John McCain, the Taxpayer’s Friend
June 12th, 2008 at 09:19am Mark Noonan
From Larry Kudlow:
Sen. John McCain moved decisively to the supply-side Tuesday in a strong speech to the National Small Business Summit in Washington, D.C. For investors, small-business owner-operators, and the vast majority of middle-class Americans who go to work every day and are concerned about Sen. McCain’s tax vision, this speech is good news. Big Mac is the taxpayer-friendly candidate.
The Republican candidate for president embraced low-tax-rate incentives to grow the economy, promising a combination of pro-growth tax reform and simplification along with significant spending restraint. He has called himself a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution. This tax speech clinches it.
When contrasted with Obama’s Carteresque program of high taxes, high spending and a new “era of limits”, it becomes clear that McCain is the man who believes in America, and the ability of Americans to forge ahead in an increasingly competitive world. And in seeing this, we conservatives should really start to smoke the peace pipe in earnest with John McCain - sure, we don’t like CFR and we’re still seething over the judicial issue (additionally, many are upset over McCain’s immigration proposal from 2007 - but I’m not one of them, as I backed it), but outside of these issues, McCain is our man - and certainly a solid choice in contrast to the disaster Obama promises us.
We conservatives have to entirely step out of the realm of theory and into the world of practical politics - we won’t ever get all we want, but we must try to get as much as we can…to quibble over side issues while the central issues are in danger is foolish. Do we want a powerful America? Do we want a prosperous America? Do we want a free America? Do we want an America which protects the family? Then we have to do what we can to obtain these things - and if that means we have to sometimes put a part of our project on the back burner, then that is just how it will have to be. As my grandfather used to say, better to have 10% of something than 100% of nothing - and McCain is actually offering us 90% of what we want! And, actually, more than that.
You see, for too long we’ve tended to cede the popular debate on economics to the liberals - while we prove, again and again, that supply side economics works, we still get crushed in the debate because the left is able to craft a plausible fairy tale about Evil Corporations fighting against Selfless Liberals who fight for the Consumer and the Children. McCain is willing to go toe to toe with the liberals on this issue, but he understands that it doesn’t do us any good to fight for free markets while even appearing to defend corporate bosses who (a) don’t care about free markets and (b) tend to shovel money at any politician - even an ultra leftist - who will give them an unfair advantage in the market. So, fight for low taxes - but also hold CEO’s feet to the fire for their boneheaded decisions (most notably of late, of course, the sub-prime meltdown); we know that a free market will fix whatever ailes the market, but we should also insist that those running the show are held responsible when through greed or incompetance they cause problems which adversely affect everyone; more CEO accountability and the market won’t have to fix as many problems, right?
The more McCain speaks, the more I like what I see - and the more willing I am to go to bat for him. Time for conservatism to completely grow up and cast aside the nattering classes who aren’t satisfied with anything short of perfection - in a contest between a leftist lawyer and a war hero, who do you really think is the better candidate?
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Economy, Republicans
35 Comments
1. Timothy Horrigan | June 12th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Well, there are a few possible problems with McCain’s supply-side economics. First of all, it is possible that we may have moved onto the “demand side” of the Laffer Curve. Basically, there is a point where tax rates can get so low that the growth caused by a tax cut is not great enough to support higher overall tax revenues at newly lowered tax revenues. To put it simply, there is a point of diminishng returns where the pie doesn’t get high enough to make up for the fact that you are taking a narrower slice of the pie.
Also, there is a lag between growth and revenues. The incredible growth caused by this summer’s massive tax rebates, for example, will not translate into actual revenues for several months or even in some cases for one or more years.
There is even a lag between how fast the growth can follow a tax cuts. It takes months to build a new condo or a new office park or a new Big Box store. Even the simple step of filling a Bog Box store with merchandise takes a few weeks because the stuff on the shelves has be manufactured and shipped here from China. It takes even longer to build a condo or office building: you need to ship the fixtures in from China and you need to bring laborers in from Mexico to build the buildings and to install the fixtures. Design work and computer programming goes a little quicker, but once again, you have to hire workers in India and even a few at home to interface with the Indians. Growth doesn’t take place instantaneously.
2. SEW | June 12th, 2008 at 10:20 am
What is needed is a 99.9% windfall profits tax on Presidential campaign contributions over $5,000,000 a month. Power to the people.
3. Some Assembly Required | June 12th, 2008 at 10:28 am
SEW, I think thats a bit outlandish. Though I also think any donations to political parties or candidates should be tax write offs.
