Leading surrogate: McCain ‘absolutely’ wants to continue Bush domestic policies

[one...two...tree 2,762]

John McCain and his campaign have been working diligently to reject any suggestion that he'd offer another Bush term if elected. Given this, I'm surprised his campaign surrogates haven't been prepped with better responses to questions like these.

The clip shows Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), arguably McCain's most sycophantic toady, on ABC's "This Week" earlier today. When George Stephanopoulos asked whether McCain's tax and health care policies were not only an extension of Bush's policies, but also an "enhancement," Graham responds, "Yeah, absolutely."

I'm not usually inclined to agree with Lindsey Graham, but on this one, he's quite right — McCain's policies would be an extension of the status quo. As Ben at TP explained, "McCain is proposing massive tax cuts that primarily benefit higher-income households, ignore other priorities and drive up the national debt by trillions. And McCain's health care policy would raise costs and abandon the uninsured. That sure sounds like an 'extension' and 'enhancement' of Bush's policies."

Leading Republicans do realize they're supposed to argue the opposite, don't they?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/

[alienlovechild 75]

The idea we are in the worst possible economic situation rests on economic data and anecdotal stories meant to convey a premise that things are so bad we must go for any alternative. The misey index is one objective measure of what affects Americans.

We aren't in some economic nightmare despite what the media wants people to believe. It boils down to Reagan's query, "Are you better off today than were four years ago?" when people go to vote.

The US Misery Index by President

1948 to 2007

Misery Index = Unemployment rate + Inflation rate

President Time Period Average Misery Index

Jimmy Carter 1977 - 1980 16.27

Gerald Ford 1974 - 1976 15.93

Ronald Reagan 1981 - 1988 12.19

George H.W. Bush 1989 - 1992 10.68

Richard Nixon 1969 - 1973 9.98

George W. Bush 2001 - 2007 7.89

Harry Truman 1948 - 1952 7.87

William J. Clinton 1993 - 2000 7.80

John F. Kennedy 1961 - 1962 7.27

Lyndon Johnson 1963 - 1968 6.78

Dwight Eisenhower 1953 - 1960 6.26

http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbypresident.asp

[GaryC 7]

The idea we are in the worst possible economic situation rests on economic data and anecdotal stories meant to convey a premise that things are so bad we must go for any alternative. The misey index is one objective measure of what affects Americans.

We aren't in some economic nightmare despite what the media wants people to believe. It boils down to Reagan's query, "Are you better off today than were four years ago?" when people go to vote.

The US Misery Index by President

1948 to 2007

Misery Index = Unemployment rate + Inflation rate

President Time Period Average Misery Index

Jimmy Carter 1977 - 1980 16.27

Gerald Ford 1974 - 1976 15.93

Ronald Reagan 1981 - 1988 12.19

George H.W. Bush 1989 - 1992 10.68

Richard Nixon 1969 - 1973 9.98

George W. Bush 2001 - 2007 7.89

Harry Truman 1948 - 1952 7.87

William J. Clinton 1993 - 2000 7.80

John F. Kennedy 1961 - 1962 7.27

Lyndon Johnson 1963 - 1968 6.78

Dwight Eisenhower 1953 - 1960 6.26

http://www.miseryindex.us/indexbypresident.asp

Given that I wonder why people want to re-elect Carter. (Obama the messiah)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, I think it's rather amusing that you continue with this narrative that Obama is another Carter when you yourself admitted that you could essentially make the same claim about any Democrat. Your problem isn't with Obama but with liberal policies in general...which is fine, but then I have to question why you are making it into a personal issue with Obama? And what's even more amusing is that when the comparison is being made between Obama's rise to the candidacy and Bobby Kennedy, you dismiss it as some attempt to paint him in a favorable light, when the reality is - if Bobby Kennedy were running right now, you'd hate his liberal views just the same.

