The Most Important Piece of Paper in America
I hold in my hand one of the most important pieces of paper in America: Table T08-0071, an analysis of candidate John McCain's tax plan.
OK, it's not really in my hand because I'm typing, but I'm looking at it carefully, and you should too. It is a table constructed by the Tax Policy Center's steely-eyed tax analysts, and it reveals nothing less than McCain's secret plan to diminish the US government beyond recognition. If he gets his way, conservatives will finally be able to say they've achieved the goal set out by Grover Norquist: to get government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."
The numbers in the table show the revenue loss to the Federal government from McCain's proposed tax cuts. In the far right corner is the 10-year total: -$5.7 trillion.
People deride the Republican candidate as "McSame," implying a continuation of Bushonomics as well as the president's foreign policy. But from the perspective of domestic policy, it's much worse. Sure, McCain extends the Bush tax cuts but that's the least of it. At $1.7 trillion they amount to less than a third of the damage.
Note also that the big ticket tax cuts-eliminating the alternative minimum tax and lowering the corporate tax-both follow on another Bush tradition of exacerbating market-driven (i.e., pre-tax) inequalities by cutting high-end taxes the most.
As I stresshere , McCain's plans to pay for these tax cuts amount to filling a crater with a teaspoon of sand. Earmarks won't get you there, so he'll have to go after discretionary spending. In fact, he's already suggesting a freeze in such spending, excluding defense, of course. Sound inoffensive until you consider that we're talking about kids' health care, education, child care, training for displaced workers, environmental and labor protections, and dozens more programs that lots of people actually need and care about.
Plus, he can't fill the hole he's dug with cuts in these programs either, which leads you to the inevitable punch line of all this: his target is the entitlements, Social Security and Medicare. Those programs have always been the big enchiladas for the Norquist shock troops and they've never recovered from their Social Security privatization defeat. Well, they're back, incognito.
McCain's top economist, a number cruncher of great integrity named Doug Holtz-Eakin, responds to the Tax Policy's analysis here, and he makes a good point or two, especially regarding the way they score the AMT, but his counterpoints amount to little more than quibbles. In fact, one can't help wonder if Doug, who used to inveigh against supply-side nonsense, has been drawn to the economic dark side. When recently asked about the extent to which these numbers fail to add up, his response was: "I think what [critics] ought to do is remember that the proposals are going to engender economic growth, which is the best thing you can do for near-term budget improvement." That's pure hand waving of the type with which the old Holtz-Eakin had no patience.
This story has yet to catch the fire it should, and hopefully will, once the D's get focused on McCain and his dim vision of government. But the point born of these numbers is as simple as it is compelling:
For seven long years, we've tried entrusting our government to those who discredit it, defund it, and fundamentally disbelieve in its role, except when they seek a lucrative contract or a bailout. We gone down the road-and it is a crumbling road, with potholes and failing bridges -- where the solution to every problem is a tax cut, where critical agencies are staffed with cronies at best and opposition lobbyists at worst, where secrecy trumps transparency and cynicism rules, where budget resources are never available for expanding children's health care, but always there for war.
Table T08-0071 is a road map to taking us far, far deeper into this morass. We must not go there.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Promises! Promises! Promises! . . . If only it were TRUE!
He still needs it to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Guess only the little ppl pay for that, huh?
Republicans don't want to eliminate government completely, they still want enough of it to enforce taxation on the lower classes to further enrichen/empower them and their cronies.
Republicans LUUUUUUVVV Communism, only in the Corporate Welfare form.
Why are Republicans Communists? What made them hate America so much anyway?
Indeed! These corporate neocons don't really want to destroy the governent. They just want to destroy all the parts that deal with the social welfare. Being completely self-centered, they only value the parts that will help them fight off the starving masses that will want to steal their wealth. Therefore they only value the policing parts of the government. They fail to understand that their wealth is dependent on a solid infrastructure and stable social dynamic. When these things are neglected you tend to have revolutions. Instead of trying to avoid such confrontations by behaving in a responsible manner, they behave selfishly and then amass a militia to defend themselves. Just like warlords have been doing for centuries.
Hello, Democrats raise taxes not Republicans.