4. Tractatus | June 12th, 2008 at 11:16 am
while we prove, again and again, that supply side economics works
Oh, you’ve proved it again and again? Poor guy. I guess you’ve never actually done a fact check on this and only know how to mouth the platitudes.
Well, here ya go. If you’re too scared to click that link, I’ll spoil it for you: “In fact, economists say tax cuts do not spark enough growth to pay for themselves.”
I look forward to your correction.
5. Magnum Serpentine | June 12th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Economic policy eh? What has changed in george’s economic policy over the last 8 years that will be changed in the next 4? none.
Lets not give george a third term. Even his economic policies are a disaster.
6. HarkeysBar | June 12th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
McCain has stated he doesn’t know much about the economy and he needs to be more educated on the subject. The way I see it is either raise the taxes with Obama or its inflation because of the war with McCain… the economy will not be getting any better.
7. Eric T | June 12th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Author writes-
And in seeing this, we conservatives should really start to smoke the peace pipe in earnest with John McCain .
Conservative radio blasts McCain like we have some other choice available to us.
Many of the Guys I work with say McCain isn’t conservative enough, and spit out reasons that Make it sound like Mitt Romney is still running and some how going to show up as an independant and run against McCain, Barr, the Dems, Indies….
If conservative radio can’t put a good spin on it for McCain, they need to be outsourced. The GOP needs to win. The Republicans have not been very conservative with good American jobs and will have a hard time winning in states like Michigan. The few people that listen to conservative radio bashing McCain are been steered to waste votes on Barr!!! THIS needs to stop.
You have a choice McCain or Obama!
8. Eric T | June 12th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
author writes-
Do we want a powerful America? Do we want a prosperous America? Do we want a free America? Do we want an America which protects the family?
If the answer is yes, you have no choice, other than to vote Mccain,
As recently as this week, you seen the democrats try to raise taxes on oil companies, A person doesn’t have to muster alot of brain power to see that, increasing the expenses to oil companies WILL result in rising fuel costs.. The answer is clear, democrats are not looking out for the interest of the working people and keeping fuel prices affordable.
McCain stated oil companies should want to give back to their customers, He is right, the market will look for ways to avoid oil, when prices are not affordable. The higher the gas price the more I want to buy a Prius, or GM Volt electric car.
9. Greenskeeper | June 12th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
that supply side economics works June 12th, 2008 at 09:19am Mark Noonan
Mark, so McCain picking up the Bush economic ball and running with it is fine with you. Geesh, you better ask some of your neighbors what they think, if they still have jobs and houses.
John McCain, the “Corporate” Taxpayer’s Friend. Exxon and the other oil companies got $14.5 BILLION in Republican sponsored tax breaks. These corporate tax cuts worked so well for them they are making record profits. Can you imagine what top Exxon executives tax payers’ assisted bonuses will be this year? They probably will be able to buy a small town and set up their own trickle down economics laboratory.
How is it going for you, have you been trickled on? In reality, the average American gets to pick up the debt tab these trickle down theorist leave behind every time they get their hands on the cookie jar. We almost get the Reagan debt paid off when here comes Bush/McCain.
10. Xavier Cugat | June 12th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Um, once again, not really. For most of you conservative pud-knockers out there working your greeter job at WalMart, you’ll pay less in taxes under Obama than McCain.
Here’s the report from the non-partisan tax policy center
Leseee, given the intellectual capacity demonstrated among you conservatives on this site, I’m putting you in the $38-66K income bucket. Under the Obama plan, you’d pay $700 less in taxes. That’s $700 more you’ll have for ammo to protect you from the dark-skinned minorities that you fear so much!
11. Eric T | June 12th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Xavier Cugat-
you say-
That’s $700 more you’ll have for ammo to protect you from the dark-skinned minorities that you fear so much!
Wow, you read my mind!
With a racist statement like that, Obama supporters prove they don’t like whites, Sounds like a good reason to vote McCain,
With Obama’s record on guns, and his alliance with Ted Kennedy, ammo will be banned, or priced up to cover serial numbered projectiles
and all kinds of other bad democrat plans to reduce freedom.
I’d like the tax break Obama is throwing out, I’d be glad to take it, but it is not worth all the gun bans, gay marriage, abortion, You heard for yourself this week, the democrats think we are not paying enough for gasoline, McCain wants tax relief, Obama don’t, he wants you paying top dollar.
