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".

McCain's Gambling, And Tax Evasion?

Last week McCain's gambling habit/addiction was revealed, and although I didn't write about it at the time, a new great catch by a fellow blogger has led me to think it now warrants greater attention. First the gambling.

Most in the political world know about McCain's red hot temper, but perhaps not as many know about his love of gambling, craps in particular:

In the past decade, [McCain] has played on Mississippi riverboats, on Indian land, in Caribbean craps pits and along the length of the Las Vegas Strip. Back in 2005 he joined a group of journalists at a magazine-industry conference in Puerto Rico, offering betting strategy on request. "Enjoying craps opens up a window on a central thread constant in John's life," says John Weaver, McCain's former chief strategist, who followed him to many a casino. "Taking a chance, playing against the odds." Aides say McCain tends to play for a few thousand dollars at a time and avoids taking markers, or loans, from the casinos...

So he gambles quite a bit, and he does it with a lot of money (Noam Scheiber notes that "if by 'a few thousand dollars at a time' Scherer and Weisskopf mean 'a few thousand dollars a roll,' then we're potentially talking millions of dollars over a period of several years, not hundreds of thousands. We'd be in real pathological territory--nothing particularly borderline about it.), whether we are talking thousands at a shot or tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in a night. But it gets worse, from looking like a person enjoys betting high on games of change, to looking like a real problem with gambling:

Only recently have McCain's aides urged him to pull back from the pastime. In the heat of the G.O.P. primary fight last spring, he announced on a visit to the Vegas Strip that he was going to the casino floor. When his aides stopped him, fearing a public relations disaster, McCain suggested that they ask the casino to take a craps table to a private room, a high-roller privilege McCain had indulged in before. His aides, with alarm bells ringing, refused again, according to two accounts of the discussion.

"He clearly knows that this is on the borderline of what is acceptable for him to be doing," says a Republican who has watched McCain play. "And he just sort of revels in it."

And there are many other examples, like in 2005 when McCain attended an American Magazine Conference in Fajardo, Puerto Rico, where he got voted "2nd-Best Bill Clinton Impression", not for his gambling, but his womanizing:

In the middle of a two-hour gambling session, the Arizona senator introduced himself to an attractive young brunette and invited her to join him at the craps table. He soon declared the woman, who was attending the conference on behalf of a Rhode Island-based technology firm, to be his lucky charm, and forbade her to leave while his winning streak lasted.

I wonder where Cindy McCain was during all of this, hmmm.

Another perspective from the same conference:

Visiting a big convention of journalists last fall, McCain joined a group that was gambling at the hotel casino until the wee hours. In his speech the next morning, he cleverly nailed his audience and himself by declaring that he was happy to be among "my base."

So the guy gambles a lot, with lots of money, and doesn't seem to know when to stop. He doesn't understand boundaries, or does, but doesn't care. Frankly, I didn't care a whole lot, because there are a thousand other ways to show he has horrible judgment or simply doesn't know what the hell he is doing, we don't need a gambling addiction to prove that. But now here's the great catch I mentioned earlier, from a Daily Kos diary entitled "Why has McCain never filed IRS Form W-2G?":

IRS Form W-2G is similar to the W-2 form we all know and hate. However, instead of declaring wages, you use the W-2G to declare Gambling Winnings.

Now why should anyone care to ask John McCain about his W-2G filings? Answering that is slightly more complicated given his many years of marathon gambling sessions at the craps table and his ties to the gaming industry. However, let's start with the fact aides say McCain tends to play for a few thousand dollars at a time! Over the years that adds up to a big chunk of change. And that has potential tax consequences.

[...]

The W-2G is not just for people who win lots of money gambling.  The form also has instructions that are pretty clear even if you are gambling and losing significant amounts of money as well:

Generally, report all gambling winnings on the "Other income" line of Form 1040. You can deduct gambling losses as an itemized deduction, but you cannot deduct more than your winnings. Keep an accurate record of your winnings and losses, and be able to prove those amounts with receipts, tickets, statements, or similar items that you have saved.

The bottom line: Whether you win or lose, Uncle Sam wants to know about it if you are spending significant sums of money gambling.  Why would Uncle Sam care if you were losing?  Well, for starters, gambling is an all-cash transaction.  If you don't regulate it, you are just inviting people to launder money through casinos.  For example, consider this story from a 2007: Terrorists Caught Money Laundering in Online Casinos,  as reported in Online Poker News.

