Where?

On a 30 second clip, on CNN, last night, John McCain managed to fit in an endorsement from another first lady, Nancy Reagan, and hint at his economic plan which he promises to disclose early next month.

Any question about how he plans to win over the Independent, Conservative, and Libertarian vote should have been quickly dispelled by merely listening to him insist that it is not the role of the government to "bail out" banks, lending institutions, or homeowners who got in over their heads, a position which must be music to the ears of anyone, like Grover Norquist, who wants to shrink government to the size where it will fit in the average toilet.

McCain delivered these remarks in Orange County, not far from the Reagan Library, of course, a staunch Republican stronghold for generations and, in many respects, one might say he was channeling the former president's economic theories. Oh, and lest we forget, Orange County is another Republican president's stomping grounds -- Richard Nixon.

But, without a doubt, the Kodak moment came when the senator from Arizona, asked about what he thinks of Hillary Clinton's proposal to create a $30 billion housing crisis fund to help local governments save homeowners from foreclosure, looked squarely at the camera, and inquired "where" the $30 billion is going to come from.

Where, indeed, surely not from the huge corporate tax cuts with which he plans to "turn around" the economy; surely not from the egregious, and inevitable, reductions to social programs which will result from what may come to be known simply as McCainomics -- roughly translated, as reported by the Center for American Progress, the transference of "tax burden from investment income onto earned income."

His underlying hypothesis, also strongly reminiscent of Ronald Reagan, that tax relief to big corporations will trickle down to the lower, and middle classes, exposes John McCain for what he really is when it comes to economic theory -- Senator Flip Flop. And, what's more, why would trickle down work any more now than it did twenty years ago?

As you recall, it was McCain, right around 9/11, who criticized Bush's tax cuts by acknowledging that they help the most affluent Americans at the expense of the poorest. Well, watch Johnny shift gears. Clearly, the senator now realizes that, in order to get that much-needed conservative vote, he'd better promise to keep the capital squarely where it belongs in the hands of the oil companies, military contractors, and chief executives of America's fortune 500 companies; yes, squarely in the hands of the upper one percentile of the population. For, as he rightly suggests, wealth is a relative concept -- especially for those with money. Oh, but hunger isn't, just ask anyone whose ever had to choose between filling their refrigerator or filling their gas tank.

Ironic, isn't it, how a guy whose entire claim to fame is his expertise with respect to national security could ask where the money to bolster the financial infrastructure of this country would come from. How could he not know that the estimated monetary cost of the war in Iraq is now said to be $3 trillion, or approximately $12 billion a month. Or, is he in denial about the cost of the war, too, like the Pentagon? And, what is it called when a survival of the fittest ethos is used as a justification for an economic program that dates back to the days when the lords openly ruled the manors?

While he's at it, maybe the good senator can also explain why he thinks that the government bail out Bear Stearns, and not the consumer? And, may we expect to always see the senator read from his teleprompter cliff notes whenever the subject of the economy comes up at press conferences?

The larger question, of course, is, should John McCain become our 44th president, and commander-in-chief of the military, how will he be able to sleep nights knowing he signed off on trillions more for defense spending while, at the same time, allowing for indigent veterans, who suffer from nearly as many suicides as war fatalites, substandard medical care, and many others who are homeless altogether.

Save us from so-called compassionate conservatives, and others whose sink or swim mentality have gotten us where we are today to the brink of environmental, socioeconomic, and nuclear disaster.

Follow Jayne Lyn Stahl on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jaynelynstahl

Comments

[clr2]

Homeowners who got themselves into this mess need to get themselves out. Only 2% of all homeowners are "in trouble". A trouble they got themselves into. They now need to get themselves out of it.

[GOP4MoreTears]

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere's Johnny!

[RepublicanBrain]

What do McCain's plans for tax reform have to do with Hillary's spending bill. We're not convening a trial to see how McCain can come up with her money.

Please answer it, then. How will Hillary come up with the money? She can't take it from the Pentagon without ending the war, and Hillary has as much of an idea to end the war as she does for her memoirs of Bosnia.

But now that the avoided question is out of the way, it seems it is time to discuss economics.

The bottom part of society, the ones that "need to choice between filling their refrigerator or their gas tank" have no upward mobility. They are utterly dependent upon someone else to give them aid. When you give them everything, they lose their ability to do these things themselves. This was the grand failure of Stalin's Russia and Mao's China: they wanted the government to be the provider, and the people lost the ambition to do better.

I don't see how sustaining an underclass that sponges off the affluent while contributing nothing of it's own is beneficial. The scientific kingdom calls it parasitism. What does America have to gain from growing this?

People complain that the tax cuts and programs like them benefit the wealthy. Well, when the wealthy are the ones footing the bill, why shouldn't they get it back. Like mother always said: "If you don't chip in for breakfast, don't expect to eat any."

[jules233]

Your assumption that the underclass is "sponging" off the affluent is wrong. A good many people in the underclass that you so blithely dismiss work, and often at more than one job. Obviously, you in your ivory tower have no experience working at a minimum wage job (or two or three), or you would know that the cultural stereotype of the "Welfare Queen" is rare and mostly a fabrication of the wealthy to convince the middle class to vote against their own interests and support tax cuts for those who, percentage-wise are most assuredly NOT footing the bill.

[RepublicanBrain]

What, exactly, do they contribute. They contribute no Federal taxes as they are returned. All they contribute is a body.

Never said anything about them not working, but it's not just about work. One can work all they want, but if they use their money wrong, spending it on things like booze and cigarettes, then it's not going to work. It's odd how much more money there is when it is used properly.

I've worked plenty of minimum wage jobs, thanks. I improved by working hard and contributing to the company. Please do not make any assumptions simply because I don't believe the lies I'm force-fed. I've worked with plenty of "Welfare Queens" and I know how they work.

Percentage-wise doesn't mean squat. It is number of dollars, not percentages, that fit the bill.

[Siryn]

I seriously wonder what McCain and other folks committed to this disaster have to take in order to suspend recognition that the financial and other non-economic costs of this war are unbearable in the long run. Our economy is not robust enough to do it. And if he thinks our allies are going to step up and help, he has another think coming. They're all exiting stage left or keeping their token forces at level.

[sarge]

Amen, Jayne. Amen. How come he doesn't wonder where the money to make permanent the Bush tax cuts for the rich is going to come from?

[grendl]

Has anyone bothered to ask Senator John McCain or any of the warhawk contingent just what constituted winning the war in Iraq?

Is it even a war? It seems like a police action to me. We killed the owner of these two pit bull factions who are now trying to tear each others throats out, and now are in the unenviable position of trying to calm them down, and stem the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad. ( maybe thats why the violence has gone down, less Sunnis around to kill )

But what exactly constitutes winning this war. We knew in WW 2 it would take the surrender of the Japanese leader, and the fall of Hitler. Well, we have taken down Iraq's Hitler. The only thing I can think is this administration clearly sees him as a mere Mussolini, and the real enemy in fact is in Tehran.

Isn't that what this is all about. The GOP is buying time, trying to muddle our thoughts as to the connection between Al Qaeda and Iran, just as they did with Al Qaeda and Iraq following 911. If they can only connect them to North Korea somehow. What constitutes winning the war, has anyone bothered to answer that question. Or even ask it?