we sit there wondering what drug they’re on. The media is covering his mistakes AND he’s offering the reassurance part of the equation. They waffle in their support of him because his direction isn’t convincing.
So I think following this articles advice would be a disaster for McCain at this point. Where he can usefully argue with 0 is the definition of middle class. Middle class has to mean most peole who live of the earnings of normal salaries, including professional salaries, which includes most doctors and most lawyers, and probably should extend up to $350k a year or so. It could be argued much higher.
At some level though you have benefited from the Greenspan inflation in assets and discouragement of middle class savings through providing cheap capital with his printing press, and have millions a year in returns on investments on hundreds of million to billions in inflated assets. Those are the guys who are getting bailed out, and those are the guys who perpetrated and benefited from the absolutely grotesque financial management of this country and those are the guys who can pay.
But to argue that those who benefit from the bailout, those whose management got us into this mess and who benefitted from its creation, should have their tax rates capped is a big loser.
The key to winning the tax issue is getting EMPLOYEES to understand that making EMPLOYERS and INVESTORS (the “rich”) the declared enemy of tax policy will in the end, harm EMPLOYEES.
McCain needs to:
1. Blame the dems for creating the mess that required emergency surgery.
2. Warn Americans what they have to look forward to if the dems control the White House AND Congress. More of the same. More disasters waiting in the wings.
3. Tell Americans what the little o will do to “your income, your family, your home, your freedom...” IT HAS TO BE DIRECT AND PERSONAL. Take a cue from Palin on how to communicate directly.
Personalized messages create emotional connections. That is the only way to win. Otherwise, wordy recitations of statistics mean nothing and eyes glaze over, soon to be focused in rapture on the savior obama.
4. Forget bipartisonship. The only time Republican legislators should reach across the aisle these days is to bitch-slap the dems.
Great Idea. Should he put his own name at the top, or the bottom, of the list?
Don't look over there (at the "crap sandwich")!
Look over here -- at this delicious, uncomplicated issue about which the candidate can issue endless platitudes -- it's all about taxes, I tell ya!
I love all the folks on the forum who don't actually own a business preach about employers and investors. The "investors" we are bailing out with the $700B bailout packages, are folks who were speculating on paper assets and got their butts in a leverage crack. They are not investors in productive assets, you know, providing capital to factories to increase production.
Most businesses are partnerships and LLCs that pay no federal tax. All profits flow to the owners as personal income and they are taxed.
And the SCOTUS and Federal Judgeships
Public hates the goofy left wing decrees they hand out
I agree 100%. I live in Taxachusetts and the last thing I need is new taxes. My wife and I each make more then $42,000 a year, so we fall into Obamas definition of “the wealthy.” Uh, Senator? $42k/yr in MA (and in many other states) is below the poverty line! What? You dont care? Ok - never mind.
McCain, along with Lincoln Chafee, were the only two Rep senators to vote against the Bush tax cuts. Why? Because they benefitted the wealthy. McCain is going have that tossed into his face by Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.