The Corporate Welfare State

It is ironic that conservatives have demonized terms like "socialism" and "welfare state" for decades, turning the philosophy that the state should look out for the welfare of its citizens, especially those less fortunate, into some fiery source of evil. Yet instead of socialism, they promote unbridled greed, pure capitalism without bounds (if they had their way, luckily the Democratic Party has prevented them from giving corporations 100% free reign, instead they are stuck at maybe 90% free reign), and no matter how much damage that does to the planet, to society, to all the values Americans profess to hold sacred, somehow they've managed to keep up the charade that the private sector is the answer to everything, and the public sector is the worst thing since Saddam, you know, after we were done supporting him and giving him chemical weapons.

What is even more ironic though as they can parade their market fundamentalism around, and condemn anything even remotely aimed at promoting social good as "socialism", yet the second big corporations need any help (and often times even when they don't need any help), you can count on the Republicans to come running to their aid. Somehow it is weak, "bleeding heart", and horrible when liberals want to help out people who can't pay for gas, or pay their rent, or their bills or for food or education. God forbid we raise the minimum wage. Yet when Republicans dump billions of dollars in corporate welfare into the private sector, that is OK. Somehow helping people is an attack on the sacred rules of market fundamentalism, yet when the government subsidizes failed corporations (which they do constantly), that is somehow just. The best part is, the CEO's and shareholders of these corporations get to keep their profits and giant paydays, while their loses are "socialized", meaning taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

Now I'm a firm believer in Democratic Socialism, and I think it is a great thing for taxpayers to pool their resources to lift everyone up, to provide great benefits for the society as a whole. In other countries they may pay a bit more in taxes, but they get free universal health care, they get free college education, they get taken care of, and the government makes sure no one gets neglected. THAT is worth it. In that system everyone gives some, and everyone gets back a lot in return. In the conservative "corporate welfare state", everyone gives some, and corporations get to pocket it, whether it be in the form of corporate bailouts for irresponsible lenders, subsidies for corporations that shouldn't be subsidized, or the ever-popular hugely wasteful no-bid contracts to defense contractors like Halliburton that actually make more profit the more taxpayer money they waste.

Isn't it ironic that they have fooled us into believing that the government helping us is "evil socialism", while the government bending over backwards to give our money to the already rich and powerful is macho capitalism at its finest? I think much in this country would change if people had a deeper understanding of the economy, and how screwed up our national priorities really are when we have a disintegrating middle class, and ever-expanding lower class, while the rich get richer and corporations enjoy record profits, all while they ignore (and profit from) huge crises like global warming. It is just amazing that they have done such a great job at convincing so many voters to vote against their own best interest. This is of course where wedge issues like abortion (even though Republican policies actually increase abortions), gay marriage, and immigration. And that is also why John McCain won't focus on the issues, because the issues are against him, and indefensible, so you'll continue to see him attacking Obama's patriotism, and his wife, and his faith, and his race, and anything else that will distract voters from how the Republican Party has been playing them for fools for decades.

Let's hope it doesn't work this time, but it won't be easy, because the corporate-owned media would love nothing better than to see the status quo continue, so they hype up the non-stories, they focus on the wedge issues, they focus on everything but real issues like the fundamental flaws in our economy, or the environment, or any of that.

Anyway, read Robert Borosage's piece on "Wall Street Socialism".

Bush & McCain The Same On The Economy

Haha, this is delicious. Top McCain VP prospect Mark Sanford totally embarrasses himself trying to push McCain's "I'm different!" talking points. When asked to name a major economic policy that President Bush and McCain disagree on, he can't do it. Of course he can't do it, because Bush and McCain agree on all of the policies that messed up our economy in the first place! But the best part is, he starts off saying he can name one, then can't go back, so he struggles, he stumbles, he blurts out "NAFTA" because that's a word he knows related to the economy, amazingly Wolf Blitzer points out that McCain and Bush are the same on NAFTA, and the guy starts talking about earmarks, which are part of the federal budget, not the economy. Now this is good TV:

McCain's Top Economic Advisor: Americans Are Whiners

A couple days ago McCain's top economic advisor (and likely pick for Treasury Secretary) former Sen. Phil Gramm said:

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

"We've never been more dominant; we've never had more natural advantages than we have today," he said. "We have benefited greatly" from the globalization of the economy in the last 30 years. ...

"Misery sells newspapers," Mr. Gramm said. "Thank God the economy is not as bad as you read in the newspaper every day."

Wow. Really? McCain's top economic advisor is telling Americans that all of the problems they are facing are psychological?? It's all in their heads? They aren't actually having trouble making ends meet, it's a figment of their imaginations? They aren't really paying over $4/gal for gas while oil companies make record profits? And the record number of home foreclosures is just imaginary! Yeah, it's just like The Matrix, you think your home is about to be taken away, but that's just because you believe that's what is happening (probably because the bank told you), but if you really just realized that it was all fake and in your head, the foreclosure process would just stop, and gas would cost $1.50/gal again, and we wouldn't be losing millions of jobs, and you could fly, and know kung-fu, and you could stop bullets with your mind! Woah. Isn't life wonderful when reality is just all in your head?? It must be great to live in a fantasy world where Americans aren't saving the lowest amount since the Great Depression (next to nothing). It's all in our heads! But hell, don't take my word for it, or the economic data, or all the Americans that are just trying to hang on, let's hear it from an expert:

The United States has already slipped into a deep recession that could be the most serious since World War II, said Martin Feldstein, president of the Cambridge group that is considered the official word on economic cycles.

"The situation is bad, it's getting worse, and the risks are that the situation could be very bad," Feldstein said in a speech yesterday at a financial industry conference in Boca Raton, Fla.

Feldstein, president of the National Bureau of Economic Research and a professor of economics at Harvard University, said the chief causes of the shrinking economy are sinking housing prices, months of job losses, and turmoil in the financial markets.

Yeah, and that was back in March. The DNC responds:

What John McCain, George Bush and Phil Gramm just don't understand is that the American people aren't whining about the state of the economy, they are suffering under the weight of it -- the weight of eight years of Bush-enomics that John McCain and Phil Gramm have vowed to continue. How dare John McCain and his advisers so callously dismiss the challenges the American people face. No wonder voters feel John McCain is out of touch, he and his campaign don't even understand the everyday issues Americans are dealing with.

And Obama:



And this from his campaign:

One of Senator McCain's top economic advisors may think that when people are struggling with lost jobs, stagnant wages, and the rising costs of everything from gas to groceries, it's merely a 'mental recession'. And Senator McCain may think it's sufficient to offer energy proposals that he admits will have mainly 'psychological' benefits. But the American people know that our economic problems aren't just in their heads. They don't need psychological relief - they need real relief - and that's what Barack Obama will provide as President.

And McCain's response:

Phil Gramm's comments are not representative of John McCain's views. John McCain travels the country every day talking to Americans who are hurting, feeling pain at the pump and worrying about how they'll pay their mortgage. That's why he has a realistic plan to deliver immediate relief at the gas pump, grow our economy and put Americans back to work.