In light of some of the banter that's been thrown back and forth over the last few days about Obama, what I find peculiar is this notion that liberal policies are the spawn of Satan himself. As I've tried to get you to realize this over and over - the American voter doesn't sit around thinking whether they like a policy or not based on where it rests on the political spectrum, but whether they think it is the right thing to do at this time in history. Americans have demonstrated throughout history, a willingness to try just about anything if they believed we would benefit from it. The Republican challenge (and it's an unsurmountable one, IMO) is to somehow convince the American voter to disregard conventional wisdom and vote to maintain the status quo. So whatever narrative is attempted in trying to define Obama, the real challenge is to define McCain as not maintaining the status quo...which so far he and his surrogates have not succeeded.

You need to get over the fact that you don't agree with liberal policies and then give a convincing argument why you don't or you're just blowing hot air. Parroting rhetoric to somehow convince voters that the term 'liberal' is negative is futile - they want change (read the polls) and they're ready to try whatever will work.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, I think it's rather amusing that you continue with this narrative that Obama is another Carter when you yourself admitted that you could essentially make the same claim about any Democrat. Your problem isn't with Obama but with liberal policies in general...which is fine, but then I have to question why you are making it into a personal issue with Obama? And what's even more amusing is that when the comparison is being made between Obama's rise to the candidacy and Bobby Kennedy, you dismiss it as some attempt to paint him in a favorable light, when the reality is - if Bobby Kennedy were running right now, you'd hate his liberal views just the same.

In light of some of the banter that's been thrown back and forth over the last few days about Obama, what I find peculiar is this notion that liberal policies are the spawn of Satan himself. As I've tried to get you to realize this over and over - the American voter doesn't sit around thinking whether they like a policy or not based on where it rests on the political spectrum, but whether they think it is the right thing to do at this time in history. Americans have demonstrated throughout history, a willingness to try just about anything if they believed we would benefit from it. The Republican challenge (and it's an unsurmountable one, IMO) is to somehow convince the American voter to disregard conventional wisdom and vote to maintain the status quo. So whatever narrative is attempted in trying to define Obama, the real challenge is to define McCain as not maintaining the status quo...which so far he and his surrogates have not succeeded.

You need to get over the fact that you don't agree with liberal policies and then give a convincing argument why you don't or you're just blowing hot air. Parroting rhetoric to somehow convince voters that the term 'liberal' is negative is futile - they want change (read the polls) and they're ready to try whatever will work.

While I don't agree with dem policies in general Obama has taken them to the limit. He is the worst ofit of all the possible dem choices. Hell, I would have preferred Hillary over Obama. His record shows a 98% record of voting for liberal causes. He is the most partisan candidate ever in presidential history. The only thing he will unite is the radical left wing of the dem party.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The only thing he [Obama] will unite is the radical left wing of the dem party.

Of course, prominent Republicans - among most anyone that's ever worked with him on a wide range of issues - disagree with you on that claim.

[GaryC 7]

The only thing he [Obama] will unite is the radical left wing of the dem party.

Of course, prominent Republicans - among most anyone that's ever worked with him on a wide range of issues - disagree with you on that claim.

Keep telling yourself that. It's just not true. The only outcome from his "working" with the other side is a pure left outcome. Nothing he has done has resulted in anything close to a middle of the road solution. At least on anything of any consequence.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The only thing he [Obama] will unite is the radical left wing of the dem party.

Of course, prominent Republicans - among most anyone that's ever worked with him on a wide range of issues - disagree with you on that claim.

Keep telling yourself that. It's just not true. The only outcome from his "working" with the other side is a pure left outcome. Nothing he has done has resulted in anything close to a middle of the road solution. At least on anything of any consequence.

So you say. Care to back that up?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Gary, I think it's rather amusing that you continue with this narrative that Obama is another Carter when you yourself admitted that you could essentially make the same claim about any Democrat. Your problem isn't with Obama but with liberal policies in general...which is fine, but then I have to question why you are making it into a personal issue with Obama? And what's even more amusing is that when the comparison is being made between Obama's rise to the candidacy and Bobby Kennedy, you dismiss it as some attempt to paint him in a favorable light, when the reality is - if Bobby Kennedy were running right now, you'd hate his liberal views just the same.

