McCain's campaign manager recently admitted that if the campaigns talk about the economy McCain will lose. There is a reason for that. McCain's economic plan is atrocious. I just spent a few minutes perusing John McCain's Economic Plan page on his campaign website and was left confused. He does not address the economic crisis, hurting middle class families or housing market crash. I then spent a few minutes comparing that plan to the one detailed on Barack Obama's Economic plan on his website. I strongly encourage you all to do the same.
Normally directing people to the person's website that I don't support would seem like a bad idea, but in this case John McCain's economic plan is so bad I encourage you to check it out. The economy section of his website calls for tax cuts for corporations, the wealthiest Americans and then vague claims to "creating jobs." Obama is not just making this stuff up, its all over McCain's website.
Lets take this one issue at a time:
JumpStarting the Economy:
Obama: Obama clearly proposes (1) Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families, (2) Provide $50 billion stimulus package to Jumpstart the Economy and Prevent 1 Million Americans from Losing Their Jobs, (3) Create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank
vs.
McCain: I literally do not see any economic stimulus or any suggesstions on the economy page of McCain's website to jumpstart the economy. Follow the link and see for yourself.
Taxes:
Obama: Obama is proposing (1) create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. (2) Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000, (3) Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans
Obama would cut taxes for the middle class, the poor, and senior citizens.
vs.
McCain: McCain is proposing to (1) Cut the Corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent, and (2) keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax.
There could not be a clearer difference on this issue. McCain makes no bones about it, he will cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy.
Trade:
McCain: McCain's trade section is titled "Lower Barriers to Trade." The section then discusses vague promises to "fight for education" and and "reform of unemployment insurance." So McCain really does not support protections for American Workers.
vs.
Obama: Obama's trade section which is titled, "Fight For Fair Trade."
Some of the points Obama is fighting for are; (1) Reward Companies that Support American Workers, (2) End Tax Breaks for Companies that Send Jobs Overseas, (3) Improve Transition Assistance, and (4) Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Barack has detailed explanations and plans in each of these areas. He has a more protectionist approach to trade. Go to his website and see for yourself.
Reform of the Workplace
McCain: McCain is proposing a Commission to "make recommendations to the President on how modernizing our nation’s labor laws and training programs can help workers better balance the demands of their job with family life and to enable workers to more easily transition between jobs." So in effect you have no idea what will come out of this Commission or what McCain is proposing.
vs.
Obama: Obama makes detailed proposals to (1) Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act, (2) Encourage States to Adopt Paid Leave, (3) Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities, (4) Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, (5) Protect Against Caregiver Discrimination, and (6) Expand Flexible Work Arrangements.
So that is a flavor of the two economic plans. I am taking this directly from the two candidates websites. It would be too complex to cover every issue, so I will just provide a flavor of what is being offered in other areas. I truly scoured the two websites for substantive plans, rather than vague platitudes. Both websites had some of those, but I also found concrete plans:
Obama:
(1) Raise the Minimum Wage
(2) Establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to Protect Consumers
(3) Create a Universal Mortgage Credit
(4) Advanced Manufacturing Fund to identify and invest in the most compelling advanced manufacturing strategies
(5) Double The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), which works with manufacturers across the country to improve efficiency, implement new technology and strengthen company growth.
(6) Invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, invest in low emissions coal plants, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid.
(7) create a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that will require 25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025, which has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs on its own.
(8) Reform Bankruptcy Laws
McCain:
(1) construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 with the ultimate goal of eventually constructing 100 new plants
(2) commit $2 billion annually to advancing clean coal technologies.
(3) system of tax credits that will remain in place until renewable energy has progressed to the point that it is competitive expanding domestic oil and natural gas exploration
(4) a $300 million prize to improve battery technology for full commercial development of plug-in hybrid and fully electric automobiles.
(5) For every automaker who can sell a zero-emissions car, John McCain will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys that car.
(6) A one-year federal spending pause. Freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year and use those savings for deficit reduction.
(7) reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit.
Look over these lists and tell me whose plan is more realistic! Whose plan addresses the major economic problems that people in this country face? I think the answer is clear. Their websites tell you everything you need to know. You just need to take a few minutes to look them over and see why McCain would rather talk about Obama's past, or a non existent media bias than the country's future.
Normally directing people to the person's website that I don't support would seem like a bad idea, but in this case John McCain's economic plan is so bad I encourage you to check it out. The economy section of his website calls for tax cuts for corporations, the wealthiest Americans and then vague claims to "creating jobs." Obama is not just making this stuff up, its all over McCain's website.
Lets take this one issue at a time:
JumpStarting the Economy:
Obama: Obama clearly proposes (1) Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families, (2) Provide $50 billion stimulus package to Jumpstart the Economy and Prevent 1 Million Americans from Losing Their Jobs, (3) Create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank
vs.
McCain: I literally do not see any economic stimulus or any suggesstions on the economy page of McCain's website to jumpstart the economy. Follow the link and see for yourself.
