“Country First”, “Country First” is the slogan of the McCain campaign. It is, of course, a way of attacking his opponents patriotism by implying that Obama does not put his country first, - a shameful slander that the old McCain might have disavowed. But what about McCain putting his country first? Is it putting the country first, when the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression of 1930, prompts a display of posturing the likes of which has not been seen in a long time?
Shortly after Secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson, asked Congress for authority the invest $700 billion to buy distressed mortgage backed securities, McCain announced that he was suspending his Presidential campaign and returning to Washington to help solve the crisis. This was shortly after Obama telephoned McCain and suggested that they keep Presidential politics out of the crisis and issue a joint statement. McCain during this conversation never mentioned his intention to do anything unilateral, and tried to blind-side Obama by his announcement of campaign suspension. He then contacted the President and asked him to invite Obama and himself to a Washington conference. All this time McCain never let it be known what his position was on the treasury plan. At the conference McCain sat silently and contributed nothing, and none of his campaign commercials were withdrawn. He then totally reversed course, and rushed back to Oxford, Mississippi to attend a debate, which he had announced he would not attend. All this time he never set forth his position on the crisis, and never publicly urged his Republican brethren to vote one way or the other.
When the bill came up in the Senate, Obama took the floor and urged his colleagues to vote for the bill, without posturing or looking for photo-ops. McCain said nothing and voted for the bill. Is all this posturing, while playing it safe for as long as possible, putting “Country First”? If he was working behind the scenes to get Republican support for this unpopular bill, how come 2/3 of Republicans in the House voted against it?
And then there is Sarah Palin. Did McCain pick her as part of putting “Country First”? Was she really the best qualified person in the US to ascend to the Presidency in case McCain, who would be 76 by the time his first term ends and who has had a history of cancer, were to die or be incapacitated while in office? Or did he pick her because with her extreme right wing views she would stir up the base, which she has, you betcha. If he wanted someone with the executive experience of being a governor, he could have chosen from 22 Republican governors. Was Palin the best qualified of all these Republican governors?
McCain, the maverick, who will bring us the change we need! What happened to his maverick positions?
He sponsored the immigration bill that would have created a path for undocumented aliens to citizenship but when that interfered with his getting the Republican nomination he announced that he wouldn’t vote for his own bill.
He denounced the Bush tax cut as a giveaway to the wealthiest Americans and an irresponsible reduction in tax receipts, which would cause huge deficits, but when his predictions proved to be accurate, he reversed course and now denounces Obama for not wanting to extend those tax give aways.
He falsely accuses Obama of wanting to tax the middle class when he knows that Obama is pledged not to raise taxes one dime on anyone making less than $250,000, while he himself is advocating taxing the value of the Health Insurance working Americans get from their employers.
He sponsored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act but now promises to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who are likely to hold it to be unconstitutional.
When he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, Senator John McCain denounced religious right leader Jerry Falwell as an ''evil" force whose message of ''intolerance" hurt the GOP and America. When he sought the Presidential nomination in 2008 he delivered the commencement address at Falwell's evangelical Christian college and of course Sarah Palin is another sop to those forces of intolerance. You betcha!
But one thing McCain was always consistent about and that was his opposition to regulation until now when he belatedly has decided that this is not a politically advantageous position. Now he will bring change and the regulations we need. Has he seen the light or is this more of his opportunism?
All this apparently hasn’t fooled enough people, for McCain’s campaign is floundering. He has fallen behind in the polls and has pulled his campaign out of Michigan. Apparently it is time for a new strategy. It isn’t going to be, “Drill Baby, Drill” any more. It’s going to be Slander Baby, Slander.
It is going to be about a man that Obama barely knows, who gave a $200 contribution to the Obama re-election fund, and who served with Obama on an eight-person Board of an anti-poverty group between 1999 and 2002, who is now distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago, but who was a member of the radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974 when Obama was a child.
They are going to lie about Biden, claiming that he said that the amount of taxes you pay determines your patriotism, when they know that Biden said no such thing. Here is what the United Press International reported Biden said:
““WASHINGTON, Sept. 18 (UPI) -- Democratic vice presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Joe Biden said Thursday that people earning more than $250,000 should "be patriotic" and pay more taxes.
“During an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Biden, D-Del., said anyone making more than $250,000 would pay more in taxes if his running mate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is elected president.
“The Democratic economic platform asks the wealthiest Americans to pay higher taxes -- while pledging tax cuts for the middle class and lower-income Americans -- to pay for healthcare and other initiatives.
"It's time to be patriotic," said Biden. "Time to be part of the deal. Time to help get America out of the rut. And ... they're still going to pay less taxes than they paid under Reagan."
They are going to resurrect the story of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who Obama broke with quite some time ago.
They will look for anything that can be used to smear.
Smear baby, Smear!
How sad that McCain, a man who once prided himself about being above such tactics, has come to this.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Deregulation
Government is the not the solution! Government is the problem! That has been the mantra of the Republican establishment since Ronald Reagan ascended to the Presidency. It has been the cry of George Bush and McCain and all Republicans since their icon reigned in the White House and when they gained power they proved it. Yes, during the years of Republican ascendancy government was the problem, for they treated the levers of power as though they were there to serve them and their rich cronies. The powers of government were to be used to achieve a permanent Republican majority and to enrich their supporters in industry and in the financial sector in return for which these supporters would lavish upon them a small portion of their gains, enriching many members of the Republican establishment, and giving them the campaign funds with which they hoped they would achieve a permanent majority.
They have railed against a redistribution of wealth while systematically redistributing wealth from the middle class to the top 2% of the wealthiest of the wealthy.
They kept accusing Democrats of a policy of “tax and spend” while always spending at least as much as Democrats proposed, only the priorities were different, spending always being directed toward their goal of wealth redistribution upwards. They didn’t tax and spend, no, they borrowed and spent, and they borrowed more and more and more until our deficit has exceeded all previous deficits.
But their greed was so great that they caused the wheels to come off.
There is a basic axiom in economics. “The Greater the Risk the Greater the Reward.” And so our financial moguls took great risks and they enriched themselves. And so they took greater risks and more money flowed their way. This is what led to the Great depression of 1929 and after that depression Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his Democratic Congress put in place safeguards that did not allow the moguls to gamble with our money. For it is our money that they gamble with. It is the money that we deposit in their banks that they gamble with.
And Republicans for a very long time made no attempt to decimate the regulatory network set up in response to the depression until Ronald Reagan. Then an onslaught on the regulation that made reckless risks illegal began and where they could not persuade Congress to repeal these protections they proceeded to appoint to the regulatory agencies people who they knew would not enforce the law. They put the fox in the henhouse. Thus they made sure that the reckless risk takers would have a free hand.
Now they have discovered that government is the solution. To save their billionaire supporters they want the government to rescue them and there may be no choice because these moguls can bring our whole economy and the world economy to its knees and McCain is one of the main architects of this deregulation. As he said in 2003, ‘I have a long voting record in support of deregulation.’