And that response is weird, because earlier McCain's own campaign said that Gramm was speaking on behalf of McCain on his economic policy:

The McCain campaign is working hard to distance itself from statements made by economic adviser Phil Gramm describing the current economic downturn as a "mental recession" and saying America had "sort of become a nation of whiners."

But in an initial statement published by Politico and then, seemingly, removed from its site, a McCain campaign aide actually stood by Gramm's remarks, saying the interview as a whole was merely meant as a preview of the Senator's economic agenda.

"Mr. Gramm was simply saying that we are laying out the economic plan this week," the piece quoted a "McCain official" as saying. "The plan is comprehensive, providing immediate near-term relief for Americans hurting today as well as longer-term solutions to get our economy back on track, secure our energy future and deliver jobs, prosperity and opportunity for the next generation. We're laying out that plan this week with an emphasis on the critical importance of job creation, and it's been a great success so far."

Only after the fallout from Gramm's statement did the McCain campaign fully backtrack.

And then the Washington Post:

Speaking today from New York, where he was meeting with the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board on McCain's economic policies, Gramm said the nation's economy was initially thought to have grown by an anemic 0.6 percent in the first three months of the year.

What is funny is that McCain can even claim that the views of his top economic advisor, who drafts McCain's economic policy (in addition to Bush of course), and speaks for McCain on the economy, wasn't providing McCain's view of the status of the economy. In fact....:



And that's the thing that the media doesn't seem to understand (or want to report), that these comments are directly in line with not only McCain's views, but the views of all conservatives. It is shocking how out of touch Republicans are with the American people, and how indifferent they are to their suffering. But how is this a surprise coming from the party that through administration after administration cuts taxes for the rich, while cutting social services for the not-rich. Almost every single choice they make can be broken down to "Does this help the rich while screwing the poor?", and if the answer is yes, you can be sure that the Republicans support it. And the sad thing is, I'm not even exaggerating. The problem is we never have a honest discussion of the policies and ideology of the Republican Party, even after it has devastated our economy and the lives of so many Americans for the last 8 years, and then decades before that. Don't expect that discussion to come from the media, it is owned by rich Republicans.

And that's the sick part about the Gramm thing, the media briefly picked it up, but not because his insistence that the recession was all in our heads, but because he inartfully called Americans "a nation of whiners". That is why it got a little bit of coverage, not because of how messed up and out of touch Gramm, McCain, Bush and all Republicans are, or how horrible their policies have been for this country.

Why can't we have that candid discussion in this country? If people woke up and just had some basic understanding of politics, current events, and the economy the Republican Party would be dust, because a party with such greedy and worthless (for everyone but the rich) policies and priorities could not survive if it weren't for extreme ignorance and apathy, which are the only renewable resources we have a limitless supply of in this country.

Update: I should also note that the "nation of whiners" comment was a thousand times more offensive than Obama's "bitter" comment, which was actually the exact opposite, as Obama was actually acknowledging that people are hurting financially, and are sick of being left behind by Washington year after year. Obama caught hell for weeks over those empathetic comments. Yet McCain's repeated comments showing how completely, callously out of touch he is with the plight of everyday Americans results in next to no coverage.

McCain Lies To Americans About Balancing The Budget, The Media Doesn't Seem To Care

A few days ago McCain lied to the American people, again. The question is, as usual, did he knowingly lie, or is he just that ignorant? It is a tossup, as McCain has admitted himself that he doesn't have a strong understanding of how the economy works:

The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should.

Of course months later he lied (or maybe just forgot, are we dealing with chronic Alzheimer's?), saying that he never said what he was on tape saying:

Robin Roberts: "You have admitted that you're not exactly an expert when it comes to the economy..."

John McCain: "I have not. I have not. I actually have not. I said that I am stronger on national security issues because of all the time I spent in the military.

Lie, Lie, Lie, and Lie. He managed to fit 4 lies in right there, pretty amazing. He lied 3 times about not saying what he clearly said, and then lied about what he says he actually said, which is not what he said. Gotta love how this guy rolls huh? His sort of lying is really not compatible with YouTube. See McCain, we can catch you when you lie now, this isn't like all of the lies from your Congressional career, times have changed.

But that isn't the point here. The point is that McCain's willingness to lie to people, or his complete ignorance on how the economy works, has manifest itself again. McCain recently claimed that he would balance the budget by 2013, the end of his first term (although other officials have backtracked on this, and said it wouldn't be until the end of his second term). Okay, so the lie here is of course his claim, his promise, that he can and will reduce the budget deficit, ever. Can't happen. There are many obvious reasons it can't happen. First, McCain wants to continue the Iraq war, which has greatly increased the budget deficit. He has claimed that we will have "won" (whatever that means, who knows, since he refuses to say what his definition of "winning" is) in Iraq by 2013, and thus we'll get all of these savings, and that will lead to a budget surplus:

The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.

See how that works? This is how McCain thinks it works. Say you are an irresponsible teenager who wastes money like the he or she is Donald Trump. Say this person saves ZERO, and every year runs up an increasingly enormous credit card debt. Say this person scales back somewhat on the enormous spending, but does that mean they are now saving? Is there magically "savings" now? No, just less spending. The debt is still there, the high interest payments are still there from all of that debt. McCain makes it sound like after we "win" in Iraq AND Afghanistan we'll get a big cash reward that we can apply toward balancing the budget. Sorry, not how it works.

And notice how it is savings from "winning" Iraq, Afghanistan (which, since McCain apparently hasn't noticed, just experienced the bloodiest month since the invasion seven years ago), AND presumably the entire "fight against Islamic extremists", because McCain's economic plan seems to rest on the assumption that he doesn't get us into any more wars (you know, like bomb bomb bombing Iran for instance, which you can be almost certain he would, or perhaps getting into an armed conflict with China, because he "hates the gooks" so much). But for a second, let's put reality aside and pretend that McCain can "win" Iraq, and "win" Afghanistan, and "win" the "war on terror", and doesn't get us into any new wars, let's basically assume that suddenly McCain makes the whole world love us. Even then, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that reducing troop levels in Iraq to 75,000 by 2013 would cost an additional $205 billion (on top of the already huge spending levels) between 2008 and 2013. And that is just Iraq, not counting Afghanistan. And somehow with that McCain is going to balance the budget. Right. Apparently we are going to have to move on to his other plans to see how he is supposedly going to pull this off.

The second part of his plan is to continue Bush's tax cuts for the rich (which the CBO estimates would cost more than $700 billion in the next five years), and then tack on at least $300 billion in additional tax cuts for the rich (and corporations, don't worry, McCain hasn't forgotten you). Are the alarm bells going off yet? How in the hell, does McCain expect to balance the budget by continuing a hopeless, destructive, and very expensive war for at least 5 more years (possibly longer, he keeps changing the number) while giving the rich HUGE tax cuts?? McCain might have missed this, but his plan is EXACTLY Bush's plan, which is what led us to record deficits in the first place! The Bush administration was the first in American history to actually decrease taxes during a war (in other words, the only one in history to greatly increase the money going out, while cutting off the money going in...because that is CRAZY), and now McCain wants to be the second in history. In short, he either has absolutely no clue how the federal budget works, or he is FLAT OUT LYING to voters when he says he can balance the budget in his first (or even second) term. His plan is to take the shovel that Bush has used to dig us into the economic hole we are in, and dig faster. And this is supposedly going to fill in the hole. Does McCain think we are idiots??