In light of some of the banter that's been thrown back and forth over the last few days about Obama, what I find peculiar is this notion that liberal policies are the spawn of Satan himself. As I've tried to get you to realize this over and over - the American voter doesn't sit around thinking whether they like a policy or not based on where it rests on the political spectrum, but whether they think it is the right thing to do at this time in history. Americans have demonstrated throughout history, a willingness to try just about anything if they believed we would benefit from it. The Republican challenge (and it's an unsurmountable one, IMO) is to somehow convince the American voter to disregard conventional wisdom and vote to maintain the status quo. So whatever narrative is attempted in trying to define Obama, the real challenge is to define McCain as not maintaining the status quo...which so far he and his surrogates have not succeeded.

You need to get over the fact that you don't agree with liberal policies and then give a convincing argument why you don't or you're just blowing hot air. Parroting rhetoric to somehow convince voters that the term 'liberal' is negative is futile - they want change (read the polls) and they're ready to try whatever will work.

While I don't agree with dem policies in general Obama has taken them to the limit. He is the worst ofit of all the possible dem choices. Hell, I would have preferred Hillary over Obama. His record shows a 98% record of voting for liberal causes. He is the most partisan candidate ever in presidential history. The only thing he will unite is the radical left wing of the dem party.

Specifics, Gary. What ideas has Obama proposed that are different from Edwards or Hillary that have your all worked up over (beyond just being 'liberal')?

[mawilson 2,133]

Specifics, Gary. What ideas has Obama proposed that are different from Edwards or Hillary that have your all worked up over (beyond just being 'liberal')?

MR. GIBSON: Would you say, "No, I'm not going to raise capital gains taxes"?

SENATOR CLINTON: I wouldn't raise it above the 20 percent if I raised it at all. I would

not raise it above what it was during the Clinton administration.

I'm going to have to look and see what the revenue situation is.

[...]

I don't want to raise taxes on anybody. I'm certainly against one of Senator Obama's ideas,

which is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, because that would impose additional taxes on

people who are, you know, educators here in the Philadelphia area or in the suburbs,

police officers, firefighters and the like.

[...]

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I just have to respond real quickly to Senator Clinton's last

comment. What I have proposed is that we raise the cap on the payroll tax, because right

now millionaires and billionaires don't have to pay beyond $97,000 a year.

MR. GIBSON: But Senator, that's a tax. ...

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, no, look, let me -- let me finish my point here, Charlie. Senator Clinton

just said she certainly wouldn't do this; this was a bad idea.

MR. GIBSON: Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200(,000) and

$250,000. If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Specifics, Gary. What ideas has Obama proposed that are different from Edwards or Hillary that have your all worked up over (beyond just being 'liberal')?

MR. GIBSON: Would you say, "No, I'm not going to raise capital gains taxes"?

SENATOR CLINTON: I wouldn't raise it above the 20 percent if I raised it at all. I would

not raise it above what it was during the Clinton administration.

I'm going to have to look and see what the revenue situation is.

[...]

I don't want to raise taxes on anybody. I'm certainly against one of Senator Obama's ideas,

which is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, because that would impose additional taxes on

people who are, you know, educators here in the Philadelphia area or in the suburbs,

police officers, firefighters and the like.

[...]

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I just have to respond real quickly to Senator Clinton's last

comment. What I have proposed is that we raise the cap on the payroll tax, because right

now millionaires and billionaires don't have to pay beyond $97,000 a year.

MR. GIBSON: But Senator, that's a tax. ...

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, no, look, let me -- let me finish my point here, Charlie. Senator Clinton

just said she certainly wouldn't do this; this was a bad idea.

MR. GIBSON: Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200(,000) and

$250,000. If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them.

Edwards was saying he'd raise it to 28 percent. Hillary is still in favor of raising it, just not above 20. However, my question was directed at Gary - in trying to get him to be specific about what it is that he thinks makes Obama any different from other Democratic candidates, in terms of policy.

[mawilson 2,133]

Specifics, Gary. What ideas has Obama proposed that are different from Edwards or Hillary that have your all worked up over (beyond just being 'liberal')?