Canada’s conservative daily “Globe and Mail” in today’s edition summarizes the situation as well as anyone could and so I quote their article in full:
“How is it now possible for a reasonable voter to cast a ballot for John McCain?
“The total cost of rescuing the financial services sector, including past and proposed actions, exceeds $1-trillion, more than twice the record $438-billion deficit projected for this fiscal year.
“American taxpayers are being asked to spend thousands of dollars per person to prevent the collapse of Wall Street. A whole lot of people who made an awful lot of money by taking enormous risks they couldn't afford will benefit, at the expense of everyone else.
“John McCain and platforms are ashes. They can forget about cutting taxes - for the middle classes, the upper classes or anyone else.
“And all those grandiose plans for health care and education and the military? Forget it. The next federal government, unless it abandons all pretense of responsibility, will have to focus exclusively on raising revenue and cutting spending, in an effort to bring the budget back into something remotely approaching balance.
“Mr. Obama acknowledged half as much yesterday. While insisting that many of his key promises were self-financing, he added the caveat: "It would be irresponsible of me to say I am not going to take into account what things look like should I take office." Voters have every reason to be nervous at the thought of this freshman senator, who has no experience at running any level of government, becoming president in a time of acute fiscal crisis.
“But now there really is no practical alternative. John McCain helped create this emergency. He's partly to blame for it. Under the circumstances, rewarding him by voting for him would be perverse.
“If there has been one constant in Mr. McCain's legislative record through decades in the House and Senate, it has been his unequivocal support for deregulation. He championed it during his years as chairman of the Senate commerce committee. He campaigned actively and successfully for the very act that scrapped the regulations whose absence created this cascade of bank and insurance-company failures.
“‘I have a long voting record in support of deregulation,’ he said back in 2003. It was no idle boast.
“Mr. McCain's election platform proposes allowing taxpayers to divert part of their social security payments into private investment accounts. It would deregulate the health sector, so that people could shop around for the best available health plan, rather than relying on their employer to provide it.
“‘Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation,’ he wrote in a magazine article published last week. Presumably, the piece was submitted before Lehman Brothers went belly up.
“Deregulation is not a bad thing. By loosening the restrictions that prevented innovation and risk, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher unleashed a generation of virtually uninterrupted growth that other countries, including Canada, rushed to emulate.
“But the watchman state at least needs to be a watchman. Deregulating past the point of common sense, so tainted food starts making its way onto shelves, municipal water supplies become lethally contaminated and banks take risks so hazardous they imperil the global economy, is an abdication by government of its duty to serve and protect its citizens.
“John McCain could honourably have said that, in retrospect, he might have been too enthusiastic in his support for unlimited deregulation, that he is learning lessons along with everyone else, and that, as president, he will restore a responsible level of federal oversight on Wall Street.
“Instead, he blames the greed of bank executives and accuses Barack Obama of failing to propose a realistic plan to fix the mess he helped create.
“That is base.
“An American might vote Republican because his father did, and so does he, and so will his son. She might vote Republican because John McCain opposes abortion and the right to life is the only issue that matters to her. They might vote Republican because they would never vote for a black man.
“But for a reasonable voter to support the Republican Party, after everything its candidate has done to help bring on the worst financial crisis since the Depression, well, that just makes no sense at all.”
They have railed against a redistribution of wealth while systematically redistributing wealth from the middle class to the top 2% of the wealthiest of the wealthy.
They kept accusing Democrats of a policy of “tax and spend” while always spending at least as much as Democrats proposed, only the priorities were different, spending always being directed toward their goal of wealth redistribution upwards. They didn’t tax and spend, no, they borrowed and spent, and they borrowed more and more and more until our deficit has exceeded all previous deficits.
But their greed was so great that they caused the wheels to come off.
There is a basic axiom in economics. “The Greater the Risk the Greater the Reward.” And so our financial moguls took great risks and they enriched themselves. And so they took greater risks and more money flowed their way. This is what led to the Great depression of 1929 and after that depression Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his Democratic Congress put in place safeguards that did not allow the moguls to gamble with our money. For it is our money that they gamble with. It is the money that we deposit in their banks that they gamble with.
And Republicans for a very long time made no attempt to decimate the regulatory network set up in response to the depression until Ronald Reagan. Then an onslaught on the regulation that made reckless risks illegal began and where they could not persuade Congress to repeal these protections they proceeded to appoint to the regulatory agencies people who they knew would not enforce the law. They put the fox in the henhouse. Thus they made sure that the reckless risk takers would have a free hand.
Now they have discovered that government is the solution. To save their billionaire supporters they want the government to rescue them and there may be no choice because these moguls can bring our whole economy and the world economy to its knees and McCain is one of the main architects of this deregulation. As he said in 2003, ‘I have a long voting record in support of deregulation.’
Canada’s conservative daily “Globe and Mail” in today’s edition summarizes the situation as well as anyone could and so I quote their article in full:
“How is it now possible for a reasonable voter to cast a ballot for John McCain?
“The total cost of rescuing the financial services sector, including past and proposed actions, exceeds $1-trillion, more than twice the record $438-billion deficit projected for this fiscal year.
“American taxpayers are being asked to spend thousands of dollars per person to prevent the collapse of Wall Street. A whole lot of people who made an awful lot of money by taking enormous risks they couldn't afford will benefit, at the expense of everyone else.
“John McCain and platforms are ashes. They can forget about cutting taxes - for the middle classes, the upper classes or anyone else.
“And all those grandiose plans for health care and education and the military? Forget it. The next federal government, unless it abandons all pretense of responsibility, will have to focus exclusively on raising revenue and cutting spending, in an effort to bring the budget back into something remotely approaching balance.
“Mr. Obama acknowledged half as much yesterday. While insisting that many of his key promises were self-financing, he added the caveat: "It would be irresponsible of me to say I am not going to take into account what things look like should I take office." Voters have every reason to be nervous at the thought of this freshman senator, who has no experience at running any level of government, becoming president in a time of acute fiscal crisis.
“But now there really is no practical alternative. John McCain helped create this emergency. He's partly to blame for it. Under the circumstances, rewarding him by voting for him would be perverse.
“If there has been one constant in Mr. McCain's legislative record through decades in the House and Senate, it has been his unequivocal support for deregulation. He championed it during his years as chairman of the Senate commerce committee. He campaigned actively and successfully for the very act that scrapped the regulations whose absence created this cascade of bank and insurance-company failures.
“‘I have a long voting record in support of deregulation,’ he said back in 2003. It was no idle boast.
“Mr. McCain's election platform proposes allowing taxpayers to divert part of their social security payments into private investment accounts. It would deregulate the health sector, so that people could shop around for the best available health plan, rather than relying on their employer to provide it.
“‘Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation,’ he wrote in a magazine article published last week. Presumably, the piece was submitted before Lehman Brothers went belly up.