McCain says we'll make up for these hundreds of billions of dollars in war spending, and the over $1 TRILLION price tax for his rich people tax cuts, by cutting "wasteful earmarks". For some perspective, this year there were about $17 billion in total earmarks. The total budget was $2.9 trillion. Yeah, that $17 billion,

A longtime foe of pet projects known as earmarks, Mr. McCain said he would stop such spending. The Bush White House says earmarks this year total $17 billion, a comparatively small share of a $2.9 trillion budget. $17 billion is less than the cost of a month and a half of the Iraq war. McCain thinks cutting that, blindly, will solve our problems. I say blindly because earmarks aren't all wasteful, in fact some fund vital programs. Some go to thinks like flood control and repairing bridges. McCain doesn't seem to understand that not all earmarks are bad, he sees everything as black and white, much like Bush, so to him all he needs to know is that it is an earmark, and it must be destroyed, even if it is money well spent. Make that example #4881 of McCain not understanding the federal budget.

McCain also says he will freeze non-military discretionary spending at current levels for a year, again, blindly, without any regard for the consequences of what that would do to the affected programs. As the New York Times points out:

This proposal would affect education, scientific research, law enforcement and scores of other programs.

Mr. Bush’s battles with Congress suggest it would be extremely difficult for Mr. McCain to win approval for such a freeze.

The budget process isn't something that should be approached recklessly. Programs live and die based on federal appropriations. The functioning of government and countless programs rely on proper funding. You can't just arbitrarily "freeze" funding without any regard for its consequences. Yet that is exactly what McCain says he will do. It is hard to think of a more irresponsible, reckless, and ignorant approach to the federal budget. Make that example #4882. Not to mention all of this is politically impossible, which is something else he fails to mention to voters.

But hell, let's just say McCain gets everything he wants in his wildest dreams, and even goes further, let's say he completely ELIMINATES all non-military discretionary funding, which accounts for around $540.8 billion annually. That means eliminating the Department of Health and human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Centers for Disease Control, the EPA, the FDA (you think we have problems with tainted meat and produce now), the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Small Business Administration, Amtrak, student financial aid, etc, you get the picture. Say we did all of that, completely gutted the federal government, which would essentially destroy life as we know it...and that only gets us $540.8 billion. Recall that McCain's new tax cuts for the rich would cost us at least $300 billion, add $10 billion of his "gas tax holiday". Recall extending Bush's tax cuts for the rich would cost over $700 billion. And don't forget the hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending in Iraq every year, a war that by many estimates will cost us upwards of $3 trillion (in direct and indirect costs) by the time it is over (whenever that would be in a McCain administration). Essentially, McCain could cut all (non-military) "discretionary" (which isn't really discretionary at all, it is what the government runs on) spending, and STILL not balance the budget with his wars and his huge tax cuts for the rich. And of course such cuts are impossible, just as even his blind "freeze" on discretionary spending simply won't happen, Democrats aren't that irresponsible with managing the federal budget. But McCain doesn't tell voters any of that either (I'm assuming, hoping, he knows that).

McCain, of course, like every Republican, would like nothing more than to destroy Social Security (which he recently called a "disgrace"), Medicare and other social services, so he also takes aim there. He has said he will cut spending in the so-called "entitlement programs", which almost all Americans rely on for retirement, and tens of millions rely on for health care. So what if Americans are already hurting and finding it hard to pay for retirement or for health care, McCain and the Republicans want to cut these vital social programs anyway. Of course McCain won't get specific about how he wants to cut these programs, because saying it would doom him electorally, so he just hints at it, and the media of course doesn't connect the dots and hold him accountable. Ezra Klein hits on this:

"Overhauling" is a weasel word. So, in this context, is "reform." If you are going to balance the budget by doing something to entitlement programs, you are going to do one of two things: Raise the payroll tax, or cut the programs. In other words, the accurate headline for this piece would read "McCain Promises to Cut Social Security And Medicare Or Drastically Raise The Payroll Tax." If enough pieces like that were written, McCain would have to explain which of those he intends to do. As of yet, he's been able to dodge the question, saying repeatedly that he'll "talk' to Congress. But Congress won't cut Social Security or Medicare. So is McCain promising a massive payroll tax increase? Or is he just spouting platitudes? It's an interesting question, and it actually has an answer. But in order to get that answer, reporters will need to aggressively explain McCain's plan: Cut Social Security and Medicare. Or pass a huge tax increase. Those are his only two options. And the legendary straight talker should be able to explain which he favors.

In short: He is playing voters for fools, and the media is helping him do it by refusing to do their job. But there is hope, at least, as the NYT reports:

The package of spending and tax cuts proposed by Senator John McCain is unlikely to achieve his goal of balancing the federal budget by 2013, economists and fiscal experts said Monday.

"It would be very difficult to achieve in the best of circumstances, and even more difficult under the policies that Senator McCain has proposed," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group.

[...]

C. Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, who worked in the Reagan administration, said Mr. McCain "may well be committed to balancing the budget in five years, but does not tell you how he would reach that goal."

J. Bradford DeLong, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, who worked at the Treasury under President Bill Clinton, said, "Senator McCain and his advisers want to claim they will balance the budget by 2013, but they have given us no clue and no plan to meet all the commitments he has made and still get there."

In other words, he has made promises that are impossible to keep. In other words, he is either flat out lying to voters, promising things he can't deliver, or he is a complete idiot, who really has no idea how impossible balancing the budget would be with his budget proposals. I do think he is an idiot, but no one is that stupid, I think it is obvious he is lying.

Newsweek and Factcheck also have a good breakdown of McCain's budget distortions, part I here, and part II here.

Which is why I'm writing this, because we have to keep exposing McCain's lies and distortions, in hopes that the media will eventually end their love affair with McCain and start doing their job. We can always dream.

Update: Oh yes, McCain has been running around saying his economic plan has been endorsed by 300 economists, but it turns out they were duped into endorsing a short statement of economic principles, which McCain then attached to his 15-page economic plan. In fact many of the economists say they have reservations about many parts of his plan, and wouldn't have endorsed the actual plan. Apparently McCain doesn't save dishonesty for the voters, he gives everyone around him the same treatment.

Update #2: Also, check out Obama's memo on the economy, for some good juxtapositions of his plan and McCain's "plan".

Obama Vs McCain (Economy Edition)

Obama's campaign delivered a smackdown, memo-style, against McCain on his economic policy, or lack thereof. Essentially McCain's "economic policy", for those who aren't familiar with it, is a nice mix of do-nothing, and continue and expand on Bush's horrible policies that landed us in the mess we are in right now. Basically, when McCain finds himself in a hole, he calls on Americans to dig faster. Check out the memo (its a good read):

Earlier this year, Senator John McCain said that the nation had made "great progress economically" under the leadership of George W. Bush. On the eve of John McCain’s "Jobs First" economic tour this week, one thing is clear: the McCain economic plan represents a continuation of the same economic policies we have seen for the past eight years.