MR. GIBSON: Would you say, "No, I'm not going to raise capital gains taxes"?

SENATOR CLINTON: I wouldn't raise it above the 20 percent if I raised it at all. I would

not raise it above what it was during the Clinton administration.

I'm going to have to look and see what the revenue situation is.

[...]

I don't want to raise taxes on anybody. I'm certainly against one of Senator Obama's ideas,

which is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, because that would impose additional taxes on

people who are, you know, educators here in the Philadelphia area or in the suburbs,

police officers, firefighters and the like.

[...]

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I just have to respond real quickly to Senator Clinton's last

comment. What I have proposed is that we raise the cap on the payroll tax, because right

now millionaires and billionaires don't have to pay beyond $97,000 a year.

MR. GIBSON: But Senator, that's a tax. ...

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, no, look, let me -- let me finish my point here, Charlie. Senator Clinton

just said she certainly wouldn't do this; this was a bad idea.

MR. GIBSON: Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200(,000) and

$250,000. If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them.

Edwards was saying he'd raise it to 28 percent. Hillary is still in favor of raising it, just not above 20. However, my question was directed at Gary - in trying to get him to be specific about what it is that he thinks makes Obama any different from other Democratic candidates, in terms of policy.

How specific do you want me to be???

Obama said he would raise the cap on the Social Security tax.

Hillary said she wouldn't do it, it's a mistake.

HUGE difference for many (most?) taxpayers (6.2% increase, or 12.4% if you're self-employed)

Keep dodging the issues.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Specifics, Gary. What ideas has Obama proposed that are different from Edwards or Hillary that have your all worked up over (beyond just being 'liberal')?

MR. GIBSON: Would you say, "No, I'm not going to raise capital gains taxes"?

SENATOR CLINTON: I wouldn't raise it above the 20 percent if I raised it at all. I would

not raise it above what it was during the Clinton administration.

I'm going to have to look and see what the revenue situation is.

[...]

I don't want to raise taxes on anybody. I'm certainly against one of Senator Obama's ideas,

which is to lift the cap on the payroll tax, because that would impose additional taxes on

people who are, you know, educators here in the Philadelphia area or in the suburbs,

police officers, firefighters and the like.

[...]

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I just have to respond real quickly to Senator Clinton's last

comment. What I have proposed is that we raise the cap on the payroll tax, because right

now millionaires and billionaires don't have to pay beyond $97,000 a year.

MR. GIBSON: But Senator, that's a tax. ...

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, no, look, let me -- let me finish my point here, Charlie. Senator Clinton

just said she certainly wouldn't do this; this was a bad idea.

MR. GIBSON: Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200(,000) and

$250,000. If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them.

Edwards was saying he'd raise it to 28 percent. Hillary is still in favor of raising it, just not above 20. However, my question was directed at Gary - in trying to get him to be specific about what it is that he thinks makes Obama any different from other Democratic candidates, in terms of policy.

How specific do you want me to be???

Obama said he would raise the cap on the Social Security tax.

Hillary said she wouldn't do it, it's a mistake.

HUGE difference for many (most?) taxpayers (6.2% increase, or 12.4% if you're self-employed)

Keep dodging the issues.

For most people who will be voting, the differences in policy between Hillary and Obama are not significant. In other words, the difference between McCain and Hillary on those very issues you pointed out, are no less different, so if those are the deciding factors, McCain would have been the better choice for you over Hillary.

[mawilson 2,133]

For most people who will be voting, the differences in policy between Hillary and Obama are not significant. In other words, the difference between McCain and Hillary on those very issues you pointed out, are no less different, so if those are the deciding factors, McCain would have been the better choice for you over Hillary.

Actually, no. I'd vote Obama if he wasn't so gung-ho about raising taxes and messing

with the economy (which is doing great - under the circumstances.)

Unfortunately, Obama doesn't have an adversarial congress to prevent him from

messing with the economy too much or doing pretty much anything he wants.