After hearing alot of racism from Obama supporters what worries me is, Is Obama’s candidacy gonna to project whites as oweing something to every minority, Where does Obama stand on government programs that give preferential treatment to minorities with quota hirings, affirmative action, diversity programs that give based on race.
Xavier- I try real hard to keep from allowing race to be a factor, You wanna be racist, OK.
You vote for Obama because he is black, I’ll vote for McCain because he is pro-gun, pro 2nd Amendment. I’ll take the $700 in Ammo, but gotta pass on Obama.
12. FmrMarine | June 12th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Xavior Cugat….formerly brett michaels;
>>>>That’s $700 more you’ll have for ammo to protect you from the dark-skinned minorities that you fear so much!>>>>
Ill take the $700.00 for the ammo.
as for the darkies—- I didnt know the black lesbian deputy sherriff 2 doors away, the Black guy with white wife, four houses away, or the white guy with the black wife around the corner were such threats to my “hood” and I feared them so much HMMMM
I wonder if we ALL should fear the Vietnamese guy across the street?
13. Eric T | June 12th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Xaveir-
a few years back, you could get a case of imported Chinese or Russian 7.62×39 for $80 a case, This is example of Free Trade working for the consumer, American wages price up American made ammo to about $250- $300 for the same amount, Obama engraved serial number bullets, would be ???? who knows what a box of 20?
A guy that enjoys shooting do you wanna pay $80 for 1000 rnds, $300 for 1000, or $?00 for a box of 20
14. Vicodin-N-Cocoa | June 12th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Fiscal conservatives? You must be kidding me. Ronald Reagan is rolling his grave now. The budget’s totally out of control, debt’s getting near $9 trillion and the monetary policy is nuts — just printing money with commodity prices at these levels.
What’s McCain’s solution? War with Iran+War with Venezuela, cutting taxes with no offset.
You enjoy inflation, do you?
15. Xavier Cugat | June 12th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Eric T,
I ain’t being racist, I’m just playing back some of the venom I’m hearing from the whacko right. And don’t deny that it ain’t out there. The only thing you have to exploit this election cycle is fear and ignorance.
16. Eric T | June 12th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
The Treasury securities issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds (Intragovernmental Holdings) then become part of the total debt
06/11/2008
5,330,353,382,738.76 debt held by public, bonds ect..
4,097,968,094,038.74 intragovernmental debt
9,428,321,476,777.50 total debt
The public debt is a safe place for investors that don’t want to take the risks with stocks, it does provide a value to investors, folks saving for retirement, ect…
17. js | June 12th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
so if yesterdays dollar is only worth 50 cents today….our 9 trillion dollar debt is only worth 4.5….hmmm….maybe there is a bit of sanity behind it all…..just buy a good high mileage car and convert it to hydroxy gas….
google smack.pdf…its free.
18. Calvert | June 12th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
what? No comment on the report from the non-partisan tax policy center? Link is above….Sometimes the truth hurts…..
19. David B. Schmidt | June 12th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Xavier Cugat,
Did you actually read the entire report? When speaking about Sen. Obama’s proposals I kept coming across phrases like “poorly designed”, “raises concerns about fairness”, “taxpayers who receive no incentive to work more” and they had to guess at a great deal of his proposals and fill in the blanks.
Basically this is wealth re-distribution because if you make a living wage — you get hammered. He is going to take more from the hardworking and give it to those that don’t have the incentive.
Personally, I am for a flat tax and no subsidies corporate or otherwise. I want government out of my pockets as much as possible. I bust my ass to stay ahead of the curve and make myself profitiable to potential employers. I make my evil corporation more money — I get paid more.
Another note is this is a preliminary report but also doesn’t include any of Mr. Hope & Change’s programs that will need to be paid for.
20. neocon | June 12th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Xavier,
Your comments are extremely racist, prejudicial, and ignorant. Sorry, but you share the same unpleasant human traits that you excoriate others for having.
I don’t know why you don’t see that, or why you blame the far right for it.
21. FmrMarine | June 12th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
neo
xaviar C is the BANNED RACIST…brett michaels!
22. Tom L | June 12th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
A note about the “public debt” referenced above…much of it is heald by foreign entities like Sadia Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Japan, China, and many more.
Regrading Obama’s tax plan…yes, it is wealth redistribution. This is the way our current tax system is structured. Unless one makes more than 250K per year, one will see his taxes reduced. Do I agree with the 250K/year figure? Not really, because 250K here in Iowa is certainly different that 250K in California or New York.