As currently constructed the McCain plan does not address the immediate challenges facing our economy, like the 438,000 jobs that have been lost in the past six months, the 400 percent increase in the cost of gas at the pump, and a massive contraction in the housing market. The McCain plan offers no hope of relieving burdens for middle-class families struggling with wages that have been stagnant for a generation and household incomes that have fallen $962 in this economic "expansion." Instead, the McCain plan would continue the economic policies of the last eight years that have added $4.0 trillion to the deficit, primarily with tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans who did not need and did not ask for them. Indeed, McCain’s plan proposes to double down on these policies, with tax cuts that are more expensive and stacked against average Americans than anything President Bush has ever proposed.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the McCain campaign plans to spend the week "repackag[ing] proposals he has already outlined" rather than improving on their economic plan. But no amount of repackaging can alter three basic facts about the McCain plan:

1. Senator McCain has no plan for immediate fiscal stimulus to help struggling families or jumpstart our economy. In January Senator McCain said the economy was not slipping into recession and said he was "skeptical" about the stimulus measures being considered. His top economic adviser said stimulus plans were typically unnecessary "junk." That same month Barack Obama proposed a fiscal stimulus plan centered on rebates to workers and seniors, a package similar to what was ultimately passed on a bipartisan basis. At the same time, Senator Obama warned that if the economy worsened further another round of stimulus would be needed. On June 9th, Senator Obama called for a second stimulus, with at least $50 billion in immediate measures to help jumpstart our economy. On July 3, in the wake of news that our economy has now lost jobs for six straight months, Senator Obama asked Senator McCain to join him in passing an immediate stimulus plan. However, since January when John McCain announced during a debate that he thought Americans were better off because of George Bush’s economic policies, he has failed to propose any immediate measure to give our economy shot in the arm by putting more money in the pockets of Americans hit hardest by the downturn.


2. The McCain tax cut plan completely leaves out 101 million households – including those working and middle-class Americans hardest hit by this downturn. In contrast, Senator Obama’s plan benefits 95 percent of workers and their families. The principal middle class tax cut proposed by John McCain is an increase in the dependent exemption that will not be fully in effect until 2016. Most households without children would see nothing under the plan – a total of 101 million households, including 67 million households currently paying income taxes but who would not benefit because they have no dependents, and 34 million low-income households with no income tax liability but generally paying payroll taxes. Nearly all seniors (37 million out of 38 million) would be left out. Even for families with children, the increase in the dependent exemption provides only a modest tax cut. In the first year of the plan, it would be worth about $125 to a middle-class family with two children. That same family would eventually see their taxes increase under the McCain plan, because his health care plan would raise taxes on middle-class families over time. This is completely inadequate, and will not help the very people whose reduced spending is contributing to our slowing economy. The Obama plan offers more generous tax relief for middle class families, including a "Making Work Pay Credit" that would benefit 95 percent of workers and their families, providing $1,000 for a typical working family. Obama’s plan would also expand tax credits to help families save, send a child to college, pay for childcare, and afford their mortgage, while eliminating income taxes for all seniors making less than $50,000.


3. McCain’s plan continues the Bush policies of tax cuts that are not paid for, which will push our deficits higher and further weaken our economy. His plan continues giving tax cuts to those who need them least and didn’t ask for them, including the wealthiest 2 percent of households and large corporations – including big oil which gets $4 billion in new tax breaks from John McCain. Although economists generally agree that short-run stimulus measures should not be paid for, it is critical that sustained policies like middle-class tax cuts be paid for in order to avoid economic damage in the short run and inevitable tax increases in the future. Currently, McCain’s budget plan "will add $200 billion to $300 billion or, depending on his voluntary tax system, even more" annually to the deficit according to the New York Times. If McCain cut back on his more than $100 billion in annual corporate tax cuts – including $1.2 billion for Exxon-Mobil alone – plus other tax cuts for the most affluent, he could afford to pay for more tax cuts for middle class families.

1. Senator McCain does not have an immediate plan to jumpstart our economy, and has failed to support Barack Obama’s fiscal stimulus plan.

In this campaign, Senator McCain and I are having a robust discussion about our different visions for what we’ll do as president. But when it comes to creating jobs and brokering relief for families who are struggling, we can’t wait six months for the next president, and that’s why today I’m calling on Senator McCain and all members of Congress, to come together and support this 50 billion dollar stimulus package. Let’s show the American people that we can come together, Republicans and Democrats, to ease the burden on working families let’s not wait another 6 months for more bad news.

- Barack Obama in Fargo North Dakota, July 3, 2004

The economy is facing a serious downturn: Our economy has lost 438,000 jobs in 2008, six straight months of job loss. In May, the unemployment rate jumped from 5.0 percent to 5.5 percent – the largest once month increase in more than 22 years. Our housing market continues to deteriorate and consumer expectations for the future have fallen to the lowest levels ever recorded. Experts from Lawrence Summers to Robert Shiller agree that another round of fiscal stimulus is warranted.

John McCain missed the chance to push for the first stimulus: John McCain already missed the chance to push for the first round of stimulus. In a debate on January 10th, McCain said "I don’t believe we’re headed into a recession. I believe the fundamentals of this economy are strong, and I believe they will remain strong" and went on to argue that spending reductions were needed to help the economy. That same month, top McCain economic adviser Kevin Hassett said that McCain was "firmly" opposed to sending out fiscal stimulus rebate checks, likening it to "borrowing money from the Chinese and dropping it from helicopters." At about the same time top economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin said, "that for short-term fluctuations in the economy, the best course of action is to let the Fed handle it" and called the stimulus plan emerging from the President and Congress "junk." John McCain himself said he was "skeptical" about the fiscal stimulus measures being proposed. In fact, while McCain eventually voted for the final version of the stimulus package, McCain failed to show up for a key vote to expand the relief in the package to 20 million seniors and 250,000 disabled veterans. That expansion was defeated by one vote, and McCain was the only Senator absent. At the time, he explained that he was "too busy" and "focused on other stuff."

After six months of consecutive job loss, Senator McCain’s economic plan still includes no near-term strategy to help our economy create jobs and provide relief for struggling families. Instead, his "stimulus," originally announced in late January, is focused on a permanent reduction in the corporate tax rate that would not even be fully effective until 2015. Experts across the political spectrum agree that such a permanent corporate tax cut would do next to nothing to jumpstart our economy in the near-term. The Congressional Budget Office recently found that a cut in the corporate tax rate was among the least cost effective, least fast-acting and least certain approaches to stimulate the economy available to policymakers. Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post graded McCain’s "stimulus" plan as a D+, explaining that McCain "proposes permanent tax cuts – cutting corporate rates, increasing investment breaks, eliminating the alternative minimum tax – masquerading as a stimulus plan." Since the first stimulus package passed, Senator McCain has not presented any new or additional plans to jumpstart the economy. In April, he told Bloomberg TV that we had made "great progress economically" under the leadership of George W. Bush.