That scares me. A lot.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For most people who will be voting, the differences in policy between Hillary and Obama are not significant. In other words, the difference between McCain and Hillary on those very issues you pointed out, are no less different, so if those are the deciding factors, McCain would have been the better choice for you over Hillary.

Actually, no. I'd vote Obama if he wasn't so gung-ho about raising taxes and messing

with the economy (which is doing great - under the circumstances.)

Unfortunately, Obama doesn't have an adversarial congress to prevent him from

messing with the economy too much or doing pretty much anything he wants.

That scares me. A lot.

Bad Ideas

Make Permanent the Bush Tax Cuts

The tax cuts enacted under President Bush are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. The Republican candidates want to make them permanent, including John McCain, a candidate who actually voted against the biggest tax cut bills in 2001 and 2003. It seems that all the Democrats would let at least some parts of the Bush tax cuts expire. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has made noises indicating that he doesn't want to be associated with opposition to any sort of tax breaks. Even he seems to have indicated (in a debate on June 28) that any tax cut for the richest two percent "has to go," but he would replace those with new tax cuts for the middle-class or for certain companies that train and pay workers above the prevailing wage. (You can see whether those candidates who were in Congress during the Bush years voted for or against the Bush tax cuts by looking up their records in CTJ's Congressional Tax Report Card.)

....

Better Ideas

Repeal Bush Tax Cuts to Fund Other Priorities

While probably all the Democratic candidates would let at least some parts of the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2010, some have expressed interest in repealing certain parts of them before that time and using the revenue for other priorities like health care. Barack Obama and John Edwards both favor some version of this maneuver to fund their healthcare plans, with Obama repealing some tax breaks for families with incomes of $250,000 or more, and Edwards doing the same for families at $200,000 or more.

No reasonable person could disagree in principle with the idea of rolling back some of the tax cuts. By substantially cutting taxes, mostly for the rich, President Bush has managed to add $2.4 trillion to the national debt already, despite facing a small surplus when he came to office. By 2010, most of the benefits of those tax breaks will go to the richest 1 percent under the administration's budget plans.

However, repealing the Bush tax cuts does not create much new revenue compared to the budget baseline that Congress already uses, which assumes the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire at the end of 2010.

Obama has not specified how his healthcare program will be funded past the first year. Edwards, on the other hand, claims that his healthcare plan with be funded permanently through the repeal of the 2001 tax cuts for those with income over $200,000. The cost of extending the tax cuts for those with incomes below $200,000 would reduce revenues, a cost that he has not yet accounted for. Although his heart is in the right place when it comes to healthcare, his plan could be improved with additional provisions to raise needed revenue.

But at least these candidates are facing the fact that taxes must be raised. Clinton is still "wrestling" with whether or not to increase taxes and she and Richardson (and to an extent, Obama) both seem to think that they can pay for their plans partly by eliminating inefficiencies in the healthcare system.

Stop Taxing Work More than Wealth

One extremely good idea proposed by John Edwards is to end the tax subsidy for people who have capital gains. One signature tax cut enacted by President Bush reduced the tax rate on capital gains from 20 percent to 15 percent and made dividends, which had been taxed as ordinary income, also taxed at 15 percent. At the end of 2010, that break will expire if Congress doesn't extend it and dividends will be taxed as ordinary income and capital gains will be taxed at 20 percent again.

But even the 20 percent tax rate is a break for the wealthy investors whose other income is mostly taxed at the highest ordinary income rate (currently 35 percent). CTJ recently found that the cost of the current tax treatment of capital gains and dividends was about $92 billion in 2005 alone and three fourths of that went to the richest 0.6 percent. Edwards has proposed taxing capital gains at 28 percent, which is certainly a huge step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the Republican candidates would like to make permanent the tax breaks for capital gains and dividends and those who support a flat tax or national sales tax generally assume capital gains and dividends won't be taxed at all. Mitt Romney has the strange idea of making interest, capital gains and dividends tax-free for "middle-income" people. It's unclear how he defines middle-income given the CTJ data showing that capital gains and dividends mostly benefit the wealthy.

http://www.ctj.org/html/tjd83.htm