Democrats like Sean Penn, and all of Hollywood
love communist. Like Castro and Chavez,not
Republicans.
IF THEY (NEO_CONS) GET GOV> THAT LOW HOW DO THEY PROVIDE FOR THEIR WARS AND TAX BREAKS FOR THE CORPERATIONS AND WEALTHY???
They don't actually want to drown it in a bathtub. The only parts that they want to drown in the bathtub are the portions which go to HELP people who don't contribute millions to campaigns since they don't HAVE millions to contribute to campaigns!
I gotta learn to read through ALL the comments before responding. Didn't have to when I started doing this years ago.
This post brings up so many issues I do not know where to start.
The supply-siders are the biggest bunch of something for nothing people I have ever heard of. They decry tax and spend, when they borrow and spend. They decry big government when they use it to reap profits for the military industrial complex and big pharma. This country needs to get out of the death business and back into the people business. If you have ever noticed the old saw "A rising tide raises all boat", in fact a rising tide raises the small boats first, the cabin cruisers second and the container ships last.
Without governemnt you have anarchy. That is what is in the seeds of the effort to bankrupt the Federal Govenemnt.
Your comment contains so many errors in logic it's difficult to determine where to start.
"...in fact a rising tide raises the small boats first, the cabin cruisers second and the container ships last."
In fact, you are completely wrong. Study Archimedes' Principle prior to posting.
FACT:
A rising tide raises ALL boats at the same time and in the same amount.
Tell me the assumption that you have made that makes your comment correct. Until then, you are an idiot.
However, since the small boats have a smaller draft, they appear to not only rise sooner, but to rise FASTER than the large boats. This is why the economy started getting better for the lower classes under Clinton before it started getting better for the upper classes. And, as a percentage of their starting point, the lower classes did better OVERALL than the upper classes did, even though the upper classes had a better time in terms of straight numbers...
Your response, Mike O., is irrelevant to the argument.
Seems to me he is talking about mass. The greater the mass of the ship the slower it responds to the water rising. Of course, that also depends on the speed with which the water rises. In an almost instantaneous rise in water level the smaller boats would respond faster. The largest massed ships may even 'bounce' out of the water before it's weight would drag it back down.
The problem isn't just with "Supply Siders." If we focus on supply side issues we risk missing the larger danger caused by maintenance and expansion of free markets. Free market thinking has played a major roll in the developing world economic mess: It has done little to mitigate world poverty and hunger, hurts the great majority of people, and made a tiny majority rich beyond measure. The notion that someday everyone will be better off because of free markets is a belief that remains elusive after more than 100 years of experimentation. If we examine the US economy: It isn't difficult to argue that the freer the markets the greater the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few: The present economic model has led to massive economic inequity and social injustice on a scale not seen since the 1890s. What America and the world needs is a socio-economic system that balances free market greed against larger societal needs. The notion that societal needs will somehow be mysteriously addressed by "the markets" is wishful thinking at its most ridiculous. Virtually every poll suggests that voters understand this, which is why 60% and more support strongly regulated markets. I would further argue that because free markets cannot be implemented democratic
bravo, applause!
The problem is more that those "free markets" are not really free. They are protectionist.
The entire system is rigged.
The efforts by the Chicago School/Milton Friedman monetarist/disaster capitalist adherents to conflate democracy with "free markets" is one of the most successful of propaganda enterprises since Josep Goebbels. Indubio, you are absolutely correct. The mantra should be: "Welfare/socialism for the rich & corporations; free markets/free enterpirse for everyone else!" Everywhere the free-marketeers have imposed their brand of "market discipline" in the world, the local economy has wilted, the majority of citizens have suffered -- some fatally -- and the favored few have become enormously rich. The free-booters claim, with a straight face, even, that the failures are due to "corrumption" and not due to the inherent fallacy of their theory. "Free market" ideology, along with "free trade ideology" are, indeed, inherently undemocratic.
Read Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" - he very eloquently makes some points that render your last few sentences bunk.. economic freedom is ESSENTIAL to democratic freedom.. so if you are going to argue it, make some points.. because free markets have worked since the first early humans started trading..