“Deregulation is not a bad thing. By loosening the restrictions that prevented innovation and risk, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher unleashed a generation of virtually uninterrupted growth that other countries, including Canada, rushed to emulate.
“But the watchman state at least needs to be a watchman. Deregulating past the point of common sense, so tainted food starts making its way onto shelves, municipal water supplies become lethally contaminated and banks take risks so hazardous they imperil the global economy, is an abdication by government of its duty to serve and protect its citizens.
“John McCain could honourably have said that, in retrospect, he might have been too enthusiastic in his support for unlimited deregulation, that he is learning lessons along with everyone else, and that, as president, he will restore a responsible level of federal oversight on Wall Street.
“Instead, he blames the greed of bank executives and accuses Barack Obama of failing to propose a realistic plan to fix the mess he helped create.
“That is base.
“An American might vote Republican because his father did, and so does he, and so will his son. She might vote Republican because John McCain opposes abortion and the right to life is the only issue that matters to her. They might vote Republican because they would never vote for a black man.
“But for a reasonable voter to support the Republican Party, after everything its candidate has done to help bring on the worst financial crisis since the Depression, well, that just makes no sense at all.”
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
More about McCain
As the campaign for President unfolds I find myself saddened by the devolution of McCain from the “maverick” and “straight talk express” candidate, to one who doesn’t hesitate to lie and who instead of tacking to the middle in the general election campaign, appears to be tacking further to the Right.
In February of 2000 while running in the Republican primary against George W. Bush declared, “Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.” (From CNN transcript 2/28/2000) When McCain ran in this years Republican primary McCain made amends with Falwell. He spoke at Falwell's Liberty University, (MSNBC Feb. 14, 2007) a rather depressing example of tacking with the wind and adjusting ones sails to fit the needs of the campaign, but clearly not one of principle.
But who would have thought that now that we are deep into the general election campaign McCain would continue to tack rightward.
The selection of Palin is a clear manifestation of this trend. Much has been made of Palin’s lack of qualification to be President, and that is certainly true. But what is more important is what it tells us about McCain. In choosing Palin to be his candidate for VP he has chosen a woman who is totally committed to the agenda of Robertson and Falwell, e.g. Palin believes abortion should be illegal “with the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end (not just would be endangered) if the pregnancy continued.” In other words she would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape or incest, which puts her at odds with McCain’s slightly more moderate position. Palin also said that she’d be opposed to abortion even if her daughter had been sexually assaulted. (Anchorage Daily News November 3, 2006)
She favors teaching creationism in public schools, a position that the Supreme Court has held to be in violation of the Constitution’s establishment clause. (Anchorage Daily News October 27, 2006)
She does not believe that global warming is manmade and expressed skepticism that climate change is occurring at all. (ABC News August 29, 2008 and Cavuto interview on Fox)
She opposes proposals to expand hate-crimes statutes to cover sexual orientation, and seems to imply that hate-crimes statutes are superfluous (Eagle Forum Alaska)
She would replace sex-education programs with abstinence-only programs. (Eagle Forum Alaska) Apparently the withholding of such information from her own daughter led to her pregnancy at the age of 17 to be followed by a shotgun marriage to a self-described red-neck.
The result has been to bring McCain the enthusiastic support of the fundamentalist Right without any cost among women and independents. So it appears that political cynicism pays off. The incredible thing is that Palin opposes everything that women who supported Hillary Clinton support, yet she has appeal to them on the basis of identity politics. She is about as good for women as Justice Clarence Thomas is for African-Americans. Issues matter more than identity, as Hillary Clinton herself has pointed out.
But even more frightening is McCain’s temper.
Here are some examples:
Defending his Amnesty Bill, Sen. McCain Lost His Temper And “Screamed, ‘F*ck You!’ At Texas Sen. John Cornyn” (R-TX). (New York Post, 5/19/07)
At a GOP meeting last fall, McCain erupted out of the blue at the respected Budget Committee chairman, Pete Domenici, saying, ‘Only an a–hole would put together a budget like this.’ Offended, Domenici stood up and gave a dignified, restrained speech about how in all his years in the Senate, through many heated debates, no one had ever called him that. Another senator might have taken the moment to check his temper. But McCain went on: ‘I wouldn’t call you an a–hole unless you really were an a–hole.’ The Republican senator witnessing the scene had considered supporting McCain for president, but changed his mind. ‘I decided,’ the senator told Newsweek, ‘I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.’” (Evan Thomas, et al., “Senator Hothead,” Newsweek, 2/21/00)
Sen. McCain Had A Heated Exchange With Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) And Called Him A “F*cking Jerk.” “Senators are not used to having their intelligence or integrity challenged by another senator. ‘Are you calling me stupid?’ Sen. Chuck Grassley once inquired during a debate with McCain over the fate of the Vietnam MIAs, according to a source who was present. ‘No,’ replied McCain, ‘I’m calling you a f—ing jerk!’
Is this the man we would want in delicate negotiations with friends, or for that matter, enemies? Is this the man whose finger we would want on on the atom bomb trigger?
Which brings us to his integrity and his willingness to tell out and out lies. Here is what Fact Check.org, a non-partisan web-site devoted to tracking falsehoods during political campaigns had to say about McCain’s ads on taxes.
“McCain released three new ads with multiple false and misleading claims about Obama's tax proposals.
“A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year – if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway.
“A Spanish-language radio ad claims the measure Obama supported would have raised taxes on "families" making $42,000, which is simply false. Even a single mother with one child would have been able to make $58,650 without being affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected.
“The TV ad claims in a graphic that Obama would ‘raise taxes on middle class.’ In fact, Obama's plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000.
“The radio ad claims Obama would increase taxes "on the sale of your home." In fact, home-sale profits of up to $500,000 per couple would continue to be exempt from capital gains taxes. Very few sales would see an increase under Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains rate.
“A second radio ad, in English, says, ‘Obama has a history of raising taxes’ on middle-class Americans. But that's false. It refers to a vote that did not actually result in a tax increase and could not have done so.
“These ads continue what's become a pattern of misrepresentation by the McCain campaign about his opponent's tax proposals.”
In fact, and I believe the Obama campaign has not sufficiently publicized this, McCain wants to place a tax on Americans who get health insurance from their employers which would hurt the people who can least afford it.
McCain is also now misrepresenting Obama record on sex education. Here is what Fact Check had to say on this.
“A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's ‘one accomplishment’ in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004. Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners and the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.
“It's true that the phrase ‘comprehensive sex education’ appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate." It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question.
There is much more to be said about the man who would be president but some consideration for length constrains me.
In February of 2000 while running in the Republican primary against George W. Bush declared, “Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.” (From CNN transcript 2/28/2000) When McCain ran in this years Republican primary McCain made amends with Falwell. He spoke at Falwell's Liberty University, (MSNBC Feb. 14, 2007) a rather depressing example of tacking with the wind and adjusting ones sails to fit the needs of the campaign, but clearly not one of principle.