Taxes:
Obama: Obama is proposing (1) create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will completely eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans. (2) Eliminate Income Taxes for Seniors Making Less than $50,000, (3) Simplify Tax Filings for Middle Class Americans
Obama would cut taxes for the middle class, the poor, and senior citizens.
vs.
McCain: McCain is proposing to (1) Cut the Corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent, and (2) keep the top tax rate at 35 percent, maintain the 15 percent rates on dividends and capital gains, and phase-out the Alternative Minimum Tax.
There could not be a clearer difference on this issue. McCain makes no bones about it, he will cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy.
Trade:
McCain: McCain's trade section is titled "Lower Barriers to Trade." The section then discusses vague promises to "fight for education" and and "reform of unemployment insurance." So McCain really does not support protections for American Workers.
vs.
Obama: Obama's trade section which is titled, "Fight For Fair Trade."
Some of the points Obama is fighting for are; (1) Reward Companies that Support American Workers, (2) End Tax Breaks for Companies that Send Jobs Overseas, (3) Improve Transition Assistance, and (4) Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Barack has detailed explanations and plans in each of these areas. He has a more protectionist approach to trade. Go to his website and see for yourself.
Reform of the Workplace
McCain: McCain is proposing a Commission to "make recommendations to the President on how modernizing our nation’s labor laws and training programs can help workers better balance the demands of their job with family life and to enable workers to more easily transition between jobs." So in effect you have no idea what will come out of this Commission or what McCain is proposing.
vs.
Obama: Obama makes detailed proposals to (1) Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act, (2) Encourage States to Adopt Paid Leave, (3) Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities, (4) Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit, (5) Protect Against Caregiver Discrimination, and (6) Expand Flexible Work Arrangements.
So that is a flavor of the two economic plans. I am taking this directly from the two candidates websites. It would be too complex to cover every issue, so I will just provide a flavor of what is being offered in other areas. I truly scoured the two websites for substantive plans, rather than vague platitudes. Both websites had some of those, but I also found concrete plans:
Obama:
(1) Raise the Minimum Wage
(2) Establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights to Protect Consumers
(3) Create a Universal Mortgage Credit
(4) Advanced Manufacturing Fund to identify and invest in the most compelling advanced manufacturing strategies
(5) Double The Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), which works with manufacturers across the country to improve efficiency, implement new technology and strengthen company growth.
(6) Invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial scale renewable energy, invest in low emissions coal plants, and begin transition to a new digital electricity grid.
(7) create a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) that will require 25 percent of American electricity be derived from renewable sources by 2025, which has the potential to create hundreds of thousands of new jobs on its own.
(8) Reform Bankruptcy Laws
McCain:
(1) construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 with the ultimate goal of eventually constructing 100 new plants
(2) commit $2 billion annually to advancing clean coal technologies.
(3) system of tax credits that will remain in place until renewable energy has progressed to the point that it is competitive expanding domestic oil and natural gas exploration
(4) a $300 million prize to improve battery technology for full commercial development of plug-in hybrid and fully electric automobiles.
(5) For every automaker who can sell a zero-emissions car, John McCain will commit a $5,000 tax credit for each and every customer who buys that car.
(6) A one-year federal spending pause. Freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year and use those savings for deficit reduction.
(7) reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit.
Look over these lists and tell me whose plan is more realistic! Whose plan addresses the major economic problems that people in this country face? I think the answer is clear. Their websites tell you everything you need to know. You just need to take a few minutes to look them over and see why McCain would rather talk about Obama's past, or a non existent media bias than the country's future.
Posts
5 comments:
I totally agree with all of what you're saying.McCain would make an awful president and I think Obama has what it takes to turn this country around.
I would tend to agree that McCain's economic policies are not up to par...but perusing Obama's reform, I'm not encouraged one way or the other. Taking a broad look at both candidates, both approaches to spending/trimming are still missing one important piece to the puzzle...who in the world (literally) is funding these initiatives!? Are we as a country willing to keep "printing money" when much of the economic turmoil can be curtailed by ::ahem:: increasing taxes AND government spending in the areas we need it most (healthcare, education, etc.). I mean, let's face it; American's are under-taxed and have been for a long time. You want to cover a $482B deficit? Why not try letting the whining population help solve the problem by increasing taxes to generate around $4000 per US household over 4 years. That's $1000 per year per household (where the national median is around $45,000. Now don't forget that you can increase taxes only an AVERAGE of 2%, which means the aggregate number can be attributed to say...a 3-4% increase to the 15% of the population over the $100,000 mark. So the middle class can absorb a 0-2% tax increase without flinching, all the while amassing money to throw at government funding opportunities like DOMESTIC energy initiatives. And remember those old...what did we call them...tariffs!? You know, it's a logistical nightmare to ship products into Mexico or Europe from the U.S. But I'll be damned if we have the simplest [legal] import policies in the [civilized] world. As much as we hate oil TODAY...if it were OUR oil, and we were charging $100 per barrel (where $40 would still give these damned oil companies a substantial profit...without the clever accounting practices!) we would be ecstatic that the U.S. economy was kicking butt, and energy reform may not be as big an issue as it is today!