Senator Obama championed the first stimulus and is calling for a second one: In contrast, Senator Obama first proposed a fiscal stimulus centered around sending checks to workers and senior citizens on January 13th. A plan along these lines was agreed to on a bipartisan basis and enacted in February. Obama’s original plan included a contingency that should the jobs situation deteriorate a second round of stimulus would be triggered. On June 9th Obama explicitly called for a second round of stimulus, including at least $50 billion for:

• An additional round of rebate checks for working families to help offset the impact of $4.00 a gallon gas and skyrocketing food, health and college costs;


• A $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund to provide struggling homeowners with pre-foreclosure counseling and refinancing assistance to help them stay in their homes; and
• $10 billion in relief for state and local governments hardest hit by the housing crisis to prevent cuts in services such as health, education and infrastructure.

2. The McCain tax cut plan completely leaves out 101 million households – including virtually all seniors – and provides only $125 in the first year to a family with two children. Eventually the McCain health plan would raise taxes on families. In contrast, Sen. Obama’s plan benefits 95 percent of workers, and provides the typical working family with at least $1,000 in tax cuts.

I will reform our tax code so that it’s simple, fair, and advances opportunity instead of distorting the market by advancing the agenda of some lobbyist or oil company. I’ll shut down the corporate loopholes and tax havens, and I’ll use the money to help pay for a middle-class tax cut that will provide $1,000 of relief to 95 percent of workers and their families. I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills. We’ll also eliminate income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year, because every senior deserves to live out their life in dignity and respect.

- Barack Obama in Raleigh, North Carolina on June 9, 2008

Families are struggling in the economy: We have just gone through the first economic "expansion" on record where typical household income actually fell, by $962 from 2000 to 2006 (the most recent year for which data are available, incomes have likely dropped further since 2006). During this period, the cost of healthcare has increase by 67 percent in inflation adjusted terms, college costs are up 23 percent and the price of gas at the pump has increased by 400 percent. As middle class families have watched the value of their largest financial asset – their homes – plummet by record amounts, they have been left with little margin for error.

John McCain’s "middle class" tax cut leaves most families behind: To put our economy back on track, we must ease this intense financial squeeze on middle class families. Yet John McCain’s tax plan would provide an extraordinarily small amount of upfront relief for middle class families – and would eventually raise their taxes. John McCain’s corporate tax cuts would provide no direct benefit for middle-class families, they would have to hope that a small portion of the benefits trickle down to them. McCain’s plan to repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) would provide very little benefit for middle-class families beyond what they are getting from the tax law in place in 2008. Essentially the only tax cut McCain is proposing that would directly benefit middle-class families is his proposal to increase the dependent exemption by $500 a year until the exemption reaches $7,000 in 2016. That proposal would:

• Provide $0 in tax relief to 101 million households. Senator McCain’s dependent exemption increase only benefits taxpayers who can claim dependents on their tax forms (e.g. parents with dependent children). Therefore, single workers or married couples without dependents would receive no benefit from the proposal. Based on an analysis of IRS data, 101 million households would receive $0 in relief under the McCain proposal in 2009. Those households include:
  • 67 million households paying income taxes but with no dependents. More than two-thirds of income taxpayers get no benefit.
  • 34 million households struggling with low income incomes and in many cases paying payroll taxes.


• Provide $0 in tax relief to nearly every senior citizen in the United States – 37 million out of 38 million would be left out. Senator McCain’s proposal would not benefit the vast majority of elderly households because they generally do not have children or other dependents. As a result 37 million individuals over 65 would get zero tax relief from the McCain middle-class tax cut.


• Provide $125 in tax relief to a middle-class family with two children in the first year of his plan. The McCain plan promises to increase the dependent exemption that a married couple could claim for each of their two children by $500. However, the dependent exemption would rise by about $90 per year anyway, because the exemption is already indexed to inflation. Therefore, the McCain plan reduces that married couple’s taxable income by about $410 per child –or $820 overall – in the first year of the plan. For a family in the 15 percent income tax bracket, that translates into a $125 tax cut (i.e. $820 multiplied by 0.15).


• Taken as a whole, the McCain plan would raise taxes on middle class families in future years. While the McCain plan increases the dependent exemption between 2010 and 2016, middle class families would actually face higher taxes in later years of the plan. This is because the McCain health care plan finances its new tax credits by requiring individuals to pay taxes on the health insurance premiums they pay. As premiums grow the tax increase that pays for this plan would grow as well. As a result, by 2013 the typical family would pay $1,100 more in taxes from the health plan according to an analysis by the Center for American Progress – more than offsetting any benefit they get from Senator McCain’s middle class tax cut.

Barack Obama is proposing a tax cut for virtually all middle class families: In contrast, Senator Obama has proposed broad middle class tax relief that would provide at least ten times the benefit for typical families in the first year of his plan (see Table 1 below). When the two plans are fully in effect, and ignoring the tax increases Senator McCain proposes to finance his health plan, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that the tax cuts under Obama’s plan are three times larger than the tax cuts under McCain’s plan for families in the middle quintile.

Senator Obama’s Making Work Pay tax cut will provide a tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family to offset the payroll taxes they pay. This tax cut is fully available in the very first year of his plan. His universal mortgage credit will provide an average tax cut of $500 to 10 million homeowners who do not itemize their taxes. His Automatic Workplace Pension program will expand the existing Savers Credit to match 50 percent of the first $1,000 of savings for families that earn under $75,000, and he will make the tax credit refundable. And he will provide a fully refundable $4,000 tax credit to make college affordable for working families.

Given the record high energy costs, high health care costs and stagnant wages that middle class families face, Senator McCain’s plan to leave out 101 million households, and to provide only $125 a year in tax relief for middle-class families with two children, is simply insufficient to relieve their financial burdens.

Table 1: Middle Class Tax Cuts Under the Obama and McCain Plans

Married couple without children making $60,000

Obama Plan: $1,500
[includes $1000 Making Work Pay tax cut and $500 universal mortgage credit]

McCain Plan: $0

A 70 year-old widow making $35,000

Obama Plan: $1,900

McCain Plan: $0

Married Couple making $90,000

Obama Plan: $1,000

McCain Plan: $125

Married Couple making $60,000 with two children, one of whom is in college.

Obama Plan: $3,700
[includes $1000 Making Work Pay tax cut; $500 universal mortgage credit; and $4,000 college credit net of current college credits]

McCain Plan: $125
Source: Campaign calculations based on IRS Statistics of Income. Obama tax savings does not account for up to $500 in savings from expanded Savers Credit and the $2,500 in savings per family from the Obama healthcare plan.

3. Senator McCain’s tax plan provides a $1.2 billion tax cut for Exxon-Mobil and additional tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that will drive up the deficit by the at least $200 billion to $300 billion per year.