But who would have thought that now that we are deep into the general election campaign McCain would continue to tack rightward.
The selection of Palin is a clear manifestation of this trend. Much has been made of Palin’s lack of qualification to be President, and that is certainly true. But what is more important is what it tells us about McCain. In choosing Palin to be his candidate for VP he has chosen a woman who is totally committed to the agenda of Robertson and Falwell, e.g. Palin believes abortion should be illegal “with the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end (not just would be endangered) if the pregnancy continued.” In other words she would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape or incest, which puts her at odds with McCain’s slightly more moderate position. Palin also said that she’d be opposed to abortion even if her daughter had been sexually assaulted. (Anchorage Daily News November 3, 2006)
She favors teaching creationism in public schools, a position that the Supreme Court has held to be in violation of the Constitution’s establishment clause. (Anchorage Daily News October 27, 2006)
She does not believe that global warming is manmade and expressed skepticism that climate change is occurring at all. (ABC News August 29, 2008 and Cavuto interview on Fox)
She opposes proposals to expand hate-crimes statutes to cover sexual orientation, and seems to imply that hate-crimes statutes are superfluous (Eagle Forum Alaska)
She would replace sex-education programs with abstinence-only programs. (Eagle Forum Alaska) Apparently the withholding of such information from her own daughter led to her pregnancy at the age of 17 to be followed by a shotgun marriage to a self-described red-neck.
The result has been to bring McCain the enthusiastic support of the fundamentalist Right without any cost among women and independents. So it appears that political cynicism pays off. The incredible thing is that Palin opposes everything that women who supported Hillary Clinton support, yet she has appeal to them on the basis of identity politics. She is about as good for women as Justice Clarence Thomas is for African-Americans. Issues matter more than identity, as Hillary Clinton herself has pointed out.
But even more frightening is McCain’s temper.
Here are some examples:
Defending his Amnesty Bill, Sen. McCain Lost His Temper And “Screamed, ‘F*ck You!’ At Texas Sen. John Cornyn” (R-TX). (New York Post, 5/19/07)
At a GOP meeting last fall, McCain erupted out of the blue at the respected Budget Committee chairman, Pete Domenici, saying, ‘Only an a–hole would put together a budget like this.’ Offended, Domenici stood up and gave a dignified, restrained speech about how in all his years in the Senate, through many heated debates, no one had ever called him that. Another senator might have taken the moment to check his temper. But McCain went on: ‘I wouldn’t call you an a–hole unless you really were an a–hole.’ The Republican senator witnessing the scene had considered supporting McCain for president, but changed his mind. ‘I decided,’ the senator told Newsweek, ‘I didn’t want this guy anywhere near a trigger.’” (Evan Thomas, et al., “Senator Hothead,” Newsweek, 2/21/00)
Sen. McCain Had A Heated Exchange With Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) And Called Him A “F*cking Jerk.” “Senators are not used to having their intelligence or integrity challenged by another senator. ‘Are you calling me stupid?’ Sen. Chuck Grassley once inquired during a debate with McCain over the fate of the Vietnam MIAs, according to a source who was present. ‘No,’ replied McCain, ‘I’m calling you a f—ing jerk!’
Is this the man we would want in delicate negotiations with friends, or for that matter, enemies? Is this the man whose finger we would want on on the atom bomb trigger?
Which brings us to his integrity and his willingness to tell out and out lies. Here is what Fact Check.org, a non-partisan web-site devoted to tracking falsehoods during political campaigns had to say about McCain’s ads on taxes.
“McCain released three new ads with multiple false and misleading claims about Obama's tax proposals.
“A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year – if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway.
“A Spanish-language radio ad claims the measure Obama supported would have raised taxes on "families" making $42,000, which is simply false. Even a single mother with one child would have been able to make $58,650 without being affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected.
“The TV ad claims in a graphic that Obama would ‘raise taxes on middle class.’ In fact, Obama's plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000.
“The radio ad claims Obama would increase taxes "on the sale of your home." In fact, home-sale profits of up to $500,000 per couple would continue to be exempt from capital gains taxes. Very few sales would see an increase under Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains rate.
“A second radio ad, in English, says, ‘Obama has a history of raising taxes’ on middle-class Americans. But that's false. It refers to a vote that did not actually result in a tax increase and could not have done so.
“These ads continue what's become a pattern of misrepresentation by the McCain campaign about his opponent's tax proposals.”
In fact, and I believe the Obama campaign has not sufficiently publicized this, McCain wants to place a tax on Americans who get health insurance from their employers which would hurt the people who can least afford it.
McCain is also now misrepresenting Obama record on sex education. Here is what Fact Check had to say on this.
“A McCain-Palin campaign ad claims Obama's ‘one accomplishment’ in the area of education was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergarteners." But the claim is simply false, and it dates back to Alan Keyes' failed race against Obama for an open Senate seat in 2004. Obama, contrary to the ad's insinuation, does not support explicit sex education for kindergarteners and the bill, which would have allowed only "age appropriate" material and a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for parents, was not his accomplishment to claim in any case, since he was not even a cosponsor – and the bill never left the state Senate.
“It's true that the phrase ‘comprehensive sex education’ appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate. The ad refers to a bill Obama supported in the Illinois state Senate to update the sex education curriculum and make it "medically accurate." It would have lowered the age at which students would begin what the bill termed "comprehensive sex education" to include kindergarten. But it mandated the instruction be "age-appropriate" for kindergarteners when addressing topics such as sexually transmitted diseases. The bill also would have granted parents the opportunity to remove their children from the class without question.
There is much more to be said about the man who would be president but some consideration for length constrains me.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Should Scheller Be A Columnist?
As you know I have of late been publishing much of my commentary as Letters to the Editor of my local paper the Fort Lee Suburbanite. This frequently gets me into exchanges with people who have a different viewpoint making for, what I consider to be interesting dialogue.
A week ago Friday, on August 15, a Letter to the Editor was published a copy of which I reproduce below:
To the Editor:
I am flattered by Shel Haas’ Letter to the Editor entitled “Give Mr. Scheller his own column” Suburbanite August 15. I would like nothing better. I have dreamt of being a columnist since the days when Walter Lippmann graced the pages of the New York Herald Tribune.
As for my never having met a Democrat I didn’t like, let me assure Mr. Hass that there have been very many, among them Senators Bilbo of Mississippi, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Governor George Wallace of Alabama, to name a few from the past. But there are quite a few today, such as Ed Koch of New York and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
As for being a dud in economics, I will match my knowledge of economics with Mr. Haas, and even Senator McCain, any day of the week, and I assure him that it doesn’t require much knowledge to accomplish this feat.
If Mr. Haas would read my letters with greater care he would see that my facts are not from Democratic sources. My citing the use vehicles in China compared to ours came from T. Boone Pickens, as good a Republican as one could find, and as I stated, a financier of the Swift Boat ads.
