Obama slams Mccain: Corporate Tax Cuts & The Earmark Fallacy - Rachel Maddow comments
BackJohn McCain makes a big deal about his oppostion to earmarks. During the debate, Barack Obama juxtaposed McCain's taxcut proposal that would cost $300B with the $18B represented by earmarks. While some earmarks are clearly booty from the taxpayer to local interests, many can be justified as sound policy. Obama could, if he wished, run an entire campaign, Congressional district by Congressional district, identifying a few "earmarked" expenditures that that district loves and that McCain voted against. More to the point, however, is that McCain has voted for loads of tax loopholes during his 26 years in the Senate. Why loopholes are morally superior to earmarks escapes me. Let us postulate that there are some justifiable earmarks and some justifiable loopholes. The arguments against the rest are both process and substance. The process, I'll-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-mine, however unseemly, is the same for both. The substance is also identical. A loophole allows an individual, or company, or sector not to pay taxes on a certain category of income. The rest of us have to make up that shortfall. The earmark is most often a local project for which general tax revenues are spent. The rest of us have to pay for that too. The Member of Congress takes credit for the earmark ("look at what I brought home for you") and the loophole, but the latter is rarely said aloud. That should tell us something. The earmark is more often a project for which the Member can tout its benefit to the larger community, whereas the beneficiaries of the loophole are likely to be more limited, but there are certainly examples on both sides that contradict this description. Thus, Obama was on to something in his last debate with McCain, and the point ought to be made more emphatic. It would behoove his research staff to come up with examples of loopholes, and how much they cost the taxpayer, for which McCain voted. It is not to justify earmarks, but to show the hypocrisy in McCain's holier-than-thou rhetoric. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/a-thought-from-the-1st-de_b_132101.html Consider what's happening on Wall Street--and why we even care about it. The worry is that banks will stop lending money, slowing down an economy that already seems to be in recession. The solution, many economists agree, is to put more money into circulation. Since the Federal Reserve can't do that by reducing interest rates as it has in the recent past--rates are already very low--the government must inject money directly, by giving out more than it takes in. Tax rebates for the poor and middle class, who will likely spend the money quickly, are one way to do that; public assistance programs like unemployment insurance and Medicaid are another. But it's not the quick economic stimulus that worries most observers. It's the initiatives that represent longer-term claims on the federal treasury. The college tuition assistance Obama has proposed wouldn't disappear after one or two years, when the economic downturn (hopefully) ends. Neither would the investment in early-childhood programs. Obama would have the government grab some new revenue, too, thanks in part to a cap-and-trade scheme that would effectively tax pollution. If you grant the campaign some favorable assumptions, then, taken as a whole, his agenda might not change the government's year-to-year bottom line that much; in fact, annual deficits could even start to come down a little...But does that make Obama's spending plans unwise? Not really. That's because the culprit behind the rising cost of Medicare and Medicaid is the overall price of medical care, which the federal government currently has limited power to control. Ultimately, the only hope lies in a comprehensive reform of health care--one that reduces expensive over-treatment while creating a unified system in which it's possible for the government to exert more pricing power. And, while a reform like Obama's might not accomplish that right away, it would take the essential first steps. Another way to prepare for future financial obligations is to help the economy grow faster, which would increase tax revenue and make the government's debt seem smaller by comparison. But, over the last decade, we've spent too little on educating our workforce and developing infrastructure essential to growth. We've also been too slow to focus on energy independence. It's imperative to make up for that neglect now, particularly given what's happened on Wall Street. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8c40a373-af0a-4efe-af99-6ac7835b9daa&p=1
Category: News
Uploaded: October 6th, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
Author: AntiConformist911
Length: 06:35
Rating:
Views: 2,284
Tags: barack biden corporate cut david debate earmark economy energy gas interview iraq joe john lie maddow mccain obama oil palin president rachel sarah show sirota speech tax taxes war
Related Video Links:
» View Video Comments For Obama slams Mccain: Corporate Tax Cuts & The Earmark Fallacy - Rachel Maddow comments
» View AntiConformist911's Other Uploaded Videos
Video Thumbnails:
Video Embedding Code:
* Embed this video on your website, social bookmark, myspace, or blog.