The Carpetbagger Report: McCain's numbers still don't add up
|
|
| Also listed in: 102 groups |
The following essay, "McCain's numbers still don't add up,"
http://the carpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14988.html, is from another online political blog, The Carpetbagger Report, I frequent and occasionally comment on.
The Carpetbagger Report
March 23, 2008
McCain's numbers still don't add up
"When it comes to taxes, John McCain wants to make Bush's cuts permanent, and slash the corporate income-tax rate from 35% to 25%. In all, according to the McCain campaign and the Congressional Budget Office, McCain's plan would cost *an additional $400 billion a year* (at a time of already huge budget deficits), and at the same time the senator is also vowing to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term.
"Robert Gordon and Advisor James Kvaal, both of the Center for American Progress, explained a few days ago that McCain's plan costs *more than $2 trillion,* prompting former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a top McCain aide, to *acknowledge* that McCain's plan 'will make deficits expand up front,' but over the long term, the deficits will shrink again because his policies promote growth. 'That place has to be economically viable, otherwise they have a problem,' Holtz-Eakin said.
"It prompted Gordon and Kvaal to ask *four good questions.*: 1) Why is it necessary to cut taxes for corporations to make them 'economically viable' when the United States already has the fourth-lowest corporate tax revenue as a share of the economy in the industrialized world?; 2) Why are deficit-financed corporate tax cuts likely to increase growth when (a) in the short-run, Moody's Economy.com ranked them the least cost-effective stimulus among 13 options, and (b) in the medium or longer-run, the effect on growth of deficit-financed tax cuts 'tends to be small?'; 3) How do massive tax cuts for the most fortunate further shared prosperity when income inequity is at its highest level since before the Great Depression (or earlier)?; 4) Given the admission that this plan immediately increase federal budget deficits, how will Senator McCain meet his own goal of balancing the budget by 2012?
"McCain has acknowledged that he *doesn't understand economics,* so I (the Carpetbagger, Steve Benum) don't imagine he'll be able to answer these questions. Either way, the fact that McCain's numbers don't add up should matter quite a bit.
"I (the Carperbagger, Steve Benum) was pleasantly surprised to see *this Reuters report* recently.
"McCain's promises to reduce wasteful spending if elected president in November would not begin to cover the costs of his proposed tax cuts, analysts say.
"He also has not yet explained how he would rein in the health-care and retirement costs expected to swamp the federal budget as some 77 million people retire from the U.S. work force in the coming decades.
"On top of that, a President McCain would inherit a $400 billion budget deficit. (and) wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that cost nearly $200 billion per year and a similar bill for interest payments on the $10 trillion national debt.
"Many experts said McCain's proposals would make the fiscal picture worse.
"This is one of the most fiscally irresponsible plans we've seen by a presidential candidate in a long time,' said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal Center on Budget nd Policy Priorities.
"Vague, expensive promises are nor unusual on the campaign trail and the proposals put forward by Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton also would lead to increased deficits, analysts said.
"I don't think anybody's numbers add up when they run for president,' said Jared Bernstein of the liberal Economic Policy Institute. 'I do fear that (McCain's) don't add up the most.'
"Maybe--I'm (the Carpetbagger, Steve Benum) just throwing this out there--if media coverage of the canpaign devoted one-fifteth of the attention it's given the Jeremiah Wright story to the fact that McCain is offering economic gibberish, voters might be better off. Just sayin'."
****
I welcome my fellow PartyBuilder members--both Obama and Clinton supporters--to comment on the above essay's points, in hopes that all PartyBuilder members--both Obama and Clinton supporters, alike--would see the dire need of all Democrats to unite behind the Democratic presidential nominee--whether it's Obama or Clinton--once the nominee is determined, for not only our own benefit as individuals and as Americans, but also for the sake and benefit of all our fellow Americans.
The country's citizens deserve a better government than a continuation of the failed policies of the current administration--one that respects their constituency's needs for the restoration of the time-honored U.S. Constitutional law; equal protection under the law; a responsive government which is dedicated to addressing the domestic needs of all of its citizens; the dire need for rebuilding the nation's infrastucture; restoring true accountability of our elected officials; and, taking effective measures to ensure our nation's domestic and foreign security--without a continuation of the current administration's warmongering.
http://the carpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14988.html, is from another online political blog, The Carpetbagger Report, I frequent and occasionally comment on.