[McCain] hasn’t detailed how he would pay for this new give-away. There is nothing fiscally conservative about this approach. It will continue to drive up deficits, force us to borrow massively from foreign countries, and shift the burden on to working people today and our children tomorrow. Meanwhile, John McCain will shortchange investments in education, energy and innovation, making the next generation of Americans less able to compete. That’s unacceptable. It’s time to make tough choices so that we have a smarter government that pays its way and makes the right investments for America’s future.

- Barack Obama in Flint Michigan, June 16, 2008

The Bush tax cuts have added to the deficit and inequality is growing: Over the last eight years, we have witnessed the most dramatic deterioration in our nation’s finances in history. In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office projected a $635 billion surplus in 2008. Instead, CBO is now projecting a $357 billion deficit – a nearly $1 trillion swing in a single year. Bush’s tax cuts are the single largest cause of this fiscal deterioration, contributing twice as much as increased defense and homeland security spending. In total CBO data show that policies signed into law by President Bush have added $4.0 trillion to the deficit from 2001 through 2008. Over this period, workers’ wages have stagnated and typical families’ income has fallen by $962. We are experiencing levels of income inequality unrivaled since the 1920s.

The McCain plan would provide tax cuts that work against average, working Americans and add to the deficit: Senator McCain, by his own campaign’s estimates, includes close to $400 billion annually in new tax cuts. But the same candidate who in 2001 said he could not "in good conscience" support the Bush tax cuts because "so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief" has now proposed a new set of tax cuts that are twice as regressive as what President Bush signed into law. Likewise, Senator McCain criticized President Bush for abandoning fiscal discipline by failing to show how he would pay for his tax cuts, explaining "[w]e Republicans, I think, were for balanced budgets and lock boxes." Yet now, Senator McCain has taken a page out of Bush’s fiscally irresponsible playbook by promoting regressive tax cuts without any credible explanation for how he would pay for them. McCain has repeatedly refused to identify specific spending cuts or tax increases he would support to offset his tax plans ; his top economic advisor recently justified this lack of detail by explaining "it’s just June."

Although experts agree that a stimulus plan should not be paid for in order to provide the maximum short-run boost for the economy, Senator McCain cannot responsibly scale up his middle-class tax cuts without also scaling back his tax cuts for corporations and the most affluent. Even then, the plan would still leave a large increase in the deficit to be paid for by unspecified future tax increases and reductions in critical programs like Social Security and Medicare.

Some of the current, expensive tax cuts in the McCain plan:

• A $1.2 billion annual tax cut for Exxon-Mobil, $4 billion for the five largest U.S. oil companies combined, and $2 billion for America’s largest health insurance companies;
• More than $100 billion per year for corporations;
• An average tax cut of more than $269,000 per year above and beyond the Bush tax cuts for the top 0.1 percent of households – that is families making over $2.8 million annually.
• Less than one-quarter of the benefits go to the 80 percent of households who make up the bulk of the middle class in America.

In total the New York Times estimated that these proposals "will add $200 billion to $300 billion or, depending on his voluntary tax system, even more" annually to the deficit. Although full details of the McCain tax cuts are not available and there are inconsistent and contradictory descriptions and cost estimates put out by the campaign and others, Table 2 below outlines some illustrative examples of proposals that have been supported by Senator McCain and posted on his website over the course of the campaign.

Barack Obama would pay for his proposals for middle class tax relief: In contrast, Barack Obama has made it a priority throughout this campaign to show how he would pay for all of his proposals without increasing the deficit. He will achieve this by ending the war in Iraq, reducing unnecessary and wasteful government spending, closing corporate and international tax loopholes, and repealing the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000. Independent analyses like the Wall Street Journal has confirmed that Obama’s numbers add up – that his plan will generate enough revenue to pay for his middle class tax cuts, healthcare plan, and other key domestic investments while bringing down the deficit significantly from its current record levels.

Table 2: Estimated Cost of Selected McCain Tax Proposals

Annual Cost: Corporate tax cut $100 billion Source: Wall Street Journal, 3/3/08: "the 71-year-old candidate would slash the corporate income-tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent at a cost to the Treasury of $100 billion a year, estimates Mr. Holtz-Eakin."

Annual Cost: Complete Elimination of the AMT $60 billion Source: McCain Economic Plan: "Repealing this onerous tax will save middle class families nearly $60 billion in a single year." http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm

Annual Cost: Increase the dependent exemption $18 billion Source: Tax Policy Center, 6/25/08, http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf, p. 13.

Annual Cost: Eliminate expensing At least $200 billion Source: The U.S. Department of Treasury estimates that a partial expensing proposal under which businesses would be able to expense only 35 percent of new investment would cost $1.3 trillion over ten years. ("Approaches to Improve the Competitiveness of the U.S. Business Tax System for the 21st Century," December 20, 2007, p. 50, http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/hp749_approachesstudy.pdf.

Annual Cost: Gas Tax holiday $10 billion Source: McCain campaign estimate, http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/NewsReleases/1460e6aa-fbb6-4cf5-9241-e5df4f303c8a.htm

McCain Fights Mass Transit As Gas Prices, And Global Warming, Skyrocket

So we all (those of us who aren't complete idiots) know that global warming is real. It is measurable, it is observable, it is explainable, it has been proven beyond any doubt by scientists, which is why every credible scientist (i.e. every scientist not on the payroll of Exxon) agrees that our planet is warming, and humans are the cause.

We know we need to make A LOT of changes, and pretty significant changes, if we are to stop global warming, and hopefully reverse the trend, before it is too late. There is a point of no return, a point after which the feedback loop will be virtually irreversible, and even if we successfully decrease our CO2 emissions it will be too late to stop catastrophic climate change. We don't know exactly where this point is, we might have already passed this point, and if we haven't, it is likely that we are going to soon rocket past it, since no one seems to grasp how critical climate change really is.

There is a number, 350, which according to scientists represents the maximum amount of CO2 we can have in our atmosphere, in parts per million (ppm), an possibly avoid massive and irreversible damage to the Earth. Right now we are at 387, and we need to get that number down, fast, or we are screwed.

So we need to do whatever we can to stop producing so much CO2, that obviously means we need to invest in alternative energy, renewable energy, more fuel efficient modes of transportation, we need to make fundamental changes in how we live our lives, and in our domestic and foreign policy. Given that, let's look at transportation.

So cars pollute, a lot, and even with our staggeringly slow advances in fuel efficiency, they still pollute a lot. Airplanes pollute a lot as well. So mass transit would be the obvious answer. Passenger rail, like Amtrak, only uses 54% of the energy per passenger mile as planes, 57% of the energy as buses, and 58% of the energy as cars (we could make them even more eco-friendly simply by installing solar panels on top of the rail cars). That's an obvious choice, we need to use less energy, produce less CO2, we need to start using more passenger rail. Increasing the use of passenger rail would help financially as well for families hard hit by gas prices. It would also boost national security because it would cut reliance on foreign oil produced by dictators. Increasing investment in rail would also create jobs and stimulate the economy. It is a no-brainer, a win-win-win-win-win.

So do you want to guess John McCain's position on Amtrak?