As for drilling in Alaska, even John McCain opposes that harebrained scheme, for it would endanger some the most pristine lands in the world and would not produce enough oil to make a significant contribution to the world supply.
The principles of the Sierra Club to which Mr. Haas refers with such venom are to preserve the God given beauty and the environment of our nation, a goal to which Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, a man who McCain has cited as being the President he most admires, was dedicated.
Mr. Haas describes global warming as “the biggest farce of them all” ignoring the fact that it is an accepted fact by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, by Senator McCain, and finally even by that long denier of it, President Bush. If Mr. Haas wants to remain in denial that is his privilege, but he might as well deny that the earth rotates around the sun rather than the other way around.
Finally I am at a loss to understand how my views are “opposite President Kennedy’s.” Mr. Haas does not even give us a clue as to how he arrived at this strange conclusion.
Emil Scheller
Fort Lee, New Jersey
A week ago Friday, on August 15, a Letter to the Editor was published a copy of which I reproduce below:
To the Editor:
I am flattered by Shel Haas’ Letter to the Editor entitled “Give Mr. Scheller his own column” Suburbanite August 15. I would like nothing better. I have dreamt of being a columnist since the days when Walter Lippmann graced the pages of the New York Herald Tribune.
As for my never having met a Democrat I didn’t like, let me assure Mr. Hass that there have been very many, among them Senators Bilbo of Mississippi, Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Governor George Wallace of Alabama, to name a few from the past. But there are quite a few today, such as Ed Koch of New York and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.
As for being a dud in economics, I will match my knowledge of economics with Mr. Haas, and even Senator McCain, any day of the week, and I assure him that it doesn’t require much knowledge to accomplish this feat.
If Mr. Haas would read my letters with greater care he would see that my facts are not from Democratic sources. My citing the use vehicles in China compared to ours came from T. Boone Pickens, as good a Republican as one could find, and as I stated, a financier of the Swift Boat ads.
As for drilling in Alaska, even John McCain opposes that harebrained scheme, for it would endanger some the most pristine lands in the world and would not produce enough oil to make a significant contribution to the world supply.
The principles of the Sierra Club to which Mr. Haas refers with such venom are to preserve the God given beauty and the environment of our nation, a goal to which Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, a man who McCain has cited as being the President he most admires, was dedicated.
Mr. Haas describes global warming as “the biggest farce of them all” ignoring the fact that it is an accepted fact by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, by Senator McCain, and finally even by that long denier of it, President Bush. If Mr. Haas wants to remain in denial that is his privilege, but he might as well deny that the earth rotates around the sun rather than the other way around.
Finally I am at a loss to understand how my views are “opposite President Kennedy’s.” Mr. Haas does not even give us a clue as to how he arrived at this strange conclusion.
Emil Scheller
Fort Lee, New Jersey
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
The Media & McCain
I find myself more and more disillusioned with our media. I have for a long time been upset at the media for their tendency to copycat each other and for their focus on trivia or scandal. The lead-up to the Iraq war was a perfect example, for every major news outlet trumpeted the same Administration propaganda, acting as a megaphone for the White House.
But my disgust reached a new plane this past week when it was revealed that John Edwards had had an extra-marital affair. Just why this was newsworthy escapes me. Even if he were still a candidate, which he is not, it has no bearing on his ability to serve our country, and its revelation at this time can only serve to hurt his wife who is already struggling with terminal cancer. In the immortal words of Joseph Welch during the Army McCarthy hearings in the 1950s, “Have (they) no sense of decency? At long last, have (they) left no sense of decency?”
At the moment that this news broke, Russian troops were pouring across its borders into Georgia, hundreds of civilians were dying and the Olympics were about to start in China. I was trying to get updates on developments and so I turned on CNN. They were talking about Edwards and his private life. In disgust I turned to CNBC. They were talking about Edwards and his private life. I turned to Fox News. They were talking about Edwards and his private life. I turned to NBC. They were talking about Edwards and his private life. I gave up and stayed with a program where Lanny Davis, the former Special Counsel to President Clinton was being interviewed about, you guessed it John Edwards. Mr. Davis suggested that maybe we aught to have some of the people in the media being exposed for any dalliances. I wanted to applaud.
But the media isn’t my only area of disappointment that I have had lately. John McCain is a man for whom I never could have voted, because to me his mindset is entirely too much on military options rather then on diplomacy. He was too much of a cheerleader for that option leading up to the Iraq war. He has been highly critical of the Bush Administration for its use of diplomacy with North Korea, and he sees humor in the dangerous confrontation that we are having with Iran. Singing, "Bomb, bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of Barbara Ann.
Similarly on the domestic front he has been a strong advocate for supply side economics, also known as the trickle down theory, which I strongly believe to be erroneous and counter-productive.
I did, however, respect McCain for his integrity and for a measure of independence. Both of these positive traits seem to have evaporated as the bug of Presidential ambition has infested the man. Once McCain denounced vicious negative campaigning and to his credit he took exception to the Swift boat ads that were run against Kerry. Now McCain sees nothing wrong with impugning the patriotism of his opponent, accusing him of wanting to lose a war to further his Presidential ambitions. McCain knows better than that, and the old McCain would have had nothing to do with such slander.
At one time McCain would have had nothing to do with environmentally unsound drilling in our coastal waters and would have honestly told voters that such drilling would not affect the price of gas either now or in the future. But the new McCain stands there before his audiences and chants, “Drill Here, Drill Now” as though oil lay beneath their feet then and there. What a hoax. McCain knows that the reason the price of gas has come down is because we are using less of it, and that conservation is the only option that can affect the price of gas in the short run, but the new McCain wouldn’t tell anybody that because he wants people to believe that just chanting, “Drill Here, Drill Now” brought down the cost of gas. Next he will tell us that the tooth fairy did it. He has even run ads claiming that Obama is responsible for the rise in the cost of gas.
McCain knows that some of his supporters have been using e-mail and the web to slander Obama as being a Muslim, as being for the terrorists, and above all, as not being like other Americans. (Subtext being African-American). The old McCain would have denounced such slander and such racism. The new McCain used Obama’s reference to such attacks as an excuse to accuse Obama of introducing the race card.
The old McCain and his Straight Talk Express gloried in being the darling of the media. The new McCain denounces the media because he is no longer their darling. He tells out and out lies, such as Obama canceling a visit to the troops because Obama couldn’t take the photographers with him, when he knows that the press had not been invited.
The old McCain wouldn’t have allowed himself to trivialize the race for the Presidency by introducing Paris Hilton and Britney Spears into the campaign. The new will use any and all means if he thinks they may aid his ambition.
The old McCain…is he just too old?
I don’t think so! Being even older than McCain I can remember that Conrad Adenauer was an effective Chancellor of Germany well into his eighties. But Adenauer never showed any signs of losing touch with the world around him. McCain, on the other hand, has confused Sunnis and Shiites, talks about Czechoslovakia, a country that has not existed since 1993, and talks about the Iraqi border with Pakistan when the two countries do not have a common border. He has not yet caught up with the age of computers and finds them beyond his comprehension. His age is not a problem, but for a man running on experience and knowledge, his lack thereof is indeed worrisome.