The Carpetbagger Report
March 23, 2008
McCain's numbers still don't add up
"When it comes to taxes, John McCain wants to make Bush's cuts permanent, and slash the corporate income-tax rate from 35% to 25%. In all, according to the McCain campaign and the Congressional Budget Office, McCain's plan would cost *an additional $400 billion a year* (at a time of already huge budget deficits), and at the same time the senator is also vowing to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term.
"Robert Gordon and Advisor James Kvaal, both of the Center for American Progress, explained a few days ago that McCain's plan costs *more than $2 trillion,* prompting former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a top McCain aide, to *acknowledge* that McCain's plan 'will make deficits expand up front,' but over the long term, the deficits will shrink again because his policies promote growth. 'That place has to be economically viable, otherwise they have a problem,' Holtz-Eakin said.
"It prompted Gordon and Kvaal to ask *four good questions.*: 1) Why is it necessary to cut taxes for corporations to make them 'economically viable' when the United States already has the fourth-lowest corporate tax revenue as a share of the economy in the industrialized world?; 2) Why are deficit-financed corporate tax cuts likely to increase growth when (a) in the short-run, Moody's Economy.com ranked them the least cost-effective stimulus among 13 options, and (b) in the medium or longer-run, the effect on growth of deficit-financed tax cuts 'tends to be small?'; 3) How do massive tax cuts for the most fortunate further shared prosperity when income inequity is at its highest level since before the Great Depression (or earlier)?; 4) Given the admission that this plan immediately increase federal budget deficits, how will Senator McCain meet his own goal of balancing the budget by 2012?
"McCain has acknowledged that he *doesn't understand economics,* so I (the Carpetbagger, Steve Benum) don't imagine he'll be able to answer these questions. Either way, the fact that McCain's numbers don't add up should matter quite a bit.
"I (the Carperbagger, Steve Benum) was pleasantly surprised to see *this Reuters report* recently.
"McCain's promises to reduce wasteful spending if elected president in November would not begin to cover the costs of his proposed tax cuts, analysts say.
"He also has not yet explained how he would rein in the health-care and retirement costs expected to swamp the federal budget as some 77 million people retire from the U.S. work force in the coming decades.
"On top of that, a President McCain would inherit a $400 billion budget deficit. (and) wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that cost nearly $200 billion per year and a similar bill for interest payments on the $10 trillion national debt.
"Many experts said McCain's proposals would make the fiscal picture worse.
"This is one of the most fiscally irresponsible plans we've seen by a presidential candidate in a long time,' said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal Center on Budget nd Policy Priorities.
"Vague, expensive promises are nor unusual on the campaign trail and the proposals put forward by Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton also would lead to increased deficits, analysts said.
"I don't think anybody's numbers add up when they run for president,' said Jared Bernstein of the liberal Economic Policy Institute. 'I do fear that (McCain's) don't add up the most.'
"Maybe--I'm (the Carpetbagger, Steve Benum) just throwing this out there--if media coverage of the canpaign devoted one-fifteth of the attention it's given the Jeremiah Wright story to the fact that McCain is offering economic gibberish, voters might be better off. Just sayin'."
****
I welcome my fellow PartyBuilder members--both Obama and Clinton supporters--to comment on the above essay's points, in hopes that all PartyBuilder members--both Obama and Clinton supporters, alike--would see the dire need of all Democrats to unite behind the Democratic presidential nominee--whether it's Obama or Clinton--once the nominee is determined, for not only our own benefit as individuals and as Americans, but also for the sake and benefit of all our fellow Americans.
The country's citizens deserve a better government than a continuation of the failed policies of the current administration--one that respects their constituency's needs for the restoration of the time-honored U.S. Constitutional law; equal protection under the law; a responsive government which is dedicated to addressing the domestic needs of all of its citizens; the dire need for rebuilding the nation's infrastucture; restoring true accountability of our elected officials; and, taking effective measures to ensure our nation's domestic and foreign security--without a continuation of the current administration's warmongering.