So McCain should be submitting tax forms for all of his gambling winnings, or losses, and we know he is doing a lot of either one or both of those, yet no forms. Suddenly we are starting to see a big issue:

JCHallman, a former craps dealer, recently wrote an excellent commentary about McCain, craps and the type of gambling going on.  Based on his experience, JCHallman suggests that if McCain is running marathon sessions on the 15 dollar tabls on a regular basis, then he's easily betting thousands of dollars in each of these marathon sessions.  Nobody plays for hours to break even, so he is either winning thousands or losing thousands in each of these sessions.   The dollar volume is also consistent with anecdotes about McCain getting special high roller treatment.  Nobody gets high roller treatment like McCain reportedly gets if they are not worth thousands of dollars to the casino.  Finally, aides say McCain tends to play for a few thousand dollars at a time.   That kind of money is not trivial.

And then the diarist paints the full picture of why this matters to us, and why the media should be interested (as they undoubtedly would if Obama were the tax-evading gambling addict:

If he is winning and not declaring -- that's a crime. If he is losing and not taking the deductions, that is peculiar for a lot of obvious reasons. It means he never wins. If he is losing his own money and not taking the deduction, it looks like he is trying to hide a problem. If he is losing other people's money that certainly raises questions about influence peddling if they have business in front of his committee. Whether he is winning or losing, it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to see how a lobbyist bankrolling the senator's marathon craps session might be using this as a way of funneling money into the senator's coffers without drawing attention to the transactions.

Finally, all this talk about unreported transactions raises raises more questions no one in the media will likely bother to ask: Has anyone seen Cindy McCain's W-2G? Does anyone know if she ever filed a 5754? Has she been supporting his gambling habit? With all the interest paid to Obama's mortgage payments, you would think something this glaring would get more media attention. Of course, then the press would have to get off the Lapdog Express and that wouldn't be any fun, would it?

This is just an overview, I encourage you to read the entire diary here, but you get the idea. McCain is obviously anything but forthcoming when it comes to transparency, as he dragged his feet forever on his medical records, on his tax records, on his rich wife's tax records (we still haven't gotten anywhere near enough of those), on his 600 pages of missing military records and now he has some gambling issues he is hiding.

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's Tax Plan Gives Top Corporations $45 Billion In Tax Cuts

You can tell a lot about a society by its taxes, and how it allocates money. Our society throws an incredible amount of money into sustaining our ability to kill people, while putting very little into education.

Our society also used to have a much more progressive tax code, yet the tax burden has shifted from the rich to the middle and lower classes over the last couple decades. At the end of World War II the top tax bracket was 94%. Then from 1964 until Reagan took office the rate was in the 70-80% range. Then Reagan came into office, bringing with him the new Republican philosophy of helping the rich and screwing the rest. In 1982 the top tax bracket was cut to 50%. In 1987 it was 38.5%. In 1988 it was cut again to 28%. Today it is at 35%. Over the years corporate taxes have been cut as well, to say nothing of the countless loopholes that let corporations evade the vast majority of their taxes. Taxes are about giving back to society, they are about the common good. When we cut taxes for the rich, we aren't just saying we think the rich aren't rich enough, we are saying that the rich being richer is more important than society having that money to invest in education, or health care, or alleviating poverty, or program that money had supported before. The modern Republican Party is about three things, helping the rich get richer, leaving the poor to fight for survival against the market, and cutting government revenue to the point where the government can't function properly. They achieve most of this through taxation, and the rest they achieve through stuffing the only part of government they care about, the part that kills people, with as much money as possible (which then gets transferred to corporations like Halliburton and Lockheed Martin, to make them and their CEOs/shareholders wealthier--do you see a pattern here?).

You can also tell a lot about a politician by their priorities.

John McCain is no exception. He wants to double Bush's tax cuts for the rich, which have contributed to the largest budget deficit in history (also began with Reagan) and led to a starving of public services (you may recall the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, this is a direct result of this conservative pro-rich, anti-government ideology). Think Progress exposes McCain's warm embrace of Bush's corporate-loving policies that have done so much to screw up the country for the last 8 years:

If you’re a CEO of one of America’s largest corporations and have enjoyed the Presidency of George W. Bush, a contribution to the McCain campaign is looking like a pretty good investment.