Obama has shown a grasp of today, and the problems and geography of today. He has shown an ability to sit down with world leaders as an equal, and his connection to the Europeans makes it clear that an Obama Presidency would reinvigorate our alliances, which have suffered so badly in the last eight years. McCain makes fun of Obama's gift at oratory, a gift that is so obviously lacking in McCain. Of course McCain knows, as we all do, that this gift is an important one for anyone who aspires to leadership. The gift to inspire; the gift to lead is a God given gift that served Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy so well. It is not to be denigrated. It is to be applauded. The old McCain might even have had the grace to give credit where credit is due.
But the new McCain…well that’s the trouble - the new McCain isn’t the old McCain.
But my disgust reached a new plane this past week when it was revealed that John Edwards had had an extra-marital affair. Just why this was newsworthy escapes me. Even if he were still a candidate, which he is not, it has no bearing on his ability to serve our country, and its revelation at this time can only serve to hurt his wife who is already struggling with terminal cancer. In the immortal words of Joseph Welch during the Army McCarthy hearings in the 1950s, “Have (they) no sense of decency? At long last, have (they) left no sense of decency?”
At the moment that this news broke, Russian troops were pouring across its borders into Georgia, hundreds of civilians were dying and the Olympics were about to start in China. I was trying to get updates on developments and so I turned on CNN. They were talking about Edwards and his private life. In disgust I turned to CNBC. They were talking about Edwards and his private life. I turned to Fox News. They were talking about Edwards and his private life. I turned to NBC. They were talking about Edwards and his private life. I gave up and stayed with a program where Lanny Davis, the former Special Counsel to President Clinton was being interviewed about, you guessed it John Edwards. Mr. Davis suggested that maybe we aught to have some of the people in the media being exposed for any dalliances. I wanted to applaud.
But the media isn’t my only area of disappointment that I have had lately. John McCain is a man for whom I never could have voted, because to me his mindset is entirely too much on military options rather then on diplomacy. He was too much of a cheerleader for that option leading up to the Iraq war. He has been highly critical of the Bush Administration for its use of diplomacy with North Korea, and he sees humor in the dangerous confrontation that we are having with Iran. Singing, "Bomb, bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" to the tune of Barbara Ann.
Similarly on the domestic front he has been a strong advocate for supply side economics, also known as the trickle down theory, which I strongly believe to be erroneous and counter-productive.
I did, however, respect McCain for his integrity and for a measure of independence. Both of these positive traits seem to have evaporated as the bug of Presidential ambition has infested the man. Once McCain denounced vicious negative campaigning and to his credit he took exception to the Swift boat ads that were run against Kerry. Now McCain sees nothing wrong with impugning the patriotism of his opponent, accusing him of wanting to lose a war to further his Presidential ambitions. McCain knows better than that, and the old McCain would have had nothing to do with such slander.
At one time McCain would have had nothing to do with environmentally unsound drilling in our coastal waters and would have honestly told voters that such drilling would not affect the price of gas either now or in the future. But the new McCain stands there before his audiences and chants, “Drill Here, Drill Now” as though oil lay beneath their feet then and there. What a hoax. McCain knows that the reason the price of gas has come down is because we are using less of it, and that conservation is the only option that can affect the price of gas in the short run, but the new McCain wouldn’t tell anybody that because he wants people to believe that just chanting, “Drill Here, Drill Now” brought down the cost of gas. Next he will tell us that the tooth fairy did it. He has even run ads claiming that Obama is responsible for the rise in the cost of gas.
McCain knows that some of his supporters have been using e-mail and the web to slander Obama as being a Muslim, as being for the terrorists, and above all, as not being like other Americans. (Subtext being African-American). The old McCain would have denounced such slander and such racism. The new McCain used Obama’s reference to such attacks as an excuse to accuse Obama of introducing the race card.
The old McCain and his Straight Talk Express gloried in being the darling of the media. The new McCain denounces the media because he is no longer their darling. He tells out and out lies, such as Obama canceling a visit to the troops because Obama couldn’t take the photographers with him, when he knows that the press had not been invited.
The old McCain wouldn’t have allowed himself to trivialize the race for the Presidency by introducing Paris Hilton and Britney Spears into the campaign. The new will use any and all means if he thinks they may aid his ambition.
The old McCain…is he just too old?
I don’t think so! Being even older than McCain I can remember that Conrad Adenauer was an effective Chancellor of Germany well into his eighties. But Adenauer never showed any signs of losing touch with the world around him. McCain, on the other hand, has confused Sunnis and Shiites, talks about Czechoslovakia, a country that has not existed since 1993, and talks about the Iraqi border with Pakistan when the two countries do not have a common border. He has not yet caught up with the age of computers and finds them beyond his comprehension. His age is not a problem, but for a man running on experience and knowledge, his lack thereof is indeed worrisome.
Obama has shown a grasp of today, and the problems and geography of today. He has shown an ability to sit down with world leaders as an equal, and his connection to the Europeans makes it clear that an Obama Presidency would reinvigorate our alliances, which have suffered so badly in the last eight years. McCain makes fun of Obama's gift at oratory, a gift that is so obviously lacking in McCain. Of course McCain knows, as we all do, that this gift is an important one for anyone who aspires to leadership. The gift to inspire; the gift to lead is a God given gift that served Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy so well. It is not to be denigrated. It is to be applauded. The old McCain might even have had the grace to give credit where credit is due.
But the new McCain…well that’s the trouble - the new McCain isn’t the old McCain.
Friday, August 08, 2008
The Deficit & Spending
That we are in an economic downturn there can be no doubt but to blame it on the normal cyclical effects of the business cycle and to the price of oil is to ignore, as some would like, the failed policies of the past eight years. When this Administration with its Republican Congress took office we had just completed eight years of economic prosperity. When Clinton took office he inherited from twelve years of Republican misrule a failing economy (see here) and a $290 billion deficit. When he left office eight years later he had succeeded in turning that into a $100 billion surplus that was expected to quadruple in the decade ahead. There was even an expectation that before long the National Debt accumulated since the founding of the Republic would be wiped out. Now eight years later we have, according to the Office of Management and Budget, a deficit projection of $482 billion, the largest deficit in American history eclipsing the previous record of $413 billion set in fiscal 2004. See here.
Deficits matter! In fiscal year 2006, the U. S. Government spent $406 Billion on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt, which for the most part is China. Compare that to NASA at $15 Billion, Education at $61 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $56 Billion. It is the third largest item in the Federal budget after Defense and the Departments of Health and Human Services. If that 406 billion were available it could have been spent at least in part, on shoring up our infrastructure, which is collapsing, on education, and the myriad needs of our country. Right now numerous vital agencies, such as the FDA are under funded. When Congress recently passed a bill putting tobacco under the jurisdiction of the FDA the White House objected on the ground that the FDA is having enough problems dealing with its present jurisdiction for foods and drugs but never considered giving it the resources that it needs. Our National Parks are under funded and not being maintained. Our educational system is in crisis. And of course our energy needs are not being addressed.