If you answered "he hates Amtrak and wants to destroy it", you would be correct. A few years ago he even introduced legislation that would have sold off Amtrak to private corporations, which would have cut service to all but the most profitable lines, essentially leaving everyone outside the Northwest Corridor without access to intercity passenger rail. There would be a dramatic decrease in the use of passenger rail if McCain got what he wanted. In his last budget Bush requested the same fate for Amtrak. And even though we are facing record gas prices and a crashing economy and catastrophic climate change, they are still as anti-mass transit as ever.

In fact just last week Congress, realizing all of the above challenges, and the many benefits of passenger rail, passed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act which nearly tripled investment in Amtrak for maintenance, improvements and service expansion. Bush vowed to veto it, with McCain's support, but unfortunately for Bush-McCain, Congress passed it by huge veto-proof majorities.

It is shocking, unbelievable, and appalling that despite all we know about the serious threat posed by climate change, and all the problems we have with record gas prices and our dependence on foreign oil, somehow McCain and Bush could STILL oppose such a common sense and incredibly popular solution like passenger rail. It isn't just appalling, it is irresponsible, reckless, and just horrible public policy. It is like these people have no concept of what good policy is. All they care about is what boosts oil company profits, end of story.

But there is a clear decision in this race, as in virtually every other policy, you have a choice between someone who embraces the same failed policies of Bush, and you have someone who wants sensible change, someone who believes in actually pursuing smart public policy that solve problems, not exacerbates them. Obama, actually co-sponsored the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. He is a big supporter of Amtrak, passenger rail, and mass transit. Read more about his positions on transportation here (pdf).



If you are among the more than three out of four Americans who believe the disastrous effects of global warming are now apparent, there is only one choice to make in this election, do you want a president who wants to do nothing while we condemn ourselves and our children to a future of environmental and social crisis, or do we want a president who is serious about taking on climate change and putting the indomitable American spirit into fighting for a solution?

Once again, the choice is clear.

Obama Serves McCain A Stinging Indictment On The Economy

Yesterday Obama embarked on a two week tour highlighting the economy, and targeting John McCain who has supported the same disastrous Bush/Republican policies that have wrecked havoc on our country and Americans in all corners of the US. It's an excellent speech, a stinging indictment of everything the Republicans have done to our economy in the last 8 years (and to a larger extent the last three decades). You have to watch the video:



And here is the transcript.

And here is Obama's detailed economic plan.

John and Elizabeth Edwards were also there supporting his vision of a new economy.



Here are some highlights:

First, the big picture:

We did not arrive at the doorstep of our current economic crisis by some accident of history. This was not an inevitable part of the business cycle that was beyond our power to avoid. It was the logical conclusion of a tired and misguided philosophy that has dominated Washington for far too long.

George Bush called it the Ownership Society, but it’s little more than a worn dogma that says we should give more to those at the top and hope that their good fortune trickles down to the hardworking many. For eight long years, our President sacrificed investments in health care, and education, and energy, and infrastructure on the altar of tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs – trillions of dollars in giveaways that proved neither compassionate nor conservative.

And for all of George Bush’s professed faith in free markets, the markets have hardly been free – not when the gates of Washington are thrown open to high-priced lobbyists who rig the rules of the road and riddle our tax code with special interest favors and corporate loopholes. As a result of such special-interest driven policies and lax regulation, we haven’t seen prosperity trickling down to Main Street. Instead, a housing crisis that could leave up to two million homeowners facing foreclosure has shaken confidence in the entire economy.

Then, taking aim at McCain on the economy:

...when it comes to the economy, John McCain and I have a fundamentally different vision of where to take the country. Because for all his talk of independence, the centerpiece of his economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush’s policies. He says we’ve made "great progress" in our economy these past eight years. He calls himself a fiscal conservative and on the campaign trail he’s passionate critic of government spending, and yet he has no problem spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for big corporations and a permanent occupation of Iraq – policies that have left our children with a mountain of debt.

Obama's vision of the economy:

I have a different vision for the future. Instead of spending twelve billion dollars a month to rebuild Iraq, I think it’s time we invested in our roads and schools and bridges and started to rebuild America. Instead of handing out giveaways to corporations that don’t need them and didn’t ask for them, it’s time we started giving a hand-up to families who are trying pay their medical bills and send their children to college. We can’t afford four more years of skewed priorities that give us nothing but record debt – we need change that works for the American people. And that is the choice in this election

My vision involves both a short-term plan to help working families who are struggling to keep up and a long-term agenda to make America competitive in a global economy.

Obama takes on McCain's failure on the housing crisis:

As late as December, John McCain told a newspaper in New Hampshire that he’d love to offer a solution to the housing crisis, but he just didn’t have one. It took him three different tries to figure it out, and in the end, his plan does nothing to help 1.5 million homeowners who are facing foreclosure, even as he supported spending billions to bail out Wall Street. President Bush told the American people he thought the biggest danger arising from this housing crisis was the temptation to do something about it. Now Senator McCain wants to turn Bush’s policy of ‘too little, too late’ into a policy of ‘even less, even later’. That’s not the change we need right now. That’s what got us into this mess in the first place.

In contrast, I offered a proposal to crack down on mortgage fraud almost two years ago, and in this campaign I’ve called for the immediate creation of a $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund to provide direct relief to victims of the housing crisis. We’ll also help those who are facing foreclosure refinance their mortgages so they can stay in their homes at rates they can afford. I’ll provide struggling homeowners relief by offering a tax credit to low- and middle-income Americans that would cover ten percent of their mortgage interest payment every year.

The principle is simple – if the government can bail out investment banks on Wall Street, we can extend a hand to folks who are struggling on Main Street.

And he takes aim on health care:

When it comes to reliving these economic anxieties that working families feel, nothing matches the burden they face from crushing health care costs. John McCain's approach to health care mirrors that of George Bush. He’s promising four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and the wealthy – a plan that will actually make it easier – easier – than it already is for insurance companies to deny coverage to the elderly or the sick or those with pre-existing conditions. It may lead millions to lose the coverage they already have and millions more to have to pay even more than they do right now.

We can’t afford that. Not when 47 million Americans are already uninsured, a number that is growing by the day. Not when families and businesses across the country are being crushed by the growing burden of health care costs and when half of all personal bankruptcies are caused by medical bills.

Obama eviscerates McCain on tax breaks for the rich:

John McCain once said that he couldn’t vote for the Bush tax breaks in good conscience because they were too skewed to the wealthiest Americans. Later, he said it was irresponsible to cut taxes during a time of war because we simply couldn’t afford them. Well, nothing’s changed about the war, but something’s certainly changed about John McCain, because these same Bush tax cuts are now his central economic policy. Not only that, but he is now calling for a new round of tax giveaways that are twice as expensive as the original Bush plan and nearly twice as regressive. His policy will spend nearly $2 trillion on tax breaks for corporations, including $1.2 billion for Exxon alone, a company that just recorded the highest profits in history.

Think about that. At a time when we’re fighting two wars, when millions of Americans can’t afford their medical bills or their tuition bills, when we’re paying more than $4 a gallon for gas, the man who rails against government spending wants to spend $1.2 billion on a tax break for Exxon Mobil. That isn’t just irresponsible. It’s outrageous.