There is a cetain point that taxes can be raised that cause problems for the economy. What many folks don’t understand is that there is also a certain point that taxes can be lowered that can also cause problems for the economy. JFK was the first to considerably lower the upper income tax bracket from exorbanant levels to more reasonable levels. Reagan further reduced them while increasing spending on defence and yielded (at the time) the largest ever deficit and debt. That was child’s play compared to what GW and the Republlican house and senate have accomplished.
It is time for a change. I am a capitalist…but not an ufettered capitalist. There must be regulation, even in the speculation markets. It is time the pendulem swings back some to the left. I’m sure it will swing the other way after the dems act as foolishly as the reps.
23. good day&hellip | June 12th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
[...] owner-operators, and the vast majority of middle-class Americans who go to work every dhttp://blogsforvictory.com/2008/06/12/john-mccain-the-taxpayers-friend-in-deed/Doug Stephan&39s "Good Day"Good day Weekend … BETTER LIVING - Every day one of our expert [...]
24. Xavier Cugat | June 12th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Neocon,
I’m just echoing documented comments from people on the right. Do you really deny that some conservatives are voting against Obama because he’s black?
If you deny it, just say so, and I’ll provide YouTube links from West Virginia who say as much. At least those folks are being honest with their bigotry.
And if you don’t believe that the right wing smear machine is desperately trying to feed the flames of racism in this election, you’re an idiot (wait, I already knew that). Why just yesterday, Fox referred to Michelle Obama as Barack’s “Baby Mama”.
25. Tom L | June 12th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Xavier, although I may agree with some of what you’ve written, calling someone an “idiot” is not a very good way of presenting or defending your point. Of course, I understand that your post was labeled “ingorant”…
No wonder our country is so divided. We can’t even debate civilly.
I can guarantee “some” folks will not vote for Obama due to his skin color and not all of those folks are republicans. Will some on the right exploit this? Possibly. I don’t think it will change anyone’s mind but may be used by some hard-core folks to boost certain people to vote…Kinda like the gay marriage thing boosted Christian conservative votes (although this will not be that successful).
Both conservatives and Liberals and us independents want what is best for the country. We just have different ideas of how to get there. What tends to happen is the political pendulum swings from right to left over time. Why? Possibly because politicians tend to forget they are elected to represent the people and, after a few years, tend to represent themselves. I don’t think McCain is dishorable in any way. Neither do I think Obama is. I have seen the affects of the Bush and Republican agenda and feel its time for the pendulum to swing back the other way.
26. Xavier Cugat | June 12th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Schmidt,
Yes I did read the report. Did you?
If you did, I can’t see how you claim that those making a “living wage” are being “hammered” by the Obama plan. I quote:
To put numbers down, the Obama plan would reduce the tax burden of the lowest quintile of earners by $567 in 2009. McCain? Um, not so much. Reduces the taxes of the lowest quintile by $19. (Were you reading the same report?) And if you were fortunate to be in the top 0.1%, McCain was gonna reduce your taxes by $270K.
And the reduced “incentive to work” is a canard, and the report says the effect “is minimal”. But you selectively quoted it. Curious.
Furthermore, McCain’s plan reduces revenues by a trillion more than Obama’s. Just what we need .
And this “redistributionist” argument needs to be taken in the backyard and shot. Like Tom L says above, I’m a capitalist, but the pendulum has swung too far in the past 28 years. The middle class is suffering, and they are taking the brunt of the deficits in the form of inflation, currency devaluation, and reduced services.
27. neocon | June 13th, 2008 at 8:59 am
And then again you excuse your own racism on others. Sad.
There is, and always will be racism amongst the fringes on either side. The fringes on the left, however, permeate more throughout the mainstream base. In fact, there’s much more inherent racism on the left, amongst liberals, than ever.
The left is constantly labeling people in their effort to keep the divisions strong and their power in tact. It’s quite obvious and your perpetuation of that is part of the problem.
So now go ahead, and tell me who else is making you a racist.
28. neocon | June 13th, 2008 at 9:01 am
And incidentally, those are incomce tax figures. When you add in all of the other taxation proposals; primarily the capital gains, taxes on the middle class will actually be increased on the middle class.
But don’t let that stop you from being an Obamabot. He really is yummy isn’t he? Are the pages of your Obama book sticky?
29. Xavier Cugat | June 13th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Neocon,
Since the moment I began posting on this site, you and others began blindly labeling anyone who disagreed with you in very disparaging and insulting terms.