The Neo-cons are very clear that they want to get us in such debt that Social Security and Medicare can be dismantled and done away with.
And do NOT call those programs "entitlements," as the Republicans want to do. Don't let them do it!
That puts them in the same category as "welfare" in peoples' minds.
Social Security is better thought of as an annuity into which we've each been paying for our working lives. Medicare is similarly a Medical Account into which we've paid for years.
Listen to how often even Democrats call them entitlements. It really is an important distinction!
What I find REALLY amusing is that they talk about these programs as though they are funded directly out of the federal gov't coffers, when they are, in fact, TWO separate entities! So if we are going to get rid of SS and Medicare SPENDING, we also need to get rid of SS and Medicare FUNDING, which will leave us in the same boat, only MORE people will be dying of abject poverty!!!
They are entitlemen
And for god's sake, look at how these programs are run. For both SS and Medicare, there is no "account" - the money you've paid in is immediately paid out. For a while there was an overall surplus, and the government spent it. Now, like this year, money will be pulled from GENERAL REVENUE to pay for social security..
Find me an annuity with as generous as terms for current retirees (who make out like bandits), and as crappy terms for our children (12.4% of your salary forever for a mediocre or zero payout..)
Let's look at SS:
This is a separately funded system related to the gov't, but not part of the gov't. The income that they had was always enough to pay for the current generation, with the later generations paying for it in their turn. However, the boomers were going to muck that up, since there were too many of them. This is the only reason that we had a surplus, since raygun DOUBLED the rate, so that the boomers were the first generation to not only pay for their parents retirement insurance, but for their own.
The only reason that the surplus isn't there anymore is that the republicans have done their best to LOOK like they are fiscal conservatives, and thus they force the SSA to use the surplus to buy gov't bonds. Then they realize later that they can't pay for the bonds!
Grover Norquist is like a teenage boy who rails against his parents and their lack of fairness, then grows up and becomes a bad parent just to prove his point. He does not deserve to have stewardship of political power (which is a privilege bestowed upon individuals by the citizenry.
One has to wonder if the Republican party is really good for business and the economy: their systematic deregulation of powerful players has led to uncertainty for the majority, high barriers to entry, and decreased competition. Our fiscal deficits impair our ability to innovate and invest throughout the world. In the end, our security - both economic and political - is compromised by the plundering we have endured during the reign of the GOP.
Historically thee Republicans have not been good for business, if you look at stock prices, dividend rate of return, growth, and business profitability it has consistantly done better under Democrats. Factor in the deregulation with the accompanying increase in fraud and corruption it has done much worse under the GOP. In the current situation one of the major expenses companies have is medical care for employees. Companies here expend lots of money for insurance coverage for employees. McCain wants to eliminate employer sponsered insurance coverage and replace it with encouraging people to buy it themselves. Europe and most of the first world and a lot of the secon world have single payer systems which provide excellent care (I know, we are just back from the UK where my husband was in the hospital) this is a major benefit to corporations makes it more competative to locate in other countries. No the GOP isn't good for the economy. But just dandy for corrupt businesses ( that wonderful lack of regulation). Honest businesses who are not cutting corners actually are handicapped here.
The business community does not want to pay for the repercussions of forcing their workers to compete with third world labor standards. They have crippled their workforce and now want to take their money and run, leaving our broken bodies lying in the dust of their tracks.
It is the same as they do with any 'resource'. We used to be 'personell', now we're just a 'human resource' to be used up and thrown away. Objectification complete!
I liked Grover when he was on Sesame Street. He made much more sense then.
Please don't insult my favorite Muppet just because he shares his name with a fascist.
There's no doubt the Dems have to make the Republicans run on their actual policy intentions. Sherod Brown recently revealed something Dick Cheney said at a meeting with moderate Republicans the day after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bush in 2000. Cheney told the assembled group that the incoming administration's policies would not be influenced "by what had to be said during the campaign."
If the Republicans are forced to reveal what they really stand for, virtually no one in this country would cast a vote in their favor.
The problem is that too many people KNOW what they really stand for, and yet STILL vote against their own best interest!
That is so true, and so weird.