A new report from the Center For American Progress Action Fund finds that a key piece of John McCain’s tax plan — cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% — would cut taxes by almost $45 billion every year for America’s 200 largest corporations as identified by Fortune Magazine.

Eight companies — Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Exxon Mobil Corp., ConocoPhillips Co., Bank ƒƒof America Corp., AT&T, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Microsoft Corp. — would each receive over $1 billion a year.

The following table shows the tax savings to America’s five largest firms. See a full list of all 200 companies and their savings under McCain here:



These giveaways are just one part of McCain’s doubling of the Bush tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy which would create the largest deficits in 25 years and drive the United States into the deepest deficits since World War II.

A recent analysis by the Public Campaign Action Fund found that John McCain’s campaign has received $5.6 million from the PACs and executives of the Fortune 200.

Over the past eight years, under George W. Bush, American workers have seen their wages stagnate as corporate profits have skyrocketed. John McCain’s misguided priorities show he’s more of the same: the same $45 billion in tax cuts for America’s 200 largest companies could be used to lift over 9 million Americans out of poverty.

How exactly does McCain intend to fool Americans into believing that he isn't planning 4-8 more years of Bush's failed greedy conservative policies? You also have to realize what this means for our country. We have a record budget deficit, we waste over $400 billion on paying interest on our national debt every single year, and McCain wants to take more money from the government and give it to rich corporations and their rich CEOs. And which public programs are going to be cut because of McCain's $45 billion corporate tax gift? Is it going to be Head Start? Medicare? Investment in alternative energy? All of the above? McCain also voted against raising the minimum wage, and a bill that would have increased educational benefits for veterans. McCain opposed health care for children because he said it cost too much ($35 billion over 5 years, or just about 15% of his tax cut to the rich). Now what does that say about John McCain's priorities? We have enough money for a $45 billion dollar a year tax cut for the richest corporations, yet we can't spare 15% of that for uninsured children to get health care. It is disgusting. But that is John McCain, and that is Bush, and that is the Republican Party.

It's all about priorities.

And clearly McCain doesn't care about the national debt or programs that help millions of people, especially those who weren't born with a whole dining set of silver spoons in their mouthes. He is just like Bush. All his talk to the contrary is nothing but more lying to voters, also just like Bush.

Update: Oh yes, and that GI Bill McCain opposed? He is now taking credit for it on the campaign trail, isn't that interesting?:

I'm happy to tell you that we probably (probably? does he not know?) agreed to an increase in educational benefits for our veterans that not only gives them increase in their educational benefits, but if they stay in for a certain period of time than they can transfer those educational benefits to their spouses and or children. That's a very important aspect I think of incentivizing people of staying in the military.

Yes, a bill he actively spoke out against. How shameless.

Republicans Protect Record Oil Profits, Stop Investment In Alternative Energy, While Oil Companies Screw Over Americans

So you know how gas prices are at record numbers while oil companies are getting rich with record profits (Exxon made $1,287 in pure profit every single second in 2007)? The Democrats in Congress were trying to tax these excess profits and invest that money toward wind, solar and other alternative energy development. These windfall profits taxes would discourage oil companies from screwing over motorists with excessive prices at the pump, as would provisions that would have given the federal government more power to address oil market speculation that has been driving up prices, but the Republicans, as usual, have come to the rescue of their corporate big oil friends, to defend their disgustingly enormous profits that they are making at the expense of everyday Americans.

The Republicans, as usual, have threatened to filibuster the legislation because they think oil companies should be able to amass record profits on the backs of Americans, without any consequences. Yes, the poor poor oil companies. Meanwhile they don't give a shit about the financial plight of millions of Americans, the soaring health care costs, the soaring price of education, the soaring price of gas, the soaring price of food, the soaring rate of unemployment and the soaring rate of home foreclosures and bankruptcies. But hey, don't worry, they are looking out for big corporate CEO's and their record profits, as usual.

The most despicable part, however, may be that they would threaten to filibuster investment in renewable and alternative energy right in the middle of an energy crisis and a looming global warming catastrophe, both of which are only going to get worse in coming years. Our dependence on foreign oil (and oil in general) drives up oil prices and hurts Americans already struggling to get by financially. It exacerbates global warming, pollution and environmental degradation even as we rocket past the point of no return on the path to global ecological catastrophe. And it makes us less safe, as it puts us at the mercy of countries like Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia who have the vast majority of the oil. Developing alternative sources of energy is ESSENTIAL to keeping American families afloat, reversing global warming, and protecting ourselves from being controlled by OPEC, yet the Republicans in Congress stonewall these investments in alternative energy because it would compete with their precious oil profits.