Sorry if my 2 cents turned into a nickle here...I just finished watching the debate and was bored/irritated by both candidates for dodging pertinent issues that actually matter, that haven't been properly thought through, or explained, nor will they be executed with any tact, because congress will never approve such crappy logic.
As a final thought...if you were a small business owner (and maybe you are), and you were told your sales are down, your creditors are coming after you, and your investors want to know what you're going to do....would you tell them that you were going to lower prices and increase inventory!? Of course not! And why? Because you're not an idiot! And our country should be run like a business....and who would you pick to be CEO (CIC) of your country?
Who would I pick? Do you think Jack Welch would consider an independent bid?
Rob thanks for the comments. Even though I am a big spending liberal I actually agree with you. But we have seen over time that ironically Democratic Presidents have been deficit hawks and Republicans spend like drunken sailors.
I am putting my money with the Democrats, not that I expect they will be perfect.
I would also add that not all government spending is equal. A trillion dollars spent in Iraq is down the toilet. A trillion dollars invested in infrastructure, alternative energy and education would actually be an investment in the future.
Point taken though, someone is going to have to cut some spending somewhere, i just hope it is Iraq and not in America.
Obama has all these incentives that he's going to provide to various industries: $150 Billion for bio-fuels, 25% of energy from renewables (that would cost into the trillions), double the manufacturing extension partnership (more billions).
This sounds like a great economic plan, until you consider the fact that this money must come from somewhere. In Obama's case it will come from the rich and corporations, and further defecit spending.
It's a consistent fantasy that higher taxes will come from profits and not effect prices. But corporate taxes are not simply "eaten" by corporations, they're passed on in higher prices to all consumers. Similarly, rich people will not simply pay more of their income in taxes and not change their behaviour. They will respond by moving to countries with a lower tax rate as well as working less.
A very instructive example is Europe. Income inequality is much higher in the US than Europe. Similarly it's also much higher in Switzerland and Luxembourg. Is that because of greater levels of "greed" in these countries? No. It's because they have comparatively low tax rates on the rich. The rich are encouraged to both work and stay in these countries. Or from your perspective, does Europe have less income inequality because the very high incomes are "taxed away"? No, they simply aren't earned in Europe. They're earned here. They're also largely spent here.
Once we increase our tax rate we'll indeed achieve greater income equality, but most of this will come from high income people (investment bankers, financial specialists, business owners) moving to other countries. It will not come through income equalization through redistributive taxation. When these high income earners leave, we lose both tax income and spending power.
I suppose you might feel good, because you'll no longer be bitter and angry about rich people with "obscene" ultra-mega mansions. Tough luck for the gardners, chefs, chauffers, architects, construction workers and maids that worked there. They'll be out of the job, but everyone, rich and poor, must sacrifice in the name of equality, right?
The $1,000 emergency tax rebate from oil companies is the greatest joke of all. These companies will not accept this cost and eat it in profits. They'll respond with higher prices and to maintain the same profit margin. This extra tax changes nothing about the structure of the market.
McCain's limited incentives, such as loan gaurentees for nuclear plants, are sensible since it's a proven technology and we know we'd get a return. His focus on eliminating redundancies in the licensing process is more important though. The battery technology payment also makes a lot of sense, once something like that is invented, people will quickly figure out how to circumvent patents and the sale price will quickly move to the marginal cost of manufacturing.
Finally, if providing cash incentives to industry is the best way to stimulate the economy, why stop with Obama's plan? Let's offer 50 Billion to the construction of high speed rail networks. 10 Billion to our strong exporting industries, like Boeing, to help them compete with Airbus. A few billion to efforts to update the electric grid to be more efficient. A few million to keep thousands of coal miners at work at mines that would otherwise be shut down. Some new tax breaks to get American steel mills expanding.
All these incentives sound great, but you've got to pay for them somehow. And that payment comes from all the other players in the market. Those who are not getting assistence will begin really needing it, since they're being crushed under the colletive cost of the subsidies to every other industry. This is the situation England reached before Thatcher, the industries not recieving government help were crying out for it. But instead of expanding subsidies, she got rid of many of them and let the economy function naturally.
The economy will probably naturally recover in the coming years. But we'll be saddled with these cost for many years.
One of the physiocrats advising Catherine the Great put it best. When she asked what she should do to help her economy, the response was "nothing!" Needless to say, politicians like meddling in everything, so he was kicked out.
But the advice, generally, is good. Reagen cut back on regulations in the airline industry, natural gas, trucking and many others and afterwards we saw massive price drops. In the airline industry, it actually became affordable for the average person to fly (Democrats were staunchly against this de-regulation, they thought it would hurt labor).
Sure, right now we need some common-sense regulation. McCain is for that, indeed he has been for it (he called for greater regulation of Fannie Mae in 2002 and 2004). But Obama's re-distribution of money between industries and efforts to increase income equality by encouraging rich to leave the country, are a bunch of hogwash.
Post a Comment