How can disgruntled HRC supporters, who declare that they will vote for McSame over Obama, call themselves "Democrats?"
This type of thinking is a graphic illustration of the aphorism: "Cut off your nose to spite your face."
HRC and BHO are virtually identical policy-wise; the differences are not substance, but matters of form and personality.
Calm down, chill out, have a beer, get over it, move on, and get with the plan to change the administration. Four more years of GWB and we're completely down the tubes.
If you opt for that because you can't get your way, you are more than childish: you are beneath contempt.
I have seen more of Obama's supporters say they will either vote for McCain or not vote at all than HRC supporters saying the same thing.
Would all of these people vote against our country, their own interests and definitely the best interest of their children and on down? These people are show an amazing amount of immaturity.
Whereas I've seen far more Hillary supporters say that. Let's just go by the exit polls which are showing around 10% of Obama supporters saying that they will stay home if Hillary is nominated, compared to 30-40% of Hillary supporters saying that they will actually vote FOR McBush if Obama is the nominee!
Just because the federal government does not pay for something does not mean it does not get done. As far as replacing federal medicare we have Sates, we have individuals, we have children.
How that theory been working for you these last 8 years? U.S. government no longer properly overseeing banking, no longer protects wistleblowers, has sat on its hand while the corporate oligarchs have shipped ALL of our manufacturing jobs overseas, muzzles its own scientists on the environment and polution. THIS is what happens when you advocate un-government. You get the foxes in charge of the hen house - and we're the chickens.
And I'm currently paying almost 20% of my annual salary on my medical coverage for myself and my family. This is AFTER my employer (god bless them!) spends 3 TIMES that much!!! And I'm in a group plan, which means that it's CHEAPER than if I get it for myself!!!!!!! The only way for us to reduce our own costs is to place it all under some sort of government plan, and since, in the US, we can travel to anywhere that we want to, it needs to be a FEDERAL plan, because you can't assume that the states will all have the same level of coverage!
My God!! Do you expect children to pay for medical expenses now? You GOPers are really heartless.
Who do you actually expect to pay for a broken hip for an 80 year old with no medical insurance? Cost about $60,000. The state? Going to have to raise state taxes massively to do that. Individuals? How many individuals can pay that? Children of the 89 year old. Well they may empty their IRAs to pay for moms hip but who will then pay for theirs. With health insurance for families averageing $12000 per year more for seniors I guess you wish to accelerate the US rush to lower life expectancy. The US is already having a decline in life expectancy while other industrialized countries are seeing an increase. I guess the GOP and their friends feel that people who are retired should die and relieve the surplus population. Some culture of life.
I have nothing against tax breaks for the average American and the average American business that employees 150 people or less. We don't need to tax people and home grown businesses to death. Vast sums of revenue can be obtained through tariffs. This was the way the U.S. government was financed for over 120 years.
The tariff was on average 40% on ALL imported goods not of American origin. Many who claim to be economists are totally unfamiliar with the history of U.S. tariff policy. The United States was the most protectionist nation in the world which accounts to its meteoric rise to economic power. It was not because of free-trade. Free-trade doesn't work. Period.
So who really gains from free-trade when tariffs and reduced almost to nothing? To be sure, it isn't the average citizen or the small business on Main Street. They get burdened with excessive Federal taxation. Only large multinational corporations benefit who are dismantling American manufacturing and sending it to pauper nations that essentially have slave labor as their only comparative advantage.
Based on Paul Bairoch's book, "Economics & World History" the U.S. is headed for a depression. Bairoch makes it very clear that free-trade inevitably leads to depressions while protectionism leads to recoveries. It is time for Democrats to think about economic recovery and national capitalism (not corporate capitalism).
It may have worked 40 years ago, but in case you haven't noticed, the world has changed to a global economy. That doesn't mean that programs like NAFTA work as advertised, but to return to a protectionist policy because it worked so many years ago is just plain stupid.
Elektrik: Paul A. Samuelson, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and professor emeritus at the MIT, has reassessed the advantages of free-trade; that globalization has its limits; that is simplistic to assume that it is win-win. At some point he pointed out that real losses from trade could exceed the benefits affecting, not just local industries but doing serious damage to the economy as a whole.