It isn't just despicable, it is criminal.

VOTE THESE GREEDY CORPORATE BASTARDS OUT!

Update: As if this wasn't enough, when Democrats tried to eliminate the $17 billion in tax breaks Congress has awarded to oil companies in recent years, the Republicans stood together and killed the measure. No no, don't you DARE take taxpayer money that could be going to fund things like health care for kids or education or fixing crumbling bridges, that belongs to rich oil companies!

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 New York Times Faults The McCains And The Clintons On Transparency

The New York Times is troubled, troubled by a disturbing lack of transparency, which has become a pattern, for some of our country's presidential aspirants. One candidate they aren't troubled by is Barack Obama, who has led the way in transparency and ethics, and the Times praised him accordingly. But let's look at the bad apples, starting with the apples that actually matter still:

John McCain

John McCain is old. Too old? Who knows. But he is old, and he has had a history of health problems, most notably an aggressive form of skin cancer in 2000. Now hopefully it is fine, but voters have no idea. He could be dying and no one would know, because he continually refuses to release his medical records to the public. He managed to become the Republican Party's presidential nominee, without letting the voters know about the health of a man who is 71, who will turn 72 a couple months before election day, and who could conceivably be 80 upon leaving office. I'm not picking on the guy here, and neither is the New York Times, the American people have a right to know whether or not their potential president is going to pull a William Henry Harrison on them. As the Times stated the other day in an editorial, "No presidential candidate should get to the point that he has locked up his party’s nomination without public vetting of his health. And Mr. McCain, in particular, knows that. ... Voters are entitled to know about other potential health concerns for an average 71-year-old man." Yet McCain has continued to stall, which would not make much sense unless he had something to hide. John McCain has also not released nearly as many financial records as Obama has released, which the Times criticized as well.

Cindy McCain

Cindy McCain is dirty filthy rich, as the daughter of a major beer distributor, and now the corporation's chair. Cindy used her fortune to finance McCain's first congressional election back in the 80s, thus he essentially owes his political career to her and her corporate money. Yet Cindy McCain won't release her financial information. Even today on the Today Show she said unequivocally that she will never disclose her financial records, even if she becomes First Lady. The Times disagrees, saying it is vital that she disclose her financial records "to gain public trust and to air potential conflicts of interest". Apparently Cindy McCain is hoping Americans don't care about McCain's relationship to corporate money, his conflicts of interest, and his campaign joyriding on corporate jets owned by Cindy's company.

It should also be noted that in the same interview she repeatedly promised that McCain will not run a negative campaign with negative attacks, and said that they would rather lose than resort to that -- this coming after McCain's attempts to say that terrorists support Obama because a spokesman of Hamas commented that he wanted Obama to win (or conversely just didn't want another neoconservative to win), because apparently wanting America to change it's neoimperialistic warmongering, as the whole world wants, is a crazy pro-terrorist thing. McCain obviously hasn't noticed that the majority of people in almost every country want Obama to win the presidency, people want change. So so much for no negative campaigning...and I guarantee there will be a lot more where that came from, so I'll probably be referring back to this interview with Cindy McCain from time to time.

The Clintons

After much delay the Clintons finally released some of their financial records a few weeks ago, showing us that in the last few years they have made over $100 million. Left out were tax returns from 2007, as well as a full accounting of where Bill's money came from, leading to further questions of potential conflicts of interest. As the Times notes:

The public is still owed a more complete accounting of the sources and amounts of Mr. Clinton’s speaking fees and business income. Still missing, too, is a complete list of the major donors who have been supporting the Clinton presidential library and foundation.

Also Hillary still refuses to release most of her records from her time as First Lady, a period that includes all of her claims to superior experience. Of course the matter is pretty much moot at this point, because she has lost, but it is just further evidence of the Clintons' proclivity for secrecy and their resistance to transparency in government, a resistance we've lived with for the last 8 years in the White House, and a resistance shared by the McCains.

The editorial ends by saying, "The extent of a candidate’s candor is a good measure of how candid he or she will be in the White House."