If that behavior is bent back towards you in the least, you all stagger about like Scarlet O’Hara coming down with the “vapors”, perfumed handkerchief to your dainty noses, indignant that your sensibilities have been so outrageously violated.
And - incidentally - those are *not* income tax figures. The freakin’ study included the breadth of the candidate tax plans, including changes to AMT, estate, corporate, and *capital* gains rates. Did you actually even bother to look at it before you started typing?
30. neocon | June 13th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I could not care less what skin color Obama is, evidently you do. That’s being racist. Sorry. I just point that out, which you don’t enjoy. Not a surprise.
The breadth of Obamas tax plan is an overall increase. Again, sorry. Also, the main subset of people he tends to “let tax cuts expire” on are small business owners, who employ the majority of low and middle class wage earners. How do you suppose Obamas plan will effect them? Have you thought that one through?
31. David B. Schmidt | June 13th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I really hate to point out that taxes will go up on anyone making over $66K. Then again, Sen. Obama has stated (and I can find it if need be) during one of the debates that he believes any household earning more than $75K is considered “rich”. Please look at the quints again and try to understand.
32. Carlton Pryor, Lead Economist, TED-OG | June 13th, 2008 at 11:11 am
29. David B. Schmidt | June 13th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I hate to point this out to you mate but as I read it the 89% of the population that makes less than $100 K per annum will be spared a tax increase. Obama’s plan cuts taxes by an additional $281 for those in the 66k-112k bracket. The first people that will feel an increase are those that make over 227k per annum and that increase an average of $12. Roughly two lattes a year for those on the upper edge of the Midlle Class to those in the tenderloin of the Upper Middle Class.
Here’s a hard lesson about wealth and work. If none of you reading this and commenting here that aren’t in that 227k per annum or above set and you are over the age of say 39, there’s very little chance that just through “hard work” and “keeping your nose to the grindstone” of you getting there without the death or dismemberment of someone you love leading to a civil suit or some insurance disbursement. You actually have to have a sellable skill to make that sort of money or the education and expertise that commands such compensation. Sure all of you know that but many don’t wish to hear it.
Taxes will be raised under the Obama plan but only on the top eight percent of tax payers who can certainly afford the hit more so that a family of four trying to mkae ends meet on < $30K per annum. And this has always had me wonder. With as many Middle Class people who vote GOP and for “tax cuts” even thought generally they feel little direct benefit and knowing you will likely never be “rich” in any real sense do you continue to support the largesse of the truly wealthy? As if “trickle down” was anything but smoke and mirrors to distract you from the hands in your pockets?
33. Xavier Cugat | June 13th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Schmidt,
No disrespect, but I really think you’re not reading it right. And I’m not being critical — it’s a big report with lots of data, and if you’re reading it quickly, you could be misinterpreting some stuff. Let’s point to the tables we’re looking at and try to reconcile the confusion.
In Table 1 (2009 effect), the $66K barrier is the 3rd quintile. Average federal tax change for that quintile is -$1042. Negative numbers infer a reduction in tax burden. Even the next higher quintile ($111K), the average federal tax change is -$1,290. And the results remain constant in Table 2 (2012 effect).
To substantiate my reading, please see this CNN report.
34. Mark Noonan | June 13th, 2008 at 11:49 am
Carlton,
Nice theory, but the plain fact of the matter is that the tax burden on my middle class income - if you add it all up; you know, those property taxes, fees and sales taxes liberals also love - works out to about a third of the gross…a level of taxation which serfs in the middle ages had to endure, but not the level of taxation a free born American should have to deal with. Any reduction of this burden is an assitance to me.
Now, as to why I also oppose that minor, little tax you propose on the highest wage earners - because this is a tax not on “the rich”, but a tax on the most productive citizens in our country. If Obama wants to tax wealth, let him put a federal tax on that manse he bought with the proceeds of his book…let him tax Kennedy’s varied estates…let him tax that ski chalet that Kerry has up in the mountains…don’t tax the small businessmen and women who, yeah, are making 500k per year, but while “rich” in the sens of income, don’t have a pot to piss in compared to the real rich out there, most of whom are liberal and have their money stashed away in various tax shelters.
35. Embraced » Blog Arc&hellip | June 13th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
[...] John McCain, the Taxpayer’s Friend The Republican candidate for president embraced low-tax-rate incentives to grow the economy, promising a combination of pro-growth tax reform… [...]