When you consider that the "global economy" is STILL financed on tariffs...
What are you talking about? Of course it would work. Just like he said, small businesses dont get taxed as much, it only affects the multi-nationals, who can avoid the tax by manufacturing their good right here in America. Its a win-win situation. Its called protectionism because it protectts the American business and the American Worker. Globalization is economic treason! There is nothing magical about this global economy we have created to benefit the corporations and destroy the middle class, we can be self-reliant again.
Think about it, if every most other country in the world still have >20% import tarriffs including china and japan. Would you build your company here and ship to china at a cost of 20%? Or build your company in china and ship here for 2%? Its a no brainer as a business decision. But its a policy that is killing us.
The function of tarrifs were explained to me when I was in grade school. I recall that not only did they help fund government, but were designed to give preference to American-made products over cheap foreign competition. That point was explicitly explained and is still clear in my memory after 50 years. While NAFTA does not work as advertised, it works exactly as it was designed to. Yes, tarrifs are protectionist and what is wrong with that. Our manufacturing base is gone, our family farms are mostly gone, and the only thing we export is our prosperity. We've been sold down the river. America has been sacrificed on the alter of global economy.
Tarrifs were explained to me in grade school, over 50 years ago, as not only funding government but as giving American-made products preference over cheap, foreign-made goods, and what is wrong with that. NAFTA might not work as advertised, but it works exactly as planned. We have been flooded with cheap, foreign-made goods. It has killed our industry. Our manufacturing base is gone. Our family farms are gone or nearly so. The only thing we export these days is our prosperity. We have been sold down the river by our own government. McCain must not be elected.
In addition to creating new tariffs, we also need to actually TAX our companies and rich people!!!
Over at David Robert's column "What should Obama Do in West Virginia?"
http://www
I posted a comment citing the huge union miner's battle vs mine owners in 1921, the "Battle of Blair Mountain" which saw dozens of miners killed... but led to the formation of the nation's first long overdue mining laws.
http://en.
Grover Norquist and other Righties keep crying about "shrinking the federal government until you can fit it into a bathtub... and drown it"! - President Bush lived out their intellectual fantasy by flying to Republican photo-ops while IGNORING the drowning of New Orleans, when the FEDERAL dikes and levees failed there.
By comparison, the people of Holland, working TOGETHER, under their national government, have created dikes and levees against the North Sea that DWARF any such projects in America.
In short, under the neo-con, "Conservative" agenda Americans should have to settle for... SECOND BEST? And that the SOLE purpose of the US government is to safeguard the WEALTH of the TOP 2%??
As author Michael Lind points out, the "Conservative" (radical right) agenda is to take America as far back to the eras of cheap labor and vast, unlimited private wealth as possible.
If chattel slavery is not politically feasible, neo-segregation (disenfran
The hatred and smearing of Obama and his radical left wing base is getting boring.
IT IS VERY BOARING!!
That Is Why This Republican in Florida WILL BE VOTING FOR OBAMA!!
ALL I SEE IS "Right Wing nut" HATE SMEAR WITH NO PROOF Guilt By Association!!
Who are these clowns posting this nonsense about Sentaor Obama being some sort of radical? Smells like paid RNC spammers have been let lose on the intrnet again. God, how I despise the frickin' fascist RNC.
Sam Clemens said it best: Moderation in all things. GWB went the opposite with "Unitary Executive" and "Signing Statements, MCA and PAA"- making Government not only Big Brother but Crazy Uncle.
Drowning Gov't in the bathtub only works if you are a crazy post-partum fundie.
Vive la Democracie!
too bad Obama people didn't observe that axiom in regard to Hillary-hating.
Which Obama people are you talking about? I didn't see any of that, in spite of the fact that I spend more than an hour on this site and others every day! I did see a tiny amount of bashing Hillary SUPPORTERS, but that was almost exclusively aimed at the Hillary supporters who were ALREADY bashing Obama and his supporters.
Further, the only time that I saw one candidate's PARTY attacking the other was from Hillary TOWARDS Obama. Even then, Obama NEVER struck back!!!