If John McCain’s policies were implemented, they would add $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. That isn’t fiscal conservatism, that’s what George Bush has done over the last eight years. Not only can working families not afford it, future generations can’t afford it. And we can’t allow it to happen in this election.

And Obama's promise:

I’ll take a different approach. I will reform our tax code so that it’s simple, fair, and advances opportunity instead of distorting the market by advancing the agenda of some lobbyist or oil company. I’ll shut down the corporate loopholes and tax havens, and I’ll use the money to help pay for a middle-class tax cut that will provide $1,000 of relief to 95% of workers and their families. I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills. We’ll also eliminate income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year, because every senior deserves to live out their life in dignity and respect. And while John McCain wants to pick up where George Bush left off by trying again to privatize Social Security, I will never waver in my commitment to protect that basic promise as President. We will not privatize Social Security, we will not raise the retirement age, and we will save Social Security for future generations by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share.

Obama targets credit card companies:

Finally, we need to help those Americans who find themselves in a debt spiral climb out. Since so many who are struggling to keep up with their mortgages are now shifting their debt to credit cards, we have to make sure that credit cards don’t become the next stage in the housing crisis. To make sure that Americans know what they’re signing up for, I’ll institute a five-star rating system to inform consumers about the level of risk involved in every credit card. And we’ll establish a Credit Card Bill of Rights that will ban unilateral changes to credit card agreements; ban rate hikes on debt you already had; and ban interest charges on late fees. Americans need to pay what they owe, but you should pay what’s fair, not just what fattens profits for some credit card company and they can get away with.

A great speech, and a great start on a new direction for our economy and for our country. Now don't let anyone tell you he doesn't have specifics, or he is all about hope and words but no action, because he has detailed plans and great ideas, just as he has always had.

Bookmark the transcript and video and share it with anyone who buys into the Republican lies about Obama not having any specifics, bookmark his economic plan, and his other plans, because we have to be vigilant and fight back against those kinds of lies that seek to deceive voters so they will vote Republican. Not this time, not on our watch.

Update: In the Huffington Post yesterday Campaign for America's Future co-Director Robert Borosage applauded Obama's pummeling of McCain over the economy and highlighted some of the woes thrust upon average Americans by the destructive conservative economic policies of the last 8 years. Definitely worth a read.

The Straight Talk Express Has Derailed

Brave New Films exposes McCain for the lying, hypocritical, flip-flopping fake he is:

What Would You Do With $3 Trillion?

I bought universal health care and a scooter for every American, and solar power for every American household, and I had money left over.

What would you do with $3 trillion?

Update: Here is how John Cusack spent his.

Clinton Criticizing Closure of Indiana Factory That Clinton Helped Close (Repost)

Here is a great catch over Hillary's new tactic in Indiana--blaming Bush for the economic destruction caused by her and her husband in the 90s. This doesn't bode well for Hillary, given that it means she either has no idea what she is talking about (incompetent), or she is lying again, and playing voters for fools. Luckily for her, the media will never pick up on this, as usual. But I will, for what it is worth:

Clinton Criticizing Closure of Indiana Factory That Clinton Helped Close
by David Sirota

Hillary Adopts Another Right Wing Proposal, And Krugman Plays Lapdog Yet Again

The following is an excellent blog post because it highlights many things. First, that despite Hillary's undeserved reputation as a "policy wonk", Hillary often presents ill-conceived policy ideas that are short-sighted and harmful. She has done this a lot recently in foreign policy, and she has done this with health care. Second, as this campaign goes on her actions and words become more and more conservative. Not only does she attack Obama, the democratic nominee, with right-wing talking points (her and McCain sound like two peas in a pod), she also uses right-wing tactics (like fearmongering and push-polling) and present right-wing policy proposals (her recent talk of obliterating Iran for example). This blog is about McCain's gas tax, which Hillary has blindly embraced as well, what Paul Krugman refers to as an example of "knee-jerk conservatism". That leads the the third point this blog highlights, which is that Paul Krugman has abandoned his integrity to support Hillary Clinton, he is her lapdog, and he will never bite his master, but he will attack her opponents (generally Obama) mercilessly, even if those attacks are based on lies and distortions (as they always seem to be). In the case of the gas tax, Krugman lambasted Bush when he proposed the idea in 2000, and he lambasted McCain when he brought up the same idea just recently, yet he fails to mention that his Queen embraces the exact same conservative "cynical political opportunism" as the Republicans. So please, give this one a thorough read, because it is an excellent blog, it is a great policy discussion (which we generally only get about 15% of in the election), and it will certainly come up again when Obama faces off against McCain and McCain tries to paint his gift to oil companies as helping the little guy. Read:

Krugman Calls Out Clinton On The Gas Tax ... Or Not
by poblano, DailyKos

Update: Hillary is now attacking Obama for not pursuing the same ill-conceived conservative policy as her, McCain and Bush, saying "My opponent, Senator Obama, opposes giving consumers a break. I understand the American people need some relief." Apparently it is a bad thing that Obama doesn't support huge giveaways to oil companies that do nothing for consumers and deprive the government of money for crucial infrastructure repair. But like Krugman says, "more and more, [Mrs. Clinton] sounds like a [woman] who will say anything to become president."

Update #2: This is where it gets fun. This was Hillary during her Senate election campaign attacking her Republican opponent for wanting to cut the gas tax back in 2000 (yes, she is now attacking a Democrat for the same thing a Republican attacked her for just 8 years ago):

Clinton, meanwhile, lashed out at Lazio's plan to repeal 4.3 cents of the gas tax, calling it "a bad deal for New York and a potential bonanza for the oil companies."

During a visit to a shopping mall in the Buffalo suburbs, Clinton said that "the gas tax is one of the few exceptions where we actually get more money back than we send to Washington."

So here we see that it isn't that Hillary supports bad policies because she doesn't know any better, because apparently she does, this just shows she has no problem supporting bad policies if she thinks they will get her a few extra votes, even if she knows they are basically handouts to oil companies that don't help consumers and deprive the government of much-needed revenue. Is that what we need in a leader, a Panderer-in-Chief?

Update (4/30): While Hillary is now airing attack ads going after Obama for not supporting the same right-wing handouts to oil companies that she is, the consensus seems to be that the "McCain-Clinton gas tax plan" is a bad bad idea:

From Reuters:

A gas tax holiday proposed by U.S. presidential hopefuls John McCain and Hillary Clinton is viewed as a bad idea by many economists and has drawn unexpected support for Clinton rival Barack Obama, who also is opposed.

"Score one for Obama," wrote Greg Mankiw, a former chairman of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. "In light of the side effects associated with driving ... gasoline taxes should be higher than they are, not lower."

[...]

Economists said that since refineries cannot increase their supply of gasoline in the space of a few summer months, lower prices will just boost demand and the benefits will flow to oil companies, not consumers.

"You are just going to push up the price of gas by almost the size of the tax cut," said Eric Toder, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center in Washington.

And The Washington Post:

Many economists implicitly agreed with Obama and said the McCain-C