Exactly, yet another area where Obama sets a high bar, and the Clintons and McCain fail to pass a low bar.

Update: Here is Obama's very presidential response to McCain's "Hamas" pathetic smear attempts:

Why We Need Fewer Millionaires In Government

Now that most everyone has their taxes behind them, go take a look at how the government bends over backwards to make sure the rich pay less taxes, so the poor can pay more.

The Clinton Taxes: Released, Incomplete, And Questions Remain

Yesterday the Clintons finally released their tax records for their time since leaving the White House, only they neglected to disclose their records for last year, and there seem to be more questions than answers:



It should be noted that this $10 million in charitable donations that the Clintons are now touting were actually tax deductible donations to their own foundation!! This means that as a way to not pay as much in income tax they put their money into their tax exempt foundation, which they can then use however they see fit. Tricky huh? Shines a new light on their "charitable contributions".

Here is some more on the unanswered questions of favors to corporate friends and conflicts of interest from the Washington Post:

A common thread running through the couple's personal finances is the presence of many of the same figures who helped bankroll the presidential campaigns of Bill Clinton, and now that of his wife.

Major donors to both Clintons' White House bids hired the former president as a consultant, joined him in lucrative investment ventures and paid him six-figure sums to speak at corporate gatherings.

The considerable crossover between the couple's decades of political fundraising and their personal profit also extended at times to the former president's charity work and his presidential library, though many records related to those remain secret. What is clear is that numerous financial patrons -- individuals as well as large corporations -- repeatedly emerge in the Clintons' circle.

Chief among them is Burkle, the founder of the Yucaipa investment firm, who not only has provided Bill Clinton with a hefty source of income during his post-presidency but also ranks as one of Sen. Clinton's "Hillraisers," a title given to those who raise more than $100,000 for her presidential bid. Burkle has held fundraisers for her at his Beverly Hills estate, and also made six-figure donations to independent political groups, such as Emily's List, that are supporting her.

The tax returns show Bill Clinton's partnership with Burkle, at various arms of his Yucaipa firm, yielding in excess of $1 million a year, starting in 2003. In 2005, Clinton collected $5 million from those investments, and more than $2.5 million in each of the past two years. The former president served as a senior adviser to the private firm, helping Burkle land investors and identify business opportunities. The Wall Street Journal reported that Clinton started to unwind the relationship earlier this year and could ultimately receive a payout worth about $20 million.

Another recurring character is InfoUSA founder Vinod Gupta, who has contributed to the Clinton library, donated money to Sen. Clinton's White House bid and hired the former president as a consultant. Last year, InfoUSA paid Bill Clinton $400,000. Legal papers that surfaced last year showed that he earned more than $3 million from the firm, which sells consumer data to telemarketers and other businesses.

All I know is that 8 years of corporate-sponsored government has been more than enough. The Clinton administration was marked by the same pro-corporate, pro-privatization, anti-regulation policies of the Reagan-Bush years, which are now wrecking havoc on our economy, our environment and our safety as consumers. And all that was before the Clintons were rich and in bed with their corporate friends and flush with their money.

I'd hate to see what they would do if they got back to the White House, and what favors these people would expect in return for all of their "support" over the years. This just further illustrates how the Clinton years were just more of the same, and that we need to put an end to the Clinton dynasty if we really want to move forward with the kind of change our country desperately needs.

Tax Pop Quiz

Pop Quiz: Pretend you are Hillary Clinton, you and your husband have gotten millions in cash from his business dealings, many of them plainly sketchy, and then you dropped $5 million of this money into your campaign. Obama released his current tax records months ago, and is calling on you to do the same. What do you do? Apparently you accuse him of being like Ken Starr, and when that doesn't work, you turn the tables and demand he release his tax returns for past years:

Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer blasted out an email at 11:23 insisting that Obama release his tax returns for back years.

Yes, that is for real, when asked to disclose her financial records, Hillary turns around and demands that Obama must do what she has repeatedly refused to do, even though he had already released his current records, which she also refuses to do. Hillpocrisy at its finest. And the Obama campaign's response?

Exactly two minutes later, at 11:25, Obama spokesperson Tommy Vietor emailed out word that Obama had posted his tax returns for 2000-2006 on his campaign web site. Turns out the Obama camp has been planning this for some time.

Touché, I believe that is c