In 2001, when this Administration took office gasoline was priced at about a $1.60. Now it is over $4.00. Who is to blame? It is a matter of world supply and demand but the supply has been relatively steady. It is demand that has skyrocketed. Many have pointed to China and India as the culprits and to be sure their demand has gone up. But their demand is a fraction of ours particularly when counted on a per capita basis. According to T. Boone Pickens, a leading oil magnate, (and incidentally a man who helped finance the Swift boat attacks,) we were importing 24% of our oil in 1970. By 1990 that had gone up to 42%. Now in 2008 we are importing 70% of our oil at a cost of $700 billion a year or $7 trillion over ten years. Yet when it was proposed that the CAFÉ gas efficiency requirements on autos be raised early in this Administration, this Administration and its cohorts in the Republican Congress wouldn’t hear of it. When other conservation measures were proposed, they wouldn’t hear of it. Instead, they gave away billions of dollars to the oil industry
They like to blame China and India and other emerging economies for causing the increased demand, but again according to Pickens the Chinese have 44 cars per 1,000 people as compared to 750 cars per 1,000 people in the US. The whole world consumes 85 million barrels of oil of which the US consumes 21 million or 25% even though the US population is only 4% of the world population.
Some talk about our present economic malaise as being part of the business cycle, exacerbated by greed in the housing and financial markets but fails to point out that Republican policies were to blame. Now the Administration, through its Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, is calling for regulations but that is closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out. It is the failure to anticipate and to have put regulation in place before the crisis is at the heart of the crisis just as the failure to address the oil crisis before it came upon us is to blame.
They talk about posturing but fail to talk about the real posturing that is being fostered upon us. Instead of real solutions to our problems we are offered drilling off shore. Aside from fouling our beaches and our environment it would do nothing for our economy or the price of oil either in the short run or the long. As Pickens points out we can’t drill our way out of this mess. Any oil extracted would not come on the market for ten years and even then the amount extracted would be insignificant and do nothing to favorably effect supply or the price of this commodity. And McCain stands there and postures and postures and in typical Rove manner slanders and slanders.
In the end they offers us the same policies that got us into this mess. His solution is to cut out wasteful spending, something we can all be for, but that is a bromide that keeps being offered and never turns out to be a solution. The idea that taxes must be reduced and reduced and never increased is what got us into this horrendous deficits, not just on the national scene but in the States as well. Both New York and New Jersey are facing budget crisis.
They talk about Social Security being taxed, but fail to tell us that this is a tax that was proposed by the Reagan Distraction or that it was intended to shore up Social Security and that every cent of that tax goes back into the Social Security Trust fund. Nobody has proposed its elimination, and its elimination would further undermine the solvency of SS.
As for the ATM it is unfortunate that this was not indexed for inflation. As it has been pointed out too much revenue is being generated from this tax for it to be eliminated, but it will be adjusted as it has been in the recent past so that it does not hit the middle class, and it will be indexed for inflation. Even then it will be a large loss of revenue for the Federal government and means must be found to make up for this loss.
The suggestion that tax collections be stepped up is a sound one but there has not been the will on the part of the Bush Administration to tap this source and McCain, despite disclaimers appears to have adopted every one of the Bush policies. It should be noted, however, in order to accomplish this, new laws targeting off shore tax shelters would have to be enacted and there seems to be no desire on the part of Bush/McCain to pursue this avenue. In addition additional funding for IRS’ enforcement would have to be appropriated not something Bush/McCain team has given any indication of favoring.
However, there is no reason why income earned from capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than income earned from labor. We take pride in being a country that has a work ethos but taxes our labor as if it had less value than a passive return on capital. It is this, of course that causes the enormous inequality in the burden of the rich whose main source is return on capital as opposed to the middle class which earns most of its income from the effort of its labor, whether white collar or blue.
First we must bring our taxes in line with our expenditures. We cannot go on with an ever-increasing deficit. We cannot do this simply by cutting out waste. Cuts in other areas are simply not possible without hurting the middle class and the poor. We must pay for the war in Iran and in Afghanistan and its aftermath, which will cost billions even after those wars are concluded in replacing equipment and caring for our wounded veterans. We will not tolerate an attack on our main social programs such as Social Security, which McCain referred to recently as being an outrageous system, or Medicare or Medicaid. We should put a stop to the huge subsides paid to farm corporations but that is not about to happen. There are definite limits on our ability to substantially cut expenditures.
Thus if we increase tax on capital gains we can close the budget gap and then substantially reduce the tax burden on our working population.
Without a doubt middle class working people invest in the market and any increase in the capital gains tax would, to a limited extent, impact those people but the impact on someone who has a $10,000 or even a $100,000 investment in the market is miniscule, and can be more than offset by lower taxes on his salary or wages. If budget balance is achieved a lowering of taxes on labor may be possible. Right now earnings on capital are favored in so many ways that it is no wonder that that billionaire, Warren Buffet said that his tax rate is lower than his maids. We should consider lowering the payroll tax on the lowest earners and make up for the loss to the SS trust fund by increasing the cap on contributions. Capital gains are favored in so many ways other than by the low rate that substantial additional revenue can be obtained from this source simply by requiring brokers to notify the IRS when a security is bought and its purchase price. Right now brokers are only required to notify the IRS when a security is sold, so that short of an audit, the taxpayer can easily misrepresent its basis and its purchase date.
Under the present code even the small capital gain on investments is taxed only when security is sold but tax payers who are wealthy enough to let the securities increase in value until their death escape paying any tax either by them or their heirs. When the Security is passed to the heir, the heir does not inherit it with a basis of the purchase price, but rather gets a new basis as of the value of the security at the time that he inherits it. This is patently unfair to those who because they need the proceeds of the security before dying must pay capital gains taxes.
The Bush tax cuts which expire in 2010 had this expiration date built in because the figures of lost revenues were so large that the Administration knew that without the cutoff date it could not be passed. This is still true. The revenues lost from a total renewal of this ill conceive tax cut would lock our deficit in and assure its growth for decades to come. That is why no Republican Congress extended it when they had the majority. To now ask the Democratic Congress to take this irresponsible step is the height of Chutzpa. It should be allowed to expire, though tax adjustment to protect the middle class will be passed or as Obama has said, “No tax increases for people making under $250,000.” Personally I would have made that $150,000 but the promise has been made and will be kept.