Henry David Thoreau, "I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedien
Nicely explained. To believe that a large and bloated government is the answer to what woes you, is an absurd and historically proven wrong way to think. Less government and more personal responsibility will always lead to better prosperity for all.
Let's not forget WHO bloated the government past all recogition over the last 8 years, accumulated more debt that all previous administration combined. Its initials are R.N.C.
And to believe that the corporations, which have as their ONLY motive, PROFIT, will be the solution to all our problems is equally absurd! This is why we need to go back to the era when gov't did what IT was best at (regulation, public safety, and public interest) and businesses do what THEY do best (produce products according to the law for a profit) and we will be back to the good times of the 50s and early 60s when business was booming, people were SHARING in the boom, and people could actually pull themselves up by the bootstraps!
Liberals, who crave large government, are looking for someone to "protect" them. They are impotent, incompetent and prefer to be taken care of rather than take responsibility for themselves. They see government as the ultimate Parent.
Conservatives, however, are leaders and achievers who prefer to take charge and excel. Conservatives want to be free to achieve without the unnecessary encumbrances of government.
Some things the private businesses do better, some things government does better, some things only the government can do.
Personal responsibility is just dandy, but what if the person or company takes no personal responsibility. I imagine you are against lawsuits. You want to take medications which are produced by a campany which has no oversight? If so you should be buying your medication from Nigeria. Where there is no effective government you end up with Nigeria, Somalia, and poverty. Govenment provides an environment in which sucess is possible. Why do you think businesses operate in the first world and not so much in the capitalist paradises like Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria. We have paved roads, reliable communications, communication which does not depend on the vageries of the market for access, rules which give investors confidence in investing.
Isn't Government us? No, seriously. We represent ourselves. In all our forms. What diverse people we are and what diverse things we do in order to live the diverse kinds of lives we live. In line to be somebody else's cashier or walk away a CEO with 120 mil and leaving folks bankrupt on his watch. Still, we, everybody got a choice to represent ourselves thru who we vote for. Supposedly. And including all appointees who gear the machinery like robots, maybe? Represented, all of us, squarely according to . . . money, property and power. And their interests. So what's new in any tribe hierarchy? The answer? To all of us really getting what we want in fair representation? Strictly for us for a change? Stay as far apart from one another as we can and don't mingle. Then do what I want anytime and screw em!
Businesses have an economic incentive to do whatever they can to make money. In fact, they claim it is their fiduciary responsibility (to their stockholders, not their employees) to do everything possible to turn a profit. No matter who it hurts.
Government (when it's not owned by corporations and lobbyists) has the law and the consitution as its highest good. People are still people, but they're not forced to feed a profit machine. They have no built-in incentive to lie or cheat.
That's why I'd rather have the government overseeing health care than big business. Who's more likely to tell you the truth about a medical procedure--a disinterested third party, or the guy who might have to pay for it?
You are forgetting one minor little detail, just like Thoreau. The government is not there to "govern". The government is a contract between ALL the people of a state (nation) about what rules they will abide by, to ensure the best outcome for ALL! Therefore, the government which governs best is NOT the one which governs least, but the one which governs for the CITIZENS!
It says right in the US Constitution that the purpose of government is to "promote the general welfare" ( of all of the people). I for one, and I not alone, am willing to pay for that. If you pass a law to protect the people agency, department or branch of the government has to have the money and staff to monitor and enforce it. If the law or program isn't working, the solution isn't to "defund it", the solution is to change the program, law and provide adequate funding and staff to enforce the law and fix the problem. The "invisible hand of the free market" would never fix or solve child labor law, air and water pollution, airline safety, automobile safety, the eight hour 40 hour work week and time and a half for over time under the Fair Labor Standards Act for non-exempt employees, collective bargaining rights for workers under the the National Labor Relations Board. If that is a bad use of taxes and government "run amock"? I think not. And besides, do you want to fight wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with a military funded and controlled by a "government so small that you can drown it in a bathtub"? That is absurd, stupid and crazy. The small government and small taxes philosophy is the ideology of greedy, rich and powerful people who don't really believe in a "government of the people, by the people and for the people.'
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