Deficits matter! In fiscal year 2006, the U. S. Government spent $406 Billion on interest payments to the holders of the National Debt, which for the most part is China. Compare that to NASA at $15 Billion, Education at $61 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $56 Billion. It is the third largest item in the Federal budget after Defense and the Departments of Health and Human Services. If that 406 billion were available it could have been spent at least in part, on shoring up our infrastructure, which is collapsing, on education, and the myriad needs of our country. Right now numerous vital agencies, such as the FDA are under funded. When Congress recently passed a bill putting tobacco under the jurisdiction of the FDA the White House objected on the ground that the FDA is having enough problems dealing with its present jurisdiction for foods and drugs but never considered giving it the resources that it needs. Our National Parks are under funded and not being maintained. Our educational system is in crisis. And of course our energy needs are not being addressed.
In 2001, when this Administration took office gasoline was priced at about a $1.60. Now it is over $4.00. Who is to blame? It is a matter of world supply and demand but the supply has been relatively steady. It is demand that has skyrocketed. Many have pointed to China and India as the culprits and to be sure their demand has gone up. But their demand is a fraction of ours particularly when counted on a per capita basis. According to T. Boone Pickens, a leading oil magnate, (and incidentally a man who helped finance the Swift boat attacks,) we were importing 24% of our oil in 1970. By 1990 that had gone up to 42%. Now in 2008 we are importing 70% of our oil at a cost of $700 billion a year or $7 trillion over ten years. Yet when it was proposed that the CAFÉ gas efficiency requirements on autos be raised early in this Administration, this Administration and its cohorts in the Republican Congress wouldn’t hear of it. When other conservation measures were proposed, they wouldn’t hear of it. Instead, they gave away billions of dollars to the oil industry
They like to blame China and India and other emerging economies for causing the increased demand, but again according to Pickens the Chinese have 44 cars per 1,000 people as compared to 750 cars per 1,000 people in the US. The whole world consumes 85 million barrels of oil of which the US consumes 21 million or 25% even though the US population is only 4% of the world population.
Some talk about our present economic malaise as being part of the business cycle, exacerbated by greed in the housing and financial markets but fails to point out that Republican policies were to blame. Now the Administration, through its Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, is calling for regulations but that is closing the barn door after the horse has gotten out. It is the failure to anticipate and to have put regulation in place before the crisis is at the heart of the crisis just as the failure to address the oil crisis before it came upon us is to blame.
They talk about posturing but fail to talk about the real posturing that is being fostered upon us. Instead of real solutions to our problems we are offered drilling off shore. Aside from fouling our beaches and our environment it would do nothing for our economy or the price of oil either in the short run or the long. As Pickens points out we can’t drill our way out of this mess. Any oil extracted would not come on the market for ten years and even then the amount extracted would be insignificant and do nothing to favorably effect supply or the price of this commodity. And McCain stands there and postures and postures and in typical Rove manner slanders and slanders.
In the end they offers us the same policies that got us into this mess. His solution is to cut out wasteful spending, something we can all be for, but that is a bromide that keeps being offered and never turns out to be a solution. The idea that taxes must be reduced and reduced and never increased is what got us into this horrendous deficits, not just on the national scene but in the States as well. Both New York and New Jersey are facing budget crisis.
They talk about Social Security being taxed, but fail to tell us that this is a tax that was proposed by the Reagan Distraction or that it was intended to shore up Social Security and that every cent of that tax goes back into the Social Security Trust fund. Nobody has proposed its elimination, and its elimination would further undermine the solvency of SS.
As for the ATM it is unfortunate that this was not indexed for inflation. As it has been pointed out too much revenue is being generated from this tax for it to be eliminated, but it will be adjusted as it has been in the recent past so that it does not hit the middle class, and it will be indexed for inflation. Even then it will be a large loss of revenue for the Federal government and means must be found to make up for this loss.
The suggestion that tax collections be stepped up is a sound one but there has not been the will on the part of the Bush Administration to tap this source and McCain, despite disclaimers appears to have adopted every one of the Bush policies. It should be noted, however, in order to accomplish this, new laws targeting off shore tax shelters would have to be enacted and there seems to be no desire on the part of Bush/McCain to pursue this avenue. In addition additional funding for IRS’ enforcement would have to be appropriated not something Bush/McCain team has given any indication of favoring.
However, there is no reason why income earned from capital gains should be taxed at a lower rate than income earned from labor. We take pride in being a country that has a work ethos but taxes our labor as if it had less value than a passive return on capital. It is this, of course that causes the enormous inequality in the burden of the rich whose main source is return on capital as opposed to the middle class which earns most of its income from the effort of its labor, whether white collar or blue.
First we must bring our taxes in line with our expenditures. We cannot go on with an ever-increasing deficit. We cannot do this simply by cutting out waste. Cuts in other areas are simply not possible without hurting the middle class and the poor. We must pay for the war in Iran and in Afghanistan and its aftermath, which will cost billions even after those wars are concluded in replacing equipment and caring for our wounded veterans. We will not tolerate an attack on our main social programs such as Social Security, which McCain referred to recently as being an outrageous system, or Medicare or Medicaid. We should put a stop to the huge subsides paid to farm corporations but that is not about to happen. There are definite limits on our ability to substantially cut expenditures.
Thus if we increase tax on capital gains we can close the budget gap and then substantially reduce the tax burden on our working population.
Without a doubt middle class working people invest in the market and any increase in the capital gains tax would, to a limited extent, impact those people but the impact on someone who has a $10,000 or even a $100,000 investment in the market is miniscule, and can be more than offset by lower taxes on his salary or wages. If budget balance is achieved a lowering of taxes on labor may be possible. Right now earnings on capital are favored in so many ways that it is no wonder that that billionaire, Warren Buffet said that his tax rate is lower than his maids. We should consider lowering the payroll tax on the lowest earners and make up for the loss to the SS trust fund by increasing the cap on contributions. Capital gains are favored in so many ways other than by the low rate that substantial additional revenue can be obtained from this source simply by requiring brokers to notify the IRS when a security is bought and its purchase price. Right now brokers are only required to notify the IRS when a security is sold, so that short of an audit, the taxpayer can easily misrepresent its basis and its purchase date.
Under the present code even the small capital gain on investments is taxed only when security is sold but tax payers who are wealthy enough to let the securities increase in value until their death escape paying any tax either by them or their heirs. When the Security is passed to the heir, the heir does not inherit it with a basis of the purchase price, but rather gets a new basis as of the value of the security at the time that he inherits it. This is patently unfair to those who because they need the proceeds of the security before dying must pay capital gains taxes.
The Bush tax cuts which expire in 2010 had this expiration date built in because the figures of lost revenues were so large that the Administration knew that without the cutoff date it could not be passed. This is still true. The revenues lost from a total renewal of this ill conceive tax cut would lock our deficit in and assure its growth for decades to come. That is why no Republican Congress extended it when they had the majority. To now ask the Democratic Congress to take this irresponsible step is the height of Chutzpa. It should be allowed to expire, though tax adjustment to protect the middle class will be passed or as Obama has said, “No tax increases for people making under $250,000.” Personally I would have made that $150,000 but the promise has been made and will